that’s fine. but i’d prefer not to have the title of the thread be a cheating accusation against an individual who chooses to use them. if carbon plated shoes makes one a cheater, i’m one, because i race in hoka carbon x. i think a lot of people in kona races in either nike 4% or hoka carbon x. you may discuss the topic this way, but to label one named person a “cheater” for using them is out of bounds here.
Ah, I was just typing out a post to the thread. Mostly shocked that Synthetic hasn’t posted even 9 replies in.
But more so, I wanted to pose practical questions to those that oppose carbon plated shoes:
What do you think is the rational solution if IAAF were to ban them? Would they have to adopt X-ray scanning for shoes after ever race? Or cut their shoes in half after every win?
Do you propose banning them JUST for professionals? I just don’t think it would be possible for amateurs to be barred from racing with them as there is no way to realistically enforce this in any WMM. And I say this because of the obvious: If they are banned, shoe companies will continue to make them but they will color them so they look like every other shoe to be more discreet. And if just a pro ban happened, would you still be in an uproar over amateurs being allowed to run in them?
Consider the study that showed there was more energy return offered by the foam in vaporfly than the plate. Sure, they found 2% return of the foam, 1% on the plate with a 1% explained by a careful combination of the two, but the foam on its own is clearly responsible for a good part of this. So what then? After pro races, would they take a biopsy of shoe foam and test them for the ‘banned’ foam?
This is all fine and well for the IAAF discussion, but this is a triathlon forum so how about the banned swim skin being still allowed? And funky bike designs? I don’t think ironman would even remotely consider adopting the ban if IAAF were to impose it (can’t speak to ITU where UCI rules re at least followed) because that’s just not what they do. I don’t see posts on here in the last 3 years about swim skins being still allowed or called ‘cheating’ I don’t see posts about ventums, ceepos, felt IAs being called out as unfair (notwithstanding weak evidence they are much better than UCI legal TT frames…)
While I, like most, do not support banning this advancement in shoe technology, I generally want to hear answers to these questions. If there are sensible answers to these, then maybe a case can be made for banning them and I just don’t see it. Thank you.
It doesn’t really matter as carbon soles are just a marketing gimmick.
Even Nike have admitted their research showed it’s all about the foam
Could be set up like FINA, techsuits have to be approved and have a barcode in order to be used in competition. Wouldn’t really prevent manufacturers from cheating the system, but combine that with random spot checks and you’d have a system.
Fine, I was going to create a thread called “New Marathon Shoes” about these, as most have a carbon plate, but not sure it is such a key item… except maybe on the marketing side.
Ok, so, for me the main features are :
- lot of cushion (for most of them, but not all)
- carbon plate (all of them except GlideRide) - for form, transition, and bounce ?
- reasonably light
- springy foam… and now some small airbags, a different way to have springy foam
The models (11 so far) :
Nike Vaporfly 4% : the one re-creating the “tendency”. Very unstable at the heel. Lacking forefoot cushion ?
Nike Next% : more stable ? more forefoot cushion ?
Nike Triple Carbon Layer + Quadruple airbag Overkill used for 1:59
Hoka Carbon Rocket : not much cushion. For shorter races (even if TO bring them 2nd in Kona) ?
Hoka Carbon X : Good forefoot cushion and very stable. My current favorite.
New Balance 5280 : Mile / ITU SuperSprint oriented, not a marathon shoe, clearly.
New Balance FuelCell Racer : more like the Nike / CarbonX, used by Sebi to 3rd in Kona.
Skechers Speed Elite : used by Cody Beals and others pros. Probably not as cushioned as Carbon X or Nike models.
Saucony “Carbon Ward” : more like the Nike / CarbonX, used by Ward and several other marathons / tri pros.
ASICS “Frodeno Kona 2019” : they look like a flat with a carbon plate… even flatter than Carbon Rocket and Speed Elite
ASICS GlideRide : OK, no carbon plate here, but however working very similarly as the Next / Carbon X, and possibly the future NB Racer and Saucony “Ward”.
