1) Now you're asking a good one. The problem is your former statement is objective whereas 'fairness' is subjective. Trying to equate one with the other is where the headache starts and the fun begins. There is no right answer to that one but World Athletics have probably got it right by employing ethicists and sports scientists on their working group to sort it out.

2) It's a good idea but technological progress exists on a continuum and its hard to sub divide into categories. It's really subtle. For example, I don't know how they work yet but the new Adidas in particular use a simpler method than the Nike's in their construction and it would be hard to differentiate them in looks over most traditional shoes... yet are very good apparently.

3) The shoe height thing is probably something that could be regulated easily and reduce the impact of your observation (which is correct in my opinion).

4) I would agree with you.

Not particularly addressed to you or OddSlug, but to anyone who is concerned about the effect of the ban: Unless you are an elite runner, who runs in the elite fields at IAAF sanctioned races, you will still be able to wear whatever shoes you want to if they institute restrictions. Be it 4%, NEXT% or even the AlphaFly. So the Lots of people that already have them, will continue to be able to use them.

The IAAF can't put a burden on race directors world-wide to weed out fields of thousands of runners (or even a marathon of 100 people that has two people running it...) and check their shoes. It is simply not possible, so maybe the discussion can and should be about whether WRs should still stand if the dimensions of the vaporfly fall outside the guidelines to be posted, or speculate how much slower and elite runner would have run without their vaporfly, but it doesn't make sense for AG runners to be concerned at all.

While the discussion also has absolutely no relevance on WTC, I do wonder if the ITU would mirror those restrictions and if they do, would they institute that for their AG world championship races?

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

There needs to be some rules on loincloth design and performance.

Minimum surface area (no lower than half way to the knee ?)
No printed chevrons to change air flow.
Must be UIC sanctioned loincloth material.

I haven't read this whole thread, but -

If the Vaporfly gives actual, true and tested performance benefits similar or greater than that of the banned swim skinsuits, it would be hard to say they shouldn't be banned if using similar criteria of fairness to prior less-technologically prone records.

And in terms of all the 'but look at all the bike innovations!", I'd say the a lot of the bike innovations have already been heavily shackled by UCI and other rules. Like big limitations in the geometry of a bike to prevent someone from basically making it into a superaero recumbent for killing flat TTs. Or using enlarged fairings to further improve aero.

I think if running WRs of all distances start fallling like cards, especially by athletes who were close but couldn't quite break those records without the Vaporflys, a ban would certainly merit serious consideration. As is, I'm not sure the WRs in running are falling fast enough to warrant such examination - but time will tell.

Ok they could have just advanced the start line to finish the stupid marathon in front of the Empress of India's shack and hopefully as Athens expands and gets wider and wise the distance to marathon gets shorter and shorter and IAAF will have to annually shrink the distance of the marathon, this lowering all records, increasing participation and making the bike studs at ST happier and happier. Cam wurf is paying some builders outside Athens to expand the city now.

Ok back to the thread, ban the high heel springy shoes from elite sport or any serious sanctioned competition but allow them for recreational sport. So for example if they were to banned by IAAF and someone in an elite race is beaten by someone with the illegal shoes there is 1 hour after the race to file a protest by fellow athlete of coaches and if no competitor complains that guy is off the hook.

In XC ski racing for many of the events we have to start and end the race with the same skis and our starting skis are inspected and stamped by officials and they are checked again at the finish to make sure no hanky panky happened. It keeps the honest athletes honest buts it's not fool proof. The 50k now allows for a "tire change complete with pit lane" and we could say Finland won the 50k in the Olympics when the coaches basically forced their guy into the pits for a ski change for skis tuned with faster wax and structure for changing conditions while the Russian blew thru...and lost. In any case its not that hard to inspect elite athlete for authorized equipment. There are not a ton of them. The problem is the masses.

Another reason I'm a republican Obvs not an Trump / Bush / Reagan / Nixon etc Republican. A Cromwellian republican. (Give me SOME credit 😁)

It seems that Harry is boycotting royalty so perhaps we can put him to work to shorten the marathon.

While I am not a big Nike fan, I would not like to see them banned or any restrictions put on the designs. There’s been a lot of anecdotal evidence from many runners that these type of designs (thick foam) help reduce injuries. It would be a shame if we miss a technology breakthrough brought on by competitors trying to equal or exceed Nike due to rule changes that constrain development. Let the shoe companies battle it out and let’s see what we have in a few years. I’m glad this governing body leadership wasn’t around when rubber surfaced tracks started replacing cinders.

But's let's say that all of a sudden, a lot of running WRs start falling, and it seems specifically because of the Vaporfly. How is that any different than the swim suit bans for all those record breaking swim performances?

In terms of the cushioning (to help all us arthritic folks), that can and definitely can be done without messing with all the running records. I don't think that's a problem.

We just need springy magic tracks like the gymnastics kids can bounce off. 9.59 will be blown away with a sub 9. I think Mexico city was the first games with the rubber orange tracks? Between thinner air and better grip the sprint times were awesome. That was 51 years ago. Sprint and jump metrics have not improved hugely since then.

To put it in context Andre de Grasse clocked 19.80 for the silver at Rio behind Bolt. Tommy Smith ran 19.83 in 1968 for his black power salute gold medal. He still gets bronze 48 years later.

I think it is cool to compare that across a half century.

