
How the Nike Vaporfly War Was Lost - wmeredith
https://www.outsideonline.com/2408971/nike-vaporfly-controversy
======
bo1024
A lot of people with tech backgrounds seem pretty pro-Vaporfly. As a (former?)
competitive runner you might find my anti-Vaporfly perspective interesting.

To me, running is a non-mechanically-aided sport. The moment a shoe attempts
to store and return mechanical energy in the stride, to me, that's a different
sport.

We already know that people can go faster and farther with mechanical aid, if
you use big enough springs on your feet. Look at the discussion around
Pistorius' blades. Let alone something like putting wheels on your shoes.

So we know from first principles that there's going to be some limit to the
mechanical advantage that footwear is allowed to provide. The only question is
where to draw the line.

Now you could draw the line at providing any mechanical advantage at all, and
keep the sport the same as it's been since the dawn of time. Or you could draw
the line a little bit farther along, making the sport partially about the
runner and partially about the technology. I see no coherent reason to do the
latter, except for shoe companies' profits. It hurts the fairness of the
sport, it takes a bunch of fun out of it, it transfers a whole bunch of money
from a previously-dirt-cheap sport to the shoe companies, etc.

~~~
hbosch
So, you must be suggesting that all runners wear the same shoes or run
barefoot? Because naturally, every different model of shoe will have slight
variance in running performance -- even those shoes within the "legal" band.

If we treat running more like Formula 1 racing, for instance, the sport is
elevated beyond just that of runner vs. runner (or in F1, racer vs. racer).
Technology improvements the the highest level allow for technology
improvements for the rest of world, beyond the sport. This is one of my
favorite aspects of F1 racing... the constant innovation that happens in these
vehicles, and how that innovation reverberates through the auto industry in
the form of aerodynamics, fuel efficiency, weight:stability improvements, and
so on.

I hear where you are coming from, but isn't the existence of the Vaporfly
essential to push all footwear technology forward?

~~~
bilbo0s
> _treat running more like Formula 1 racing_

There's the issue though isn't it?

There's no F1 at the Olympics.

So running can be changed to be all about tech, but then the Olympic Committee
is gonna have a bit to say about things. They have to treat all sports fairly
after all. Add to that the fact that they've already proved that nothing is
sacred when they dumped wrestling. (Wrestling was, at least to my mind, one of
the original sports even in antiquity. They had no problem at all jettisoning
it.) And you end up in an environment where Track and Field has to be a bit
careful about where we step. We already have, let's say, not the best
reputation because of doping. We really didn't need any new headaches. (In all
honesty though, I think the wrestling thing woke a lot of sports federations
up. A lot of sports are being a bit more careful about things these days. So
trying to avoid the attention of the Olympic Committee is definitely not just
Track and Field.)

~~~
hbosch
> There's no F1 at the Olympics.

Well sure. But there IS skiing in the Olympics, and that is a sport that is
defined by (pun) cutting-edge technology. The constant jockeying for slight
improvements makes all skis that much better. Of course, we remember the
"cheat suits" worn by some lugers a Winter Olympics' ago, which was a pretty
controversial thing but all considered I was on the side of "well, they just
showed up better equipped..."

------
mikestew
My problem with the complains of the Vaporfly is that we're not talking a few
extra million F1 dollars just to stay competitive, or a $10K bicycle, or even
a $500 tennis racket. Vaporflys are $250. In the world of competitive
anything, that's _cheap_ , and only about twice the price of regular racing
flats. Add a $50 pair of shorts and a shirt, hey, the only reason you're not
setting world records is because you suck, not because of your equipment.

So if the shoes make a difference, tear up that Adidas contract and go run for
Nike. Or go tell your current shoe sponsor to get off their arse and make a
competitive shoe.

~~~
compiler-guy
Vaporflys are only good for 2-3 races, so if you run competitively, you are
looking at six pairs a year or so. Which is quite a bit more than $250.

~~~
wazoox
Still a far-cry even from a proper competition bicycle.

~~~
hermitdev
I used to be an amateur road racing cyclist (no sponsorship or anything). The
out of pocket expenses are not trivial. For a decent bike, looking around $5k
and it won't even come with pedals. Pedals will set you back a moth $200-300.
Shoes are around the same price. Mind you, this a little over entry level (you
could probably get a bike in $2k range if you're talented enough).

For serious professional racing, the costs can be quite a bit higher. High end
bikes, especially time trial, can easily be $20k.