Could be set up like FINA, techsuits have to be approved and have a barcode in order to be used in competition. Wouldn’t really prevent manufacturers from cheating the system, but combine that with random spot checks and you’d have a system.
Ok, that makes sense, but for practicality that could only apply to pro/elite, right? And how do they do these spot checks for the suits, is it something they can just see or feel upon inspection or would they have to cut the suit up to see its construction? I genuinely don’t know what is exactly banned in that case but I think if they were to ban foam/plates here, they would need to either use an x-ray or destroy the shoes.
I took it more as not actually calling him a cheater (that was hyperbole), but more along the sentiment that surrounded swimming wrt tech suits in the '00’s. They were fine, until they went too far in '09 and resulted in some stupidly fast WR’s by people who were good, but really have no business having that WR (cough … Biederman cough) . So have these shoes crossed that threshold? Or does running need to be pushed further down the technology path before there’s a backlash?
I honestly don’t know if FINA does spot checks on the suits or not, but they’re relatively easy if they did decide to do so. They have to meet coverage limits on the athlete, easy to see by visual inspection, permeability limits, which can be tested for non-destructively, and they have to have the approval barcode on the outside of the suit.
Some other wonky rules in there too like logo sizes for NCAA and US High School swimming, but those don’t affect performance.
You are an excellent person to explain this to me given your running pedigree.
I have run in just about every type of running shoe including very stiff soled spikes and extremely flexible ‘minimalist’ shoes over a couple decades. What I want from a road shoe is one that is flexible fore and aft but doesn’t compress. Is this what the carbon plate does?
I would equate a stiff and inflexible track spike to a 18mm tire at 140psi which bounces all over the place on an open road and a cushioned shoe to a fat bike tire at 10 psi which you have to drag on the road. Both have merits under other conditions but what I want is that ideal middle ground of grip and shoe deflection without energy loss. I struggle to see what the plates actually add to the shoes but maybe they help accomplish this.
I took it more as not actually calling him a cheater (that was hyperbole), but more along the sentiment that surrounded swimming wrt tech suits in the '00’s. They were fine, until they went too far in '09 and resulted in some stupidly fast WR’s by people who were good, but really have no business having that WR (cough … Biederman cough) . So have these shoes crossed that threshold? Or does running need to be pushed further down the technology path before there’s a backlash?
i hear what you’re saying. but what if i started a thread, with a thread title that would just stick up there, “jason beats his wife daily,” and then you click inside it’s, “yup, jason and his wife work the NYT crossword independently and danged of jason doesn’t always finish his first.” i’m not banning anybody over that thread. i’d just prefer not to see that thread title.
but the discussion of carbon plated shoes is okay.
I took it more as not actually calling him a cheater (that was hyperbole), but more along the sentiment that surrounded swimming wrt tech suits in the '00’s. They were fine, until they went too far in '09 and resulted in some stupidly fast WR’s by people who were good, but really have no business having that WR (cough … Biederman cough) . So have these shoes crossed that threshold? Or does running need to be pushed further down the technology path before there’s a backlash?
i hear what you’re saying. but what if i started a thread, with a thread title that would just stick up there, “jason beats his wife daily,” and then you click inside it’s, “yup, jason and his wife work the NYT crossword independently and danged of jason doesn’t always finish his first.” i’m not banning anybody over that thread. i’d just prefer not to see that thread title.
but the discussion of carbon plated shoes is okay.
That would be terrible, and I see that side of it too.
But to your example, I would never beat my wife in that manner… 
I suspect that she’d kick my ass way more than I’d beat her. Still haven’t won a game of scrabble against her…
The models (11 so far) :
Nike Vaporfly 4% : the one re-creating the “tendency”. Very unstable at the heel. Lacking forefoot cushion ?
Nike Next% : more stable ? more forefoot cushion ?
Nike Triple Carbon Layer + Quadruple airbag Overkill used for 1:59
Since you mentioned the ZoomX foam and airbag, I can tell you there are more models within the Nike line-up with either or both than all other companies combined.
