
Superfast Nike shoes are creating a problem - bookofjoe
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/sports/marathon-running-nike-vaporfly-shoes.html
======
__initbrian__
"A 2018 New York Times data analysis based on public race results uploaded to
Strava, the athlete-tracking and networking company, found that runners in
Vaporflys ran 3 to 4 percent faster than similar runners wearing other shoes."
This doesn't seem causal... Runners that were on average going to be 4 percent
faster than the population mean anyway may also be runners that like buying
the latest and greatest vaporflys. With that being said, I would have trouble
designing an experiment though

~~~
Doxin
Get a bunch of runners, hand them random shoes. Have em run and time it.
Repeat over the course of a couple days, having a randomised distribution of
shoes each day. For bonus points use covers on the shoes so people don't know
which shoes they are wearing.

------
chr1
I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does. Waiting for
people with random mutations, or ready to put huge amount of time for
training, or crazy enough to take illegal and harmful drugs, in pursuit of
hundredth of a second is not very interesting and not very useful. But if
sports were a competition between companies creating better shoes, better
exoskeletons, better and safer performance enhancing drugs the society would
at least get something useful out of sports.

~~~
masklinn
> I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does.

Very tightly constrain and regulate them? F1 hasn't been a technological free
for all since the early 80s when FISA/FIA started constraining manufacturers
(ban on ground-effect aerodynamics, fuel tank limitations, boost limitations
and ultimately turbo ban[0], ban on multiple automated driver assistance, …).

As of 2019, engines are regulated down to materials, we're down to a single
allowed tyre supplier (which has 5 dry-weather compounds but only provides 3
choices per race), as well as a specific car and (driver, seat) weight (660kg
and at least 80kg respectively).

F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s —
specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver
skills.

[0] until their reintroduction (and mandate) in 2014

~~~
saulrh

      F1 very purposely constrains technological
      innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to
      avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than
      driver skills.
    

I'm not sure that that's a reasonable analysis. The restrictions aren't there
to keep humans important. They're there to keep humans _alive_.

I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car
with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track
that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked
90 degrees _to the outside_. I believe it. Gas turbine, vacuum system, active
cooling on the brakes, everything fully shrouded and active aerodynamic
surfaces everywhere, electronic stability and traction controls...

The thing is, humans aren't getting that much faster or stronger, and we know
that these unlimited cars would be unmanageable. Restrictions seem to be
tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as
engineering advances. It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they
are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just _gets people
killed_. Modern cars, as they constrained as they are, are already at the
limits of human performance.

And this isn't surprising! The most maneuverable jet fighters in the world are
built to turn at about 10g. The most maneuverable fighters built in WWII were
_also_ built to turn at about 10g [1, 2]. Humans stop functioning around...
10g. If you had an aircraft racing league, letting teams build higher-
performance planes wouldn't result in victory going to the highest-performance
plane. Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot
most willing to die. Which is _precisely what we see_ in air racing: The Red
Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than
half a second or 12g ever [4].

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Sp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_\(F-22A\))
2: [https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/insight-into-the-
magni...](https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/insight-into-the-magnitude-of-
forces-involved-in-dogfights-during-ww2.11822/) 3:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC#Thresholds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC#Thresholds)
4:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Champi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Championship#Did_Not_Finish)
5:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control)

~~~
masklinn
> I'm not sure that that's a reasonable analysis. The restrictions aren't
> there to keep humans important. They're there to keep humans alive.

Nah, that's an excuse FIA uses because it realised that's how it could put
restrictions in place.

If it were solely about safety, FIA would restrict the capabilities of the
machines, not their design details.

> I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a
> car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a
> track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were
> banked 90 degrees to the outside.

So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the
existing track. Gotcha.

> Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents
> that increase in frequency as engineering advances.

That's really not true. FIA does regularly impose safety features or
restrictions (e.g. halo, or wheel tethers) but most of the restrictions have
nothing to do with safety.

