This is one of the things I think gets missed a lot with Nike. When we talk about innovation in this shoe, it’s beyond just the one-off tech that they’ve engineered. Fly knit was a real revolution in how uppers could be constructed. To not only design it, but figure out how to do it in production. Same with the carbon plate and new foam construction. I obviously don’t have the particulars about this particular new foam, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they had to re-engineer the foam form process due to the unique nature. At any rate, to be able to reinvent how shoes are made is more than just the fancy performance pieces. Can you do it over thousands or millions of shoes? That’s easier said than done. Especially on your flagship products that can’t afford mass quality issues.

Very well said. It’s really easy to make one of anything. It’s really difficult to commercialize any product but especially on that comes in multiple sizes. The size 9 and the size 13 have completely different sized pieces yet when put together they have to look the exact same.

As far as the Pbax. I have some deep knowledge on the other brand that uses it.

1. It took years to develop - It’s only been used as a hard plastic so trying to figure out how to put it into the form you can run on is what made the process so long.
2. Generally speaking an aluminum midsole mold is roughly the size of a large cooler. The mold used for pbax is about the size of a VW Bug with injection ports sticking out all over it.
3. Early production of the midsole was not exacting. They had to throw away a large percentage as compared to molded EVA. I’m not sure if that has gotten better or not.
4. It’s a really expensive process. A standard mold for a singe size of shoe is in the $10,000 range. This mold is much more expensive.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

https://www.nytimes.com/...fly-shoe-strava.html


All other shoes apparently

This research seems decisive although I’m sure people will poke small holes in it

Look at the charts.

Just inboxed my vaporfly Flyknit. They feel like nothing I’ve ever worn.

Was wearing ASICS I bus before which are sub par it seems

Source?

https://link.springer.com/...07/s40279-017-0811-2

Original research article show 4% gain over :
Nike Zoom Streak 6
Adidas Adios Boost 2

Basically, 2 racing flats.

It is a serious study made from a real athlete cohort, with many precautions to ensure results are reliable.

Article mentioned above (NYTimes) is not a serious study.

It is not serious in the method used. These statistical models have no real value to do what they do with them.
And results are not in line with the serious study for these 3 shoes.

For me, this NYT "study" is pure bullshit.
By chance, they get the VF in front.

Bullshit proof : in the 4th "view", Vaporfly is beaten by Streak, while in the serious study, VF is 4% more efficient than Streak.
Such a bullshit study, the result is opposite to the very serious study.

We don't need bullshit studies to show the VF is fast. We know that from a real scientific study. Fast compared to 2 racing flats.

BUT if anybody want to rank other shoes, (others than the 2 racing flat mentioned), please do that properly. Comparing to others cushioned shoes for example, like Ride 7, Razor 3, Beacon, Clifton, ...

What would be very interesting also would be a study of the INJURY RATES of peoples using the VF. Versus other more stable shoes.

This will be REALLY interesting.

Yep, I've not run in mine yet, but the small shoe shop joggle they felt really interesting. It's like a sock mounted to a spring.

I'm sure it has, as they're now making a shoe with a pebax midsole that is as mainstream as it gets and available in huge numbers everywhere.

They're now also making a mainstream shoe with a carbon plate in the new Zoom Fly Flyknit. I remember hearing the carbon plate excuse for lack of availability of the Vapour Fly.

Set my 5k PR in these, using them as race only shoes over some Hoka Machs.

Probably correct on the Pbax as both Nike and Reebok are putting many shoes into the market.

The Carbon Plate story doesn’t add up. Although the Vapor Fly 4% plate is a molded plate it can’t be that difficult to obtain. Many of the Carbon Fiber suppliers are in the same vicinity of their massive Shoe Town factory. We visited Shoe Town every time we went to the Carbon suppliers. They had a mold shop and midsole supplier on the factory premises that was not exclusive to Nike. We used both from time to time.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Of course it was always BS - BS, in this case, to distract people from the obvious fact that Nike decided to use (erm, manipulate) availability of this shoe for marketing purposes - nothing else.

