These shoes are certainly getting a lot of attention on ST and in the endurance sport communities more broadly. There are some folks here that are pretty vocal about them being unfair (even calling people who own them cheaters) and calling for their ban.
I’ve used them over the last year and have “fallen in love†with them. I’m definitely faster and my legs feel a ton better on longer runs, especially the day or two after. I’m 62 and given how bad my knee is, this is almost like a miracle for me and has definitely extended my IM career…for at least one more year anyways.
So, I run in them because they give me a clear advantage vs the other shoe (Hoka Clayton) I was wearing. Before that, I chose the Clayton because I thought it gave me an advantage over the Sauconys I was wearing. In fact I’ve always tried to wear the shoes that help me the most.
I don’t think this advantage is unfair because anyone can buy them. Yes $250 is a lot of money but if that’s the hurdle, shouldn’t tri bikes or wheel sets, or helmets that cost a bunch be banned as well?
It makes me faster. It is better for my body/health. It’s relatively affordable (given how much triathlon costs to participate in). Any one can get them.
My argument is that if a competitive sport requires equipment that equipment should be defined and have broad limits. At the moment, in running, those limits are subjective.
Nike has just forced the issue where we need to move from subjective to objective limits. Specific, measurable numbers so we all know where we stand.
Exactly where the line are drawn is another matter. I personally think the Alphaflys are a step too far. If the governing body decides the line to draw includes or excludes the existing Vaporflys I’m not overly bothered one way or another.
TLDR personally I am not asking your shoes to be banned, I want regulations to put limits on the extremes of shoes.
People (amateurs) are cheap and pissed they have to spend $250 to compete. But you don’t have to, just like you don’t have to buy a P5X (at 40x the price of next%).
Pros that aren’t Nike are pissed because they have to choose between having to compete in disadvantaged gear or getting their shoe sponsor paycheck. But all that should level out over time as the other companies catch up.
People (amateurs) are cheap and pissed they have to spend $250 to compete. But you don’t have to, just like you don’t have to buy a P5X (at 40x the price of next%).
Pros that aren’t Nike are pissed because they have to choose between having to compete in disadvantaged gear or getting their shoe sponsor paycheck. But all that should level out over time as the other companies catch up.
Agreed. I think this is just a rare case where one company was light years ahead of the competition with their innovation. I ran in the Hoka Carbon X and now have the next%…not even worth a comparison, and that’s including the $70 difference in price.
These shoes are certainly getting a lot of attention on ST and in the endurance sport communities more broadly. There are some folks here that are pretty vocal about them being unfair (even calling people who own them cheaters) and calling for their ban.
I’ve used them over the last year and have “fallen in love†with them. I’m definitely faster and my legs feel a ton better on longer runs, especially the day or two after. I’m 62 and given how bad my knee is, this is almost like a miracle for me and has definitely extended my IM career…for at least one more year anyways.
So, I run in them because they give me a clear advantage vs the other shoe (Hoka Clayton) I was wearing. Before that, I chose the Clayton because I thought it gave me an advantage over the Sauconys I was wearing. In fact I’ve always tried to wear the shoes that help me the most.
I don’t think this advantage is unfair because anyone can buy them. Yes $250 is a lot of money but if that’s the hurdle, shouldn’t tri bikes or wheel sets, or helmets that cost a bunch be banned as well?
It makes me faster. It is better for my body/health. It’s relatively affordable (given how much triathlon costs to participate in). Any one can get them.
Why should they be banned?
yea, i don’t get it either. nike makes the best shoes on the market, period.
Hey Tom: I read that thread and wanted to hear the reasons people have for wanting them banned (because I didn’t really understand the logic). In the thread your mentioned and in others, people expressed strong opinions about banning them but often without their reasoning, so I wanted to learn more.
Thanks for pointing out the thread though and I appreciate the nice way you did as well…
In the specific post I linked, I think that UKGear provides the most succint, rational characterization of the concern…and both sides of the coin, so to speak.
…and I appreciate the nice…
Well, I was clearly being a smartass. But, I’m not often downright mean.
x3. I don’t get the difference between buying these versus the fastest bike. I haven’t done the math, but I would think they probably offer one of the best speed upgrades/$ in triathlon.
I doubt these shoes will be banned by IM or USAT because spending $ to gain speed is ingrained in triathlon culture, for better or worse. I imagine they could possibly be banned by ITU if World Athletics banned them.
I don’t think spending $ to gain speed is as ingrained in running culture, so I understand more pushback there regarding these shoes.
I don’t think this advantage is unfair because anyone can buy them. Yes $250 is a lot of money but if that’s the hurdle, shouldn’t tri bikes or wheel sets, or helmets that cost a bunch be banned as well?
Why should they be banned?