Those are up front costs. Some of which are semi reoccurring. You put in
enough miles, there are going to be accidents, you're going to go through
tires and brakes. I dont recall what brake pads cost, but I think they were
relatively cheap, like $15 per set. Racing tires were more expensive at $45 a
piece. I used to go through at least 2 sets of tires per year, assuming no
punctures.

I'm also on my second road bike, after having been hit by a car on a training
ride (car ran a stop sign and T-boned me). Thing about carbon fiber: you
really cant repair it. You have to replace it. When I got hit by the car, it
cracked the frame, bent both wheels, ruined the pedals, fucked up the shifters
and handlebar; basically totalled the bike. Also, screwed up my +$200 shoes.

So yeah, cycling is definitely more equipment intensive than even $300 running
shoes.

I also used to be a distance runner in high school, and replaced my shoes far
too infrequently (basically only when my feet grew).

------
alistairSH
It sounds like the correct approach was eventually selected - set boundaries
for what a shoe "is" \- sole thickness, etc - and ban prototypes from
competition. The first limits tech progress somewhat, but also ensures all
sponsoring companies have a fair shot. The second ensures that less affluent
nations and non-contracted athletes have a fair shot.

Cycling has similar rules - World Tour riders must ride bikes that meet a
laundry list of criteria (double-triangle frame, saddle placement in relation
to pedals to limit aero, etc) and all equipment must be available retail.
Within those boundaries, innovation still occurs - material tech, aero
testing, etc all happen, just within a smaller defined set of rules.

------
scottlegrand2
Seems like running shoe Luddism to me. I've been using Brooks PureFlow shoes
for years. They just happen to be at the slowest running shoe ever created.
I'm looking forward to what happens to my running times in Nike vapor fly
shoes if only because I love technology. Good thing I never want to compete
and I'm also oldAF.

~~~
balls187
How often do you purchase new running shoes, and retire the old ones?

~~~
rconti
Strava tells me "experts recommend" replacing shoes at 300-500 miles. I've got
about 6 pair of the same running shoes that I rotate through. I can definitely
say the cushioning wears down at some point, but haven't retired enough shoes
to say for sure when. Over 500 miles for me, typically, though sometimes I
notice a pair I haven't worn in awhile bugs me, then forget about it. Then
they turn into gym shoes, or carwash shoes, or...

------
todd8
This reminds me of a great passage in Ray Bradbury's _Dandelion Wine_ ; I
remember reading it 50 years ago! It captured the feelings I had about getting
a new pair of shoes, the main character is musing over how to explain to his
dad why he needs new shoes:

> Somehow the people who made tennis shoes knew what boys needed and wanted.
> They put marshmallows and coiled springs in the soles and they wove the rest
> out of grasses bleached and fired in the wilderness. Somewhere deep in the
> soft loam of the shoes the thin hard sinews of the buck deer were hidden.
> The people that made the shoes must have watched a lot of winds blow the
> trees and a lot of rivers going down to the lakes. Whatever it was, it was
> in the shoes, and it was summer.

> Douglas tried to get all this in words.

> "Yes," said Father, "but what's wrong with last year's sneakers? Why can't
> you dig them out of the closet?"

> Well, he felt sorry for boys who lived in California where they wore tennis
> shoes all year and never knew what it was to get winter off your feet, peel
> off the iron leather shoes all full of snow and rain and run barefoot for a
> day and then lace on the first new tennis shoes of the season, which was
> better than barefoot. The magic was always in the new pair of shoes. The
> magic might die by the first of September, but now in late June there was
> still plenty of magic, and shoes like these could jump you over trees and
> rivers and houses. And if you wanted, they could jump you over fences and
> sidewalks and dogs.

> "Don't you see?" said Douglas. "I just can't use last year's pair."

> For last year's pair were dead inside. They had been fine when he started
> them out, last year. But by the end of summer, every year, you always found
> out, you always knew, you couldn't really jump over rivers and trees and
> houses in them, and they were dead. But this was a new year, and he felt
> that this time, with this new pair of shoes, he could do anything, anything
> at all.

So, yes, I want the new shoes.