The term is Pull Marketing - Nike has used it often. Kids lined up in front of a Foot Locker to buy Jordans. The entire purpose of Pull Maraketing is to leave high demand on the table.
Another place where they work this Stragey to near perfection is in the Sneaker World.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Also the fact with limited supply everyone (including myself) are happy to pay what you would normally see as an outrageous price for a shoe when they become available for a few days and they all get snapped up. I tried to not want to buy them based on their manipulation but was too intrigued and when I finally ran in them I was a convert and love them. As much as I hate to admit it, their marketing strategy has been ingenious on extorting money out of me and many others quite happily that you are getting a pair...

Is it a unique shoe in that it's light, cushioned and fast? Most shoes I've run in tick 1 or 2 of those boxes but not all. i.e I train in Hoka Cliftons, light, cushioned, but not fast. I used to race in Asics Hyperspeeds, light, fast, but not cushioned. I'm not sure what the controversy is, seems like it's an excellent shoe that can be used for 5k - marathon. Who knows about the 4%, I don't think it really matters. Perhaps my Hyperspeeds are as quick, but I wouldn't be able to run a marathon in them.

In a nutshell :
Some peoples think it is excellent (because fast, mostly for heel strikers)
some others think it is not (because unstable, mostly for heel striker)

Fact is it is fast AND unstable. So it is usable or not for any distance depending your stride and the way you use it.

Personally :
using it heel striking : it destroyed my posterior tibialis and medial side of the knee
using it mid-foot strike : it is OK, but drop is too high. I prefer 5mm drop high cushion shoes

So, excellent for some (at least at the beginning), not that good for others.

Yeah I'm a little bit undecided. The more I run in it, the more I like it. I'm a forefoot striker. The heel does feel weird and unstable, but the shoe is fast and comfortable. It's an excellent shoe, overhyped possibly. Is it revolutionary? Are there other shoes out there than are light, fast and cushioned? That's not rhetorical, curious to see if there are? I did get some Hoka Tracers (1st model) which could be considered a rival shoe (?) but they're horrible to run in and have now been designated to gardening duties.

Try the Hoka Cavu. Still a favoured shoe of mine. My most liked Hoka shoe, a little firmer forefoot than a Clayton that I came from but still good for marathon distance. I raced a 70.3 in them on the weekend and enjoyed racing in them again. Outside the VF and Pegasus Turbos these are my third favourite shoe closely followed by Saucony Kinvara 8. All light, fast and cushioned.

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2018/05/hoka-one-one-cavu-review/

Light, fast and cushioned, for a forefoot striker ?

VF ok in this case (low injury risk), as FlyKnit and Turbo (if you like high drop - around 10mm)

Reebok Run Fast (8mm drop I think)

If you prefer moderate drop (around 5mm) :

Skechers Razor 3
Skechers Ride 7
NB Beacon
Saucony Kinvara 10 (come soon, serious reviews already available such as RTR)

Me ;)

I can't recall a specific source, more of a amalgamation of various thoughts related to altered mechanicals with barefoot, minimalist, zero drop and "traditional" shoes.

As drop and cushioning decrease, the ankle absorbs more force and increases its range of motion.
This is why they're beneficial for individuals with knee issues; they shift where the force is absorbed.
(You still have your same body being pulled at the same earth by the same gravity... that impact has to go somewhere).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003314000333



https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-014-3072-x

Quote:

Can't post table: Decreased ankle ROM: 28 / 21.5 / 18.4 / 17.9 degrees for BareFoot / 0 / 4 / 8 mm drops respectively

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com[/quote]

[/quote]
yes. well. i don't mind you holding your view, but citing a study on barefoot running? and drawing your conclusion from that?

let me counter with this: in track and field, every shoe, in every event, always, and forever, is a low-drop or no-drop (or negative-drop) shoe, if you're wearing a track spike. if it was better to isolate, and remove from use, the calf muscles, then this would have been accomplished long ago in shoe design.

