Forums >Gears and Wears>Vaporflys soon to be banned!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7887859/Nike-Vaporfly-running-shoe-used-Brigid-Kosgei-smash-Paula-Radcliffe-record-set-BANNED.html
With my undergrad knowledge of physics, I understood the carbon plate encased in lots of thick foam to be a spring. Now it has been officially confirmed.
New rules regarding shoes will be clarified regarding use of carbon plates and thick midsoles. However, carbon fiber isn't the only material that can be used as a spring in a shoe; it's just the lightest per strength. Perhaps they will change the rules to refer to ALL plates in racing shoes, or maybe just those of a certain length/shape.
60-64 age group - University of Oregon alumni - Irreverent and Annoying
Mmmm Bop
I think they’re referring to the Nike AlphaFly which are even more advanced/springy than the original Vaporfly 4% and Next % that are available to the general public. There’ll be a lot of disappointed runners if they get banned!
5k - 17:53 (4/19) 10k - 37:53 (11/18) Half - 1:23:18 (4/19) Full - 2:50:43 (4/19)
From the few articles available now, it looks like the governing body is going to more clearly define elements of shoes that can give an unfair advantage, and the carbon plate (springs) will be part of that. Nike Vaporfly may be the main shoe affected, and also the reason for the coming shoe rules, but most other brands are dabbling with the "carbon plate" craze, even if theirs aren't as much of a spring as Nike. Hoka, NB, Skechers.
But again, the "carbon" isn't the magic, it's the way the plate is used as a spring to return more energy per stride. The plate could be made of fiberglass, pebax, kevlar, or any number of materials. The carbon is just lighter and stronger for its mass. So if the new rules ban "carbon plates" then Nike and the others will just use the same designs but a different material. Until those get banned.
For mid pack runners wanting to get a PR it won't matter, nor would the shoes be banned (I think). Only in championship competitions would these be banned.
But if anyone is not convinced that the Vaporfly plate is a spring, just imagine the "blades" used by amputee runners encased in midsole foam:
RIP Milkman
Yeah you probably want to wait until real publications post this, not trashy British tabloids.
5K: 16:37 (11/20) | 10K: 34:49 (10/19) | HM: 1:14:57 (5/22) | FM: 2:36:31 (12/19)
#RunEveryDay
Here's a more credible discussion of the issue.
https://runningmagazine.ca/sections/gear/is-world-athletics-about-to-ban-the-nike-vaporfly-next-and-alphafly/
Half Fanatic #9292.
Game Admin for RA Running Game 2023.
Labrat
Coe is too heavily vested with Nike to let an outright ban on the existing products occur.
Maybe limiting some future developments, but the current stuff. No way.
5K 20:23 (Vdot 48.7) 9/9/17
10K 44:06 (Vdot 46.3) 3/11/17
HM 1:33:48 (Vdot 48.6) 11/11/17
FM 4:13:43 (Vdot 35.4) 3/4/18
Mother of Cats
I'm not buying that a ban is in the works. Just not.
But...if they were, what exactly would they prohibit? I've read mention of banning plates in shoes. But...if you do that, you're banning not just the Vaporfly and equivalent shoes, but also the Adidas Adios, nearly Mizuno's entire line (the "wave plate" tech that they've had for years) and track and cross country spikes. And what about orthotics?
Ban plates of a certain shape, and you'll just get a plate of another shape.
I've also read mention of banning shoes with more than type of material in the sole. But if you ban those, then you are banning many many shoes - it's relatively common for a shoe sole to be composed of a mix of materials.
You could require the foam to be a certain weight per cubic CM or something like that, I guess - that would eliminate the new technology of having super cushioned shoes that are also very light. But that would honestly penalize the masses much more than the elites - it's the heavier runners that often have to make a choice between cushioning and weight. Or did, until the VF came out.
Stack height seems to be the direction some are suggesting, but that seems to me like a self-limiting aspect. At some point, you lose more than you gain from running with a pair of shoes that elevate you. Nobody's running a marathon very fast on stilts.
[it's also worth noting that the VF was not the initial high stack shoe. Hoka One One mapped out that territory years ago.]
Honestly, in the end, I don't care that much if they ban the VF - I like it, but could run without it. I get a bit more twitchy when I hear suggestions about sole composition bans that would mean that the Adios and Takumi Sen would also be prohibited - I don't know where I'd go if those were no longer options.
Everyone's gotta running blog; I'm the only one with a POOL-RUNNING blog.
And...if you want a running Instagram where all the pictures are of cats, I've got you covered.
Problem Child
Have you been paying attention to the news over the past 8 years? Fake news is just as good as a credible source.
