The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"!

Triathlon Forum
41

I ran my 1st race in Vaporflys this Thursday. I went about 4 seconds faster per mile in a 5k compared to my time at the same 5k from 2016 (to 5:57 min/mile). I did 2 test runs on the track before, primarily to figure out the right tightness of lacing. One thing of note was that my avg HR ended up being almost 10 bpm higher and I clocked a new max HR record (189, almost 2bpm higher than the previous record).

Most worryingly though, the ankles ended up getting pretty tight after the race and I am now stretching them vigorously since this can turn into yet another bout of plantar fasciatis. Dunno if it has to do from me going from Claytons to VP 4%. I’ll try them again in 2 weeks for a half marathon.

42

Generally Industry News:

  1. Heather Jackson ran her fastest marathon off the bike in Arizona wearing the new Hoka One One shoe with the carbon plate.
  2. There were a handful of athletes wearing that Hoka One One shoe in NYC Marathon
  3. There were two athletes wearing the new Brooks shoe with a carbon plate in NYC.

Running shoes are my life, they are the topic of conversation in every conversation I have unless I’m talking to family. The Nike 4% has taken over most of those conversations. I’m not sure where it will end up when I’m done with the NYC Marathon work. It was definitely heavy in the front 3rd of the event but there are 53,000 runners in the race and as you get back past 4:30 as expected the 4% is not as neumorous.

The Nike affect. This is Nike doing what they do best. They have the resources to change the industry. They recognized what everyone in running shoes recongized. Running shoes got blamed for everything over the last decade. They were causing the injuries. For all of their promises runners were getting injured at the same or a faster rate. Barefoot or as close to barefoot was where you needed to be. Then of course Hoka One One came around and really changed running for a subset of athletes.

Since the Vapor Fly 4% came out the conversation has completely changed.

  1. Midsole offset is a rare conversation today.
  2. Running faster is the conversation today.

The industry is now trying to catch up. This is a much harder prospect. Catching up to minimalism was fairly easy. Taking a shoe from 10mm offset to 4mm offset was a math problem. The Vapor Fly 4% is not a math equation. It’s a complete shoe and those of you who have run in all three shoes that make up the 4% understand it. The Zoom Fly feels really good, but it doesn’t feel as alive as the Vapor Fly. The Pegasus Turbo feels really alive but it doesn’t have the snap the Vapor Fly has. In general I think that’s what you’ll find from the other brands. There won’t be a shoe that feels like the Vapor Fly. There will however be some things I think are “better”.

Those of you finding the heel to be too unstable - You will have shoes from different brands to choose from. You’ll find a shoe that fits your foot and running form better. You’ll probably feel faster in a shoe that fits you better.

Never Nike - You’ll feel better running in a Brooks or Hoka. You won’t be forced into a Nike and the other shoes will be good enough.

As someon who has been in running shoes for as long as I have this has been the best innovation in many years. Mimimalism was not an innovation and although it was really good for running and running shoes it was rather painful in running and running coversations. . The Vapor Fly 4% and the Breaking 2 project has changed the topic. Running faster is always a better topic.

Personally I think “running better for a long time” is a better “subject” than “running faster”.

Especially when the “running faster” bring me back to bad habits (overstriding) and injuries.

The VF 4% is an interesting shoe, bringing back cushion hype, instead of “racing flats”.
But hey… cushion has been brought back before… by Hoka.

VaporFly, combining cushion with lightness with carbon plate, is an innovation.
It proves fast.
But is it a good innovation for most ?

You bring the debate to “it is faster”. This is the Nike marketing direction. Of course. The shoes is fast, let`s concentrate the debate, the question, the problem on this.

Let’s forget the issues…

I do not care being fast for one race, if this “fast shoes” destroy me for 3 month.
For me “be faster” is not the most important debate.

What I want is a shoe who help me be fast, without too much damages. “Running better for a long time”.
And i think I’m not alone here.
Reason for Hoka success ?
Skecher growing success ?

VaporFly is a fast shoe. May be the faster shoe now. May be the best shoe if you want to win a marathon.
Is it a good shoe for most of us : no, IMO

Is it a good innovation for most of us : no, IMO

Working professionally in innovation, I do not consider the VF as a good innovation.
It is a very interesting shoes, technology wise, opening possibilities for the industry.
Very good for a limited number of runners.
But lack the usability for most runners.

So, not a real innovation.

Try to push it to most runner because “fast” is just a dull marketing attempt.

43

There is nothing to solve in this debate.