Tri bikes are banned in ITU. Tired of this triathlon comparison done by IronBrand racers
There is a lot that happens between your legs exerting force and that force being transferred to speed on a bike. The bike is a tool and an integral part of cycling. So if you can make your tool lighter, more aero, etc., I think that’s fair game.
Running speed is a function of how hard you can push your legs and lungs. There’s not a “tool†like a bike is in cycling. Prior to the VF, my thoughts on shoes were to get ones that you can run in that don’t hurt your feet, are as light as possible while still offering cushion and support (aka, don’t hurt my feet), and are easy in transition. The idea that shoes can make you faster is a bit troublesome. Again, if a shoe is designed to spring you forward to propel you faster, to me that’s different than buying a helmet that will have less drag.
There is a lot that happens between your legs exerting force and that force being transferred to speed on a bike. The bike is a tool and an integral part of cycling. So if you can make your tool lighter, more aero, etc., I think that’s fair game.
Running speed is a function of how hard you can push your legs and lungs. There’s not a “tool†like a bike is in cycling. Prior to the VF, my thoughts on shoes were to get ones that you can run in that don’t hurt your feet, are as light as possible while still offering cushion and support (aka, don’t hurt my feet), and are easy in transition. The idea that shoes can make you faster is a bit troublesome. Again, if a shoe is designed to spring you forward to propel you faster, to me that’s different than buying a helmet that will have less drag.
I agree with this. Running and swimming would be done naked, if possible. But, that is not possible so shoes and swimsuits are necessary evils. But those necessary evils should not be, as you say, tools or otherwise performance determiners. I agree, the bike is different.
TJ56–I am not compensated in any way by Nike–and if you knew me you wouldn’t be able to ask that question with a straight face! (Nike wouldn’t want an old slug like me, especially given how bad a runner I am now–if anything they should pay me to NOT run in their shoes!).
Strangely enough though, I am an old friend of the new CEO! with that relationship and $250 I can get my next Next!
I might differ a bit. All shoes are in some way influencing injury protection and running efficiency. The Next shoes leave my legs feeling better than others I’ve tried, which I think is good. They are light, which is better than heavy and they don’t dissipate as much energy as some other shoes (the “spring” effect still returns less than 100%) so they seem like they are more efficient.
All of these strike me as differences in degree rather than a difference in kind.
That said, I wasn’t in favor of banning the water rover nor the faster swim skins a few years back. To me faster is better, and if you can buy one piece of equipment that’s faster than another, and everyone has that choice then why not?
These shoes are certainly getting a lot of attention on ST and in the endurance sport communities more broadly. There are some folks here that are pretty vocal about them being unfair (even calling people who own them cheaters) and calling for their ban.
I’ve used them over the last year and have “fallen in love†with them. I’m definitely faster and my legs feel a ton better on longer runs, especially the day or two after. I’m 62 and given how bad my knee is, this is almost like a miracle for me and has definitely extended my IM career…for at least one more year anyways.
So, I run in them because they give me a clear advantage vs the other shoe (Hoka Clayton) I was wearing. Before that, I chose the Clayton because I thought it gave me an advantage over the Sauconys I was wearing. In fact I’ve always tried to wear the shoes that help me the most.
I don’t think this advantage is unfair because anyone can buy them. Yes $250 is a lot of money but if that’s the hurdle, shouldn’t tri bikes or wheel sets, or helmets that cost a bunch be banned as well?
It makes me faster. It is better for my body/health. It’s relatively affordable (given how much triathlon costs to participate in). Any one can get them.
Why should they be banned?
I see a reason for banning them from IAAF running competition (minor version of Oscar Pistorius spring effect) because year over year records should ideally be comparable in a sport like running (or swimming). In triathlon that involves cycling and weird distances, transitions etc, comparing times is meaningless, so it should not really matter.
These shoes should be fine for training, just like water running or ellipticals or anti gravity treadmills are. Triathlon allowed weird shaped bikes that were not double diamond when UCI banned them, so even if IAAF bans the shoes, there is zero reason why triathlon should ban them. $250 as you said is nothing compared to the rest of the equipment. Minimally a second hand tri bike is $500 on ebay which is more than $250 running shoes, so we can’t pretend that economic access is an issue when we have bike gear as part of the picture.
Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet. The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and
stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes, however, *must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair *assistance or advantage. Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics.
IAAF Rule 143(6):
Athletes may not use any appliance, either inside or outside the shoe, which will have the effect of increasing the thickness of the sole above the permitted maximum, or which can give the wearer any advantage which he would not obtain from the type of shoe described in the previous paragraphs.
The question becomes under the first whether or not the real-world savings of the Vaporfly line runs afoul of the “unfair assistance or advantage” provision. The question under the second specifically underlines whether the carbon span would be banned, as the shoe without it might not run afoul of the guidelines.
Do I think that for those of us in triathlon there will ever be a ban on them? Probably not. Nor will it impact most recreational runs. Just a matter of whether they’ll get banned at the professional level.