If people won running barefoot you'd have second place screaming about how running barefoot is unfair and provides an advantage. All that banning carbon fiber would do is trigger research in a carbon fiber substitute to put into shoes, or layers and layers of foam compressed together to act just like a carbon fiber plate, but not be a carbon fiber plate so it's 100% legal. You'd then have people saying "it's the same thing. It needs to be bannned." I'd be saying "you should go train instead of complian." it's not as though the shoes aren't available to everyone who wants to compete. Why aren't spikes considered illegal when they obviously provide runners a distinct advantage on the track? How fast would every Olympian run if spikes were banned from competition? Could we even get CLOSE to the current world records in track without spikes?
Many of us aren't sure what the hell point you are trying to make and no matter how we guess, it always seems to be something else. Which usually means a person is doing it on purpose.
VDOT 53.37
5k18:xx | Marathon 2:55:22
Well here’s a more upmarket British press report which I hope meets your approval.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2020/01/15/eliud-kipchoge-insists-two-hour-marathon-nike-shoes-fair-world/
If Kipchoge thinks the AlphaFly are “fair” then he’s in denial. I’ve only worn the original Vaporfly 4% shoe and you really notice the difference compared to standard running shoes.
But if anyone is not convinced that the Vaporfly plate is a spring, just imagine the "blades" used by amputee runners encased in midsole foam
IAAF allows runners on blades. This was settled in the Pistorious case. Here is a good article from Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blade-runners-do-high-tech-prostheses-give-runners-an-unfair-advantage/
Every running shoe is a spring if you define a spring as something that absorbs and returns energy. All shoes have foams that compress elastically and then decompress returning energy.
I feel the same way, simply because I’ve never trained in VFs and the last time I wore them was about 9 months ago. I’ve also run 35 marathons in non controversial shoes and did pretty well in some of them. My last regular marathon shoe was the Hoka Tracer and I wouldn’t have a problem racing in them again...but the bottom line is that my finish time would be 2/3min slower compared to the VF. But I’m only a recreational runner so no worries
Stotan Disciple
Technology technology, remember what clap skates did to all the world records and Sharksin suits likewise in the pool.
I'm running London in Alpha Flys so chuck it.
Thinking should be done first, before training begins.
spring or not, I don't see how you can ban them? a spring always returns less energy than you put into it...that's physics.
sure a carbon plate/spring may give you more return than foam, etc... but none the less you're not getting any more return than you're putting into it.
300m- 37 sec.
I'm not buying that a ban is in the works. Just not. But...if they were, what exactly would they prohibit? I've read mention of banning plates in shoes. But...if you do that, you're banning not just the Vaporfly and equivalent shoes, but also the Adidas Adios, nearly Mizuno's entire line (the "wave plate" tech that they've had for years) and track and cross country spikes. And what about orthotics? Ban plates of a certain shape, and you'll just get a plate of another shape. I've also read mention of banning shoes with more than type of material in the sole. But if you ban those, then you are banning many many shoes - it's relatively common for a shoe sole to be composed of a mix of materials. You could require the foam to be a certain weight per cubic CM or something like that, I guess - that would eliminate the new technology of having super cushioned shoes that are also very light. But that would honestly penalize the masses much more than the elites - it's the heavier runners that often have to make a choice between cushioning and weight. Or did, until the VF came out. Stack height seems to be the direction some are suggesting, but that seems to me like a self-limiting aspect. At some point, you lose more than you gain from running with a pair of shoes that elevate you. Nobody's running a marathon very fast on stilts. [it's also worth noting that the VF was not the initial high stack shoe. Hoka One One mapped out that territory years ago.] Honestly, in the end, I don't care that much if they ban the VF - I like it, but could run without it. I get a bit more twitchy when I hear suggestions about sole composition bans that would mean that the Adios and Takumi Sen would also be prohibited - I don't know where I'd go if those were no longer options.
If the purpose of banning the shoes is that it gives too much benefit in energy return, it does not make sense to define based on anything related to construction. It only makes sense to define based on actual performance. They should be able to measure energy return capability of a shoe, via spring coefficient or some such thing.
I don’t have a strong opinion on whether a ban is a good idea or not. In theory everyone has access to it, so it’s not like some athletes would have an unfair advantage. But I guess in practice they would, because if you are not sponsored by Nike, you can’t wear them.
Dave
Waltons ThreadLord
In theory everyone has access to it, so it’s not like some athletes would have an unfair advantage. But I guess in practice they would, because if you are not sponsored by Nike, you can’t wear them.
Not quite. Nike doesn't make it wide sizes for us paddle-footed runners.
5k 23:48.45 (3/22); 4M 31:26 (2/22); 5M 38:55 (11/23); 10k 49:24 (10/22); 10M 1:29:33 (2/24); Half 1:48:32 (10/22); Marathon 4:29:58 (11/23)Upcoming races: Clinton Country Run 15k, 4/27; Running is Back 10k, 5/12