Are they going to start checking age groupers’ shoes with a ruler?
Or do the same as they do at run races…
It’s new to tri, but not new to the world
Does a list of disqualified shoes exist?
Bad idea. That would just allow mfgs to launch shoes the day before major races so there’s no time to add them to the list. The 40mm rule works for running, why change it?
Sounds like you’re hanging around the wrong races… /s
But I thought all of the major manufacturers had dropped their supe shoes under the 40mm level, are they any left? Or just those with older shoes?
They continue to introduce them. They’re often good trainers and amateurs can wear them in running races.
New Balance SC Trainer and Adidas Prime X Strung were both launched recently with around 50mm stack.
Lange and Astle both won IM Israel wearing the Prime X.
all shoes over 4mm will be banned.
Wasn’t it 40mm drop or something like that?
That explains Mizuno’s new shoe, which looks to be 4mm stack in the heel (where theyre measured for this rule) and negative 40mm drop. Haha
Thanks for the correction. I meant stack doh!
Useful short discussion in the last 5 minutes of this podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/pro-tri-news/id1559781865
Don’t kid yourself, nothing useful produced by that lot.
Bad idea. That would just allow mfgs to launch shoes the day before major races so there’s no time to add them to the list. The 40mm rule works for running, why change it?
I don’t think it is changing it, just adopting it? Also “running” uses your Bad idea: " Any shoe that is introduced to the open retail market after April 30, 2020, may not be used in races unless it has been available for purchase by anyone for at least four months prior to competition. If a shoe does not meet these criteria, it is considered a prototype."
So there’s a four month window for the governing bodies to figure out if it’s legal or not.
I don’t know you how conveniently check for # of carbon plates at an event site. Some scanning machine just after the finish line? Random destructive inspections?
You almost have to have a list of invalid shoes.
Edit: Or a list of valid shoes, really. Almost the same thing, as any shoe that’s not on the valid list, is, by definition, invalid. Happy to see my Magicspeeds are good for anything over 800m.
That shoe looks like it would make you feel like you were running uphill.
all shoes over 4mm will be banned.
Wasn’t it 40mm drop or something like that?
That explains Mizuno’s new shoe, which looks to be 4mm stack in the heel (where theyre measured for this rule) and negative 40mm drop. Haha
That type of sole reminds me of Newtons
.
This is dumb if it’s for Ironman. I personally think it’s super cool that this part of the sport is pretty open ended where manufacturers can test and push the limits without a bunch of restricting rules. I’d get it for like wtcs and ITU, something where it should be more regulated.
They can push the technology all they want just hold the price to $150 max. $250 for a shoe that lasts 200 miles is ridiculous.
Will be interesting to see the actual rule when the new rule book is released, which should be imminent following the approvals.
The rule likely applies to AG and Elite, but will depend on enforcement checks. Testing stack height is relatively simple, and can be done with a ruler, as long as there is some guidance around placement and measurement. In terms of the number of carbon plates, I suspect that this would be more of a list of illegal shoes (i.e. as shoes come out with multiple carbon plates, they would be added to a list, almost the opposite of the approved non-traditional bike frames).
In terms of limiting innovation, World Tri has generally defered to the UCI, World Athletics and FINA to define the rules around the disciplines, all they are doing here is explicitly stating that they are adopting the world athletics rules in this space. While there may be arguments made about the thicker soles absorbing more impact and reducing repetitive strain injuries, at some point increasing stack height without increasing the width of the shoe will increase the probability and severity of ankle injuries, in cases where you roll the ankle.
The commercially available rule is there, but companies game this all of the time in cycling, by selling a few of them (or issuing invoices anyways) to make the claim about commercial availability even if broad release has not yet happened…
Again, I will be very interested in reading the new rule book when it is published, and to see whether there are enforcement guidelines that accompany it.
The other rule amendment mentioned in the release linked earlier in this thread, was a mat leave pause to rankings, to prevent women from having to start at the bottom of the points list when returning from mat leave and will make it easier to get top level starts. This could be huge, especially for some of the deeper federations like GB/US/etc. where it takes more points to be ranked high enough in the countries’ depth chart to get starts above the continental level…
I don’t know you how conveniently check for # of carbon plates at an event site. Some scanning machine just after the finish line? Random destructive inspections?
Stick a pin through the sole?
This is dumb if it’s for Ironman. I personally think it’s super cool that this part of the sport is pretty open ended where manufacturers can test and push the limits without a bunch of restricting rules. I’d get it for like wtcs and ITU, something where it should be more regulated.
So why no ebikes, recumbent bikes in IM?
Don’t want to hijack the thread to get off topic but these shoes should get WAY more than 200 miles in them. I have put more miles in the OG vaporflys than any shoe I have ever owned and my 2 older Next% won’t fall apart.
Fair enough, I guess I was exaggerating
.
No worries! I just want to share that these shoes can last for a LONG time so price is not crazy when thinking about that. Granted I use a pair for a season of running then they become training shoes but I am still getting about 3 years of miles in them since once they turn in to training shoes they become tempo/interval/LR shoes. And “training” shoes are getting out of control with how much they are too. I always look for cheaper color ways or last year’s version of a shoe to save money!
They can push the technology all they want just hold the price to $150 max. $250 for a shoe that lasts 200 miles is ridiculous.
But “slow” “unsuper” shoes are common over $150 as well. I bought all of my super shoes on sale at under $100. Just have to be a member of the various clubs/vendors/etc
I picked $150 because that’s about where my old non-super shoes are now
.
I picked $150 because that’s about where my old non-super shoes are now
As an aside, by sheer coincidence I did my first ever super shoe run yesterday. Spent most of the last 35 years as a runner, but the last 10 as a nearly pure cyclist. But my CrossFit gym is doing a “mile run challenge” and no way am I going to not win that challenge as a former miler, even at age 49. So it was time to bring the best weaponry to the fight.
And OH DAMN SUPER SHOES ARE LEGIT!!! HFS.