> It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now
> doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed.

So… don't do that? If your goal is the safety of the pilot you put limits on
the _performance characteristics_ of the car (top speed, acceleration, …). You
don't mandate the materials the turbo can be built out of.

> Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most
> willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull
> Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half
> a second or 12g ever [4].

Right, so for safety reasons RBAR restricts the _performance characteristics_
of competing planes.

FIA does not do that, it restricts the _design details_ of the cars.

I'm not saying it's bad, mind, just that F1 / the FIA has a very limited and
restrictive embrace of tech.

~~~
jjeaff
>So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the
existing track. Gotcha.

That's not how I read it. He said 90 degrees to the -outside-. Which would be
significantly more difficult than the current track and seemingly impossible
until you consider that the air downforce would need to overpower the
centrifugal force lifting them away from the track.

But perhaps 90 degrees to the outside doesn't mean what I think it means.

~~~
lakisy

      A Formula 1 car can drive upside down .
    

[https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/can-an-f1-car-drive-on-
the-...](https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/can-an-f1-car-drive-on-the-
ceiling-215241628.html)

------
andy_ppp
I mean they lost me when they said the sole of the shoe operated like leg
muscles that never tired, I’m mean seriously these probably account for half
of 1% increased performance and I don’t believe other manufacturers won’t
level the playing field too. I really don’t see better footwear as cheating or
the authors belief that running shoes haven’t changed since the 70s. Poor
journalism IMO.

~~~
airza
Too bad they lost you there, since a few paragraphs down they link to their
2018 study showing that the number is apparently closer to 4%.

~~~
andy_ppp
So that’s just not true because times haven’t dropped 4% have they?

~~~
notacoward
Top times have not, but the charts in the article _clearly_ show a 3-4%
difference across the entire data set. Why are you so determined to ignore
data?

~~~
andy_ppp
Okay fair enough, do we know why the top times haven’t changed so much, it
would be interesting to know why.

~~~
gamblor956
Most top marathoners are not sponsored by Nike and don't wear its shoes.

Those that do, like Galen Rupp, have not completed many marathons since the
shoes were introduced but did see improvements in the probs of the races they
ran before dropping out.

------
Excel_Wizard
The shoes do not add any energy to the system. All energy is provided by the
runner. I think they shouldn't be regulated.

~~~
sushid
Just to be a devils advocate, but neither do springs. But springs are
specifically banned in professional running shoes.

------
nabdab
This just seems like an add for Nike. The reason all the fastest runners are
using Nike shoes isn’t necessarily due to superior performance as much as the
effects of superior sponsorships.

It would be interesting to compare times with other shoes under controlled
conditions, but likely there are hundreds of factors more important that small
differences in the shoes. And why would Nike allow scientific comparison when
they all-ready payed all the athletes millions to side with them on the
conclusion?

The are other important factors, but no-one is pouring millions into marketing
“Nike brand pacer support with efficient patented wind-breaking formations”.

~~~
gameswithgo
>It would be interesting to compare times with other shoes under controlled
conditions, but likely there are hundreds of factors more important that small
differences in the shoes

The shoes reduce oxygen consumption by 4%, which translates to 2 minutes in a
marathon. They are the primary contributor to the sub 2 marathon stunt. The
effort in a regular race without those shoes would have produced about a 2:03.
Shoes -2 minutes, drafting effects from the lead vehicle and contrived pacers,
another minute.

~~~
gamblor956
Kipchoge already has a legit world record in the 2:01:xx range, run in an
actual race.

The pacers and shoes combined only took off roughly a minute in the first 2
hour attempt.

~~~
nabdab
Exactly. And I honestly don’t believe anyone even Nike would claim the shoes
to be an bigger factor than the pacers.

------
pgt
Non-paywalled link, anyone?

~~~
lancebeet
Pressing stop before the paywall appears seems to bypass it.

~~~
houzi
Today's MVP award goes to you! Thank you!