It goes to the question of ‘what is an unfair advantage’. What’s the real difference if records fall over decades or years. We have had slow incremental technology improvements in all aspects of sports, if the improvements are accelerated so much the better. I for one don’t agree with the swim skin ban, they could have delayed the use until they were readily available, but banning them set the sport back. Reducing drag is a fundamental swimming concept. The idea that records throughout the years have to be comparable is ludicrous. We don’t live in the same environment year after year, everything changes, some bad, but a lot of positive. Chemical doping is different in that state sponsored doping would definitely push athletes, or the individual themselves, to the verge of death, mechanical doping, where energy is added outside of that provided by the athlete, is also an unfair advantage.

Honestly I don't get it. Almost every major running shoe company will have a Carbon-Plate Shoe on the market by the end of summer. Some with the exact same foam.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

 I for one don’t agree with the swim skin ban, //

So you would be for 10mm wetsuits for pool swimming events? Maybe a floatie skim board that straps around your body, and you can really reduce the resistance..What's your line, or do you not have one?

Seems Asics might be driving the push...

https://www.bloomberg.com/...or-nike-s-super-shoe

Edit... A good link in that article

https://www.bloomberg.com/...-of-the-running-shoe

If you drove from Marathon to Athens on today's roads, it would be 27 miles. But as the crow flies it is only 17 miles. So I would be very surprised if the distance in ancient times was 26 miles.

He was supposed to run back again though (and it depends if you believe he did this version or that he ran the 150 odd miles to Sparta instead). The legend said though that he died after proclaiming that the Persians had lost so never made it home.

So.... in reality..... the first marathon ever run resulted in a DNF ;-)

I understand that there is a simplicity and beauty in swimming and competing with just the barest of equipment. My line is anything that provides a mechanical advantage that allows greater energy return than the energy expended. So no springs in shoes, no motors, no buoyancy devices, no fins. Reducing resistance with swim skins, while it does provide a mechanical advantage, by itself doesn’t provide a greater energy return (yes you have more energy because you’re not as fatigued, but not because the swim skin propelled you).

Aside from actual motors, none of those things you've mentioned allow "greater energy return than energy expended" They all just increase efficiency in some way, either through reduced resistance (wetsuit & buoyancy aids) or lowered energy losses in propulsion (fins / paddles / springs)

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Aside from actual motors, none of those things you've mentioned allow "greater energy return than energy expended"//

I was going to say the same exact thing. Funny how people just make up stuff to suit their narratives, like being at a party talking to a 16 year old girl who only cares about how she looks... (-;

VS: I'm pretty sure that the First Law of Thermodynamics implies that you can never get more than 100% energy return from a spring or foam in the rebound portion of a running stride. As for buoyancy devices, a wetsuit is one such thing (it does other things as well: protects against the cold and some nasty things in the water, looks cool, depletes your wallet). It doesn't return more energy than is put through it while swimming--just makes you more buoyant and for most folks faster (its more efficient in a different but analogous way to the Next shoe). Same thing with swim fins or paddles. From a purely physics perspective, the same thing is true of a motor--it produces less energy (work) than it consumes through it's power source.

On the other side of the coin, I've read that at certain Yaw angles, some discs actually drive the bike forward (converting wind energy into kinetic energy) and while it also doesn't violate the First Law, you are getting "free" power (1-5 watts) from the wind.

The point that I find compelling is not the greater than 100% energy return argument (which never happens) but rather, in practice, it's been useful to set limits on the application of technology to most sports:

1. you can use wetsuits (within temp limits) but they can't be more than 5mm
2. you can use a disc, but not in Hawaii
3. you can use a swim skin if it has more than a defined permeability limit.
4. certain bike configurations are allowed and others aren't, and these very by sport
5. footballs have to be inflated to a certain level

etc.

So the question with respect to the Nikes is what limits (if any) should be applied to all shoes in terms of foam thickness, whether or not you can use a carbon plate, etc.

Personally, I was for the Water Rover (within appropriate temp boundaries), I'm in favor of fast wheels, I'm fine with those super fast swim skins. I'm against recumbent bikes (seem less safe) and excessive fairings (though I can't really define excessive), and I'm not a fan of the Patriots.

As for the Nikes, I'm a big fan and think it would be a shame if they get banned--they really help me and the leg problems I have with longer runs (plus they are faster, though in my case, not fast at all).

The one thing I'm certain of is once there is a rule I abide by it. People who do things like wearing neoprene swim pants under there swim skins at Hawaii I have no respect for and if they ban the Next shoes, I'll sadly give them up...

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

Wouldn’t know, never approached a 16 year old girl at a party.

As I keep saying, springs in trainers aren’t more than 100% efficient. The best trainer around is likely no better than 70%.

Not sure what is funnier the irrational hatred for Vaporfly's or the irrational hatred for disc brakes, either cause almost a predictable level of opinions presented all to often as proven fact.

Both seem like strange hills to die on, but welcome to 2020 I guess. . .

THis might be answered elsewhere but just because it is banned by the governing body of running does not mean triathletes could not use it right? or does it.
THe UCI has banned much of the bike tech that you see in triathlon. Triathlon has a much more lenient stance towards wetsuit wearing than the governing body for open water swimming does like long distance in the olympics..

I have no idea though just a question

I mentioned this in the other thread. Most running races in the US at least don’t really follow gov body rules. For instance you can wear headphones at races. I don’t see the majority of running races caring, except in the elite field and even then it may be a maybe if they care.