furthermore, if there really were a high incidence of pathology associated with shoes with lesser drop, then we'd have also found out that running up hills are likewise a cause of injury.

i rather like the idea of using my calf muscles. i specifically don't like the idea of shoes that, by their design, make it impossible to use my calf muscles throughout their historic or typical range.

i don't mind you holding your view. but to me it's simply an opinion, not a fact backed by any data whatsoever that i've heard of; and i don't even think it's a particularly intuitive view. since when is truncating the range of motion in an activity automatically a good thing?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

[/quote]
So, it might not apply to what you answer initially on my post, as I was talking about low drop / high cushion, and not low drop / low cushion ?

My N=1:

I've done the same Turkey Trot for 5 years, exact same course. I have helped mark the course. We start at the exact same places. I am sure. And my garmin has read 6.15 +/- .01 all 4 years. For the last 4 years I have started my marathon prep coming in early October, and run 30-35 miles through out the summer. More or less everything has been the same. I am just older, turning 43 in 6 months.

My training has been consistent with other years. Nothing stood out, no training breakthroughs that I can imagine.

I guess what I am saying: as best I can tell everything was the same except the shoes.

38:35 in 2015
39:03 in 2016 (HOT out)
38:30 in 2017
38:08 this year

And it felt better. There is a U-turn in mile 4, so throwing that out all my mile splits were between 6:10-6:15 and I picked it up at the end and ran 5:40 pace for the last quarter mile. I run one 10k a year, and I am a triathlete/swimmer not a runner so I didn't exactly expect to nail the pacing.

What this reminded me of was the first time I wore a full body LZR speed suit in 2009 (the one Phelps wore in the '08 Olympics). I had a mediocre start but went my fast 50 freestyle in 9 years.

These shoes - maybe - should be illegal. But since Nike has the "it" shoe no noise will be made about it. When someone comes out with a shoe that is better and cheaper the legality of the shoes will start to be questioned (When Speedo wasn't making the fastest suit they were soon outlawed).

Hi Steve! I wore them in Kona this year, they were just a couple of days old but I rarely have issues jumping shoes, and I loved them - light and comfortable. Can't comment on the performance, as I had walking pneumonia and ran my slowest marathon ever, but maybe without that 4% I would have seen a first 4h+ marathon ;) Hi and happy holidays to you and P!

Here is my anecdotal unedjucatex opinion after two runs

First run was outside. The shoes feel weird but I have never worn a cushioned shoe or a lightweight racing shoe (gel nimbus the last few years)

The shoes feel like they are forcing you into the mid foot which I like. They also felt like they were slightly pushing my arches which was concerning.

Once I started running however I was midfoot striking and not feeling any arch contact

They feel light as a feather. I ran at near my race pace and felt like it was easier. In my head? Who knows

Second run on a treadmill and if anything they felt even better at speed

Key positive after both runs was even though I ran at speed for me I felt like I hadn’t run at all. They definitely help with soreness and fatigue

When I took my shoe bag out of my suitcase for second run I felt like the bag was empty they were so light and I wondered if I’d forgotton to pack them

I have no view on whether they are the best shoe but I can confidently say they are totally different and better than the gel nimbus. They feel like I’m wearing cement shoes now

I have a race this weekend that includes a half marathon. I’ll come back with times to see if I go faster

Also:
- xtrpickels is going from an unsubstantiated "low drop" claim to another unsubstantiated claim about "drop and cushioning decreasing" i.e. moving the goal posts and ignoring the fact that there are plenty low drop shoes that are simultaneously in the maximal cushioning category;
- no regard as to a difference for heel, midfoot or forefoot striking as obviously possible confounders;
- no consideration for adaptation to low drop as a confounder;
- no actual relationship established by any source cited (actually nothing was quoted at all for this matter) between low drop and anything else from the initial claim which, lest we forget, was:



*shrug*