May be a first way to put some regulation on the shoes will be to limit the size of the shoe ?
Currently, is anything preventing the runners to get 1 meter long carbon plates on the shoes ?
To create some “Oscar Pistorius effect” ?
May be a first way to put some regulation on the shoes will be to limit the size of the shoe ?
Currently, is anything preventing the runners to get 1 meter long carbon plates on the shoes ?
To create some “Oscar Pistorius effect” ?
Nope, if my wife with her size 6.5 (USW)/37 (Eu) feet would certainly fall within an allowable limit to wear a shoe that is roughly the size of USM (13)/47 (Eu) and they can’t regulate ‘relative’ shoe size enough for this to be practical.
Just the fact that you wouldn’t run very fast in them. It would still be a net energy loss
Ah, I was just typing out a post to the thread. Mostly shocked that Synthetic hasn’t posted even 9 replies in.
Thank you.
Here I am to save the day! Unfair when not all athletes have the same magic shoes. Solution for IAAF to ban… All shoes must be made out of same material through out. You want carbon? Then it will be like running in bike shoes.
Keep the magic shoes for training, as roads do beat the body up.
We are living in the world technologies evolve and new technology comes up everyday, so adapting to them and accepting them would be right attitude for us. If they work for you, great!! If not, move on and wear what’s comfortable for you.
It doesn’t really matter as carbon soles are just a marketing gimmick.
Even Nike have admitted their research showed it’s all about the foam
Yes, apparently the “big discovery” is more around the fact cushion is needed, more than a carbon plate is needed.
If the cushion is bouncy, it is better. So the foam / air ballon do have an impact.
And maybe some plate (or something else) is needed to stabilize the foam providing the cushion. And some pop. On CloudFlow and other shoes have plastic plates for years…
OK, carbon is a very interesting materiel, probably it is better than plastic.
However, beyond these technical considerations, “carbon plate” seems to be the new marketing buzzword. And as a consequence, it spread out widely (more than really needed ?).
If you look the Kona men top 6, the first “non carbon shoe” is 6th.
But possibly the first 2 do not have much cushion, so they don’t have the full “4% effect”…
and Skipper (with the Hoka Rincon) do have cushion, but no plate 
Men :
1 - Frodeno : ASICS prototype, some flat with a Carbon plate
2 - TO : Hoka Carbon Rocket
3 - Kienle : New Balance FuelCell Racer (proto with cushion and carbon plate, similar as Nike Next or Hoka Carbon X)
4 - Hoff : Nike Next
5 - Wurf : Nike Next
6 - Skipper : Hoka Rincon (the first shoe without a carbon plate !)
I know you have been using various Hokas for a while. ParneanWolf listed a lot of brands and models. Was your current choice based on brand familiarity?
I’m thinking of trying some version of this tech.
I’m running in Salming D5’s. Do you think there is a corresponding shoe? Or … how would one chose where to start.
Thanks
I know you have been using various Hokas for a while. ParneanWolf listed a lot of brands and models. Was your current choice based on brand familiarity?
I’m thinking of trying some version of this tech.
I’m running in Salming D5’s. Do you think there is a corresponding shoe? Or … how would one chose where to start.
i can’t run in nikes. nike shoes do not support my orthotic. nikes are not good shoes for overpronators, which i am. this is a brand decision nike has made (not stated, but pretty obvious). it makes shoes for those who have a good footfall. all its performance shoes are neutral. they work great for 130lb kenyans. while i’m not privy to what nike’s goals and strategies are, my only conclusion is that a kenyan breaking 2hr is not in service of selling nike running shoes, but in selling everything else that make up that $35 billion in revenue (i’d be shocked if it’s tech running segment, all the shoes, carbon plated or not, exceeds 3 percent of its total revenue).
i’m not faulting nike. i’m answering your question, however longwindedly. hoka makes running shoes, and specifically run shoes make for 170lb people like me, who don’t have a perfect footfall. nike makes shoes for elite kenyan runners, and i’m not one of those.