Running for longevity: My research says this. Running is fairly good until you reach 50 years of age. At 50 years of age the total number of runners and the speed of the runners begins to drop off. At 55 it drops off dramatically. The Hoka functional design innovation ended up being an answer for many who were really feeling the affects of long term running. That was not the original intended design of the shoes. The great thing is the runners like Slowman found them on their own.

My point about minimalism is there was no innovation. Nike Free was the only innovation and that was an innovation in shoe making. They literally broke the mold when they developed Nike Free. Everything after that was brands chasing a trend a trend every brand knew would end.

The Vapor Fly 4% is an innovation - It was never developed for every runner. It was developed for the best marathoner we’ve ever seen. Nike marketing knew they were sitting on gold. Build the fastest shoe for the best runner and they will come. It’s a formula that has worked really well for the brand. We need to look no further than Jordan. Jordan was a shoe build around the best player. Now Jordan is the second largest basketball brand behind Nike.

Longevity in running is an individual goal. There isn’t any one single answer to longevity. In general we know good mechanics, a balanced body and maintaining weight are absolutely key to longevity. Stretching works for some, Hoka works for some, strength work works for some, and there are lists and lists of tricks. At 54 years old I spend a great deal of time on all of this because I want to run the rest of my life.

Back to running fast - just over 2 years ago I was doing my work at the Rome marathon. That evevning I sat down with a guy who had run the race. I don’t remember his exact time but it 4 hours and something. The Nike Vapor Fly 4% had just launched. This guy instantly wanted to buy the shoe because he thought it would help him get a BQ (run faster) I smiled and said this: There are probably things in your running form that will give you more speed than this shoe does. Once you maximize that then adding the shoe might be the final kicker. It’s not want you want to hear. You want a magic shoe. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The Vapor Fly 4% is probably not going to be your only answer.

44

which Hokas and Brooks have a carbon plate?

45

Hoka One One Evo Carbon Rocket - Available in January/February at Running Warehouse first.

Brooks - No idea on the name - Still in Development mode - The shoes I saw in NYC did not look production quality. Imagin a trimmed down launch with a carbon plate.

46

Apparently we agree on :

the VF was built for pure performance
but will not fit everybody
even if nearly every body will feel the speed in it… before most will be injured by its massive instability

Nike try to push marketing advantage

but it is not our best interest to listen the marketing music “it is fast… you will be fast…”, as usual. Here it is not only a money issue, but mainly a running health issue.

Frankly, I was expecting Nike to capitalize on the techno success of the VF to propose some other performance shoes, more stable. Still waiting.
Am I alone thinking Skecher with the Razor 3, Reebok with Run Fast, or NB with the Beacon making a better job providing more stable cushioned shoes for fast training and racing ?

47

Correct it’s not in our best interest to listen the Marketing Hype but gosh darn is it fun. Remember the integral part of injury prevention is between the ears. The VF 4% isn’t the best shoe for someone who strides out and lands on their heel. I see people doing it and it seems like a foolish $250 but I see people on $12,000 bikes going 15MPH too!

The Reebok Floatride Go fast is an amazing feeling shoe. New Balance put a great blend of shoe together with the Beacon. Kind of cross between the original Clifton and Kinvara wrapped in one shoe. I would throw in the adidas Boston into that mix. There isn’t a better shoe on the market than the Boston if it fits your foot. That’s the great thing about right now in running shoes. There is a great deal of really good product to choose from.

The Vapor Fly 4% is simply a beautifully engineered product. That is a really hard shoe to make and their production quality is simply astounding.

48

Dave or anyone else, what should be the break-in protocol for the 4%? I got a pair back in October and would like to run in them in a half marathon in two weeks. I have been running in Hokas for years - Clifton’s (up to the 3rd version) and Tracers recently. Would one or two shorter runs be enough before the race? Not that it matters much, but I’m hoping to run in the 1:21-1:22 range for the race.

49

It’s always a safe bet to run a couple miles in a shoe before you race in it. I think this shoe is so different than any other shoe on the market you’ll want to simply get a feel for it. The nice thing is you are familiar with rolling over the forefoot in a Hoka. You’ll do the same thing in the 4%. There is no flex in that Carbon Plate.

50

Thanks for the insight!

51

That is a really hard shoe to make and their production quality is simply astounding.

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.

52

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.
53

4% faster than what? Other Nike shoes? All other shoes? Faster can mean a lot of things.

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

54
  1. (Specific to your post): Consider that lower drop shoes will cause an increase ankle moment and thus be less economical as they require more muscular control. The increase gastroc activation can be significantly detrimental.
    Source?
55

4% faster than what? Other Nike shoes? All other shoes? Faster can mean a lot of things.

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

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.

56

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

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.

57
  1. 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.
    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.

58

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

59

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.

60

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.