------
Lramseyer
I was always torn about the implications of Vaporflys. I can respect the fact
that they skew the competition, but how is this any different than cycling?
Pay a ton of money to reduce drag coefficient, moment of angular inertia, and
weight to maximize energy return. The article even points out similarities in
midsole thickness, ZoomX foam, and the Carbon fiber plate with other previous
shoes that were completely legal with the IAAF. I love my Vaporflys and I run
noticeably faster in them, but I think the most underrated thing about them is
that they're way softer on the joints, and greatly improve running stability.
They have the potential to make running safer and more accessible. Personally,
I'd rather see more people maintaining and improving their fitness than some
legacy goal post.

~~~
uberduper
Cycling wouldn't exist without the mechanical component. Performance of that
component is an integral part of the sport.

~~~
hermitdev
There are also stringent restrictions on the mechanical components from the
governing body, UCI.

edit: wrong acronym

------
aledalgrande
I can attest that running on a thick plated pair of shoes like the Zoom Fly SP
I had is exhilarating, especially after training in other "normal" shoes.

I see how the competition should measure athleticism and not a sponsor/athlete
unit, but all recent records have been broken because of technology, let's be
honest. I suggest you watch this TEDx for reference:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0)

------
gherkinnn
Lots of equipment-intensive sports like cycling fair well enough with
regulations.

It’s just a shame that a pure a sport such as running is being hit by a
similar arms race.

------
mensetmanusman
As a materials scientist, it is sad to see athletics ban technology
improvements.

Similar to how automakers are able to test new technology with luxury buyers,
and how the technology eventually reaches the masses; it would be great to
consider elite (luxury) athletics a human+technology element.

There are a lot of technologies that companies are unwilling to try if there
is not a mass market. You need the elite performers to create a mass market
and be a testing ground for performance/health enhancement.

------
asah
problem: pre-release shoes favor a tiny number of already-famous athletes

proposed solution: athletes must use gear that's been GA for N years (5?),
i.e. enough time to profuse into the market and for competitors to catch up.

problem: wealthy athletes have an unfair advantage over less wealthy athletes.

proposed solution: only allowed to use gear whose total price is below X.
(street price? list price? I'm sure there's a solution...)

~~~
sailfast
“All runners shall be barefoot” is the only natural solution to the argument,
as the problem is posed if I’m reading this correctly.

Swimming’s handling of the sharkskin suits is likely a good precedent for a
rational settling of the argument, perhaps?

~~~
yters
Let's just go back to naked athletics like the good old days of Grecian
olympics.

------
Simulacra
I'm torn because I can see both sides. On the one hand, yay technology. On the
other, as a former competitive cyclist, I understand why it's important to
keep it grounded in the basics. I was unhappy when bicycle racing quickly
adopted the electronic shifting - I felt that was a step away from the
bicycle's original design. Just felt wrong.

------
blang
one of the reasons that swimming records have continued to fall is they
changed other rules to make swim faster while enacting stricter rules on
suites. There is now a wedge on swimming blocks that allow for faster starts
(a little like track starting blocks) They have also changed the breaststroke
turn rule to allow for a dolphin kick.

------
hn_throwaway_99
The _exact_ same controversy happened a few years ago in competitive swimming
when those full-body suits were causing world records to get annihilated. I
like the solution that FINA put in place: only jammers (thigh-length shorts)
are now allowed.

Because the argument is that if the difference between two top level athletes
is just their shoes or their swimsuits, what's the point of the competition
anyway? I mean, a swimmer would also be a lot faster if they wore fins, but
then what's the point? Why not just create a more level playing field in
running where the shoe technology shouldn't matter.

------
Cyclone_
From a triathlete's perspective it's interesting to watch this, since bike
technology has become quite more advanced over the years, whereas running has
not improved as much. Of course there's much more that goes into the bike and
components than what goes into a running shoe. The UCI does have regulations
around the frame where the manufacturers have to meet those standards. But
those standards are mostly related to safety, whereas the IAAF standards that
were recently imposed are more related to making a level playing field.

------
jccalhoun
It seems like pretty much all sports have rules that limit how much technology
can improve performance. I have always though it would be fun to do a
mythbusters-style show that tried to see just how much faster/farther/longer
people could go with no limits on mechanical aids (as long as there weren't
motors). So how far could you hit a golf ball if there were no rules on how
the club or the ball were made, how fast could someone swim if there were no
rules on what you could wear, etc.

------
Zimahl
It's an interesting conundrum - where does skill end and technology pick up
the slack? This has played out so many places from the speedsuits in
competitive swimming, to space-age materials used for baseball bats and golf
clubs, and now running shoes. While these things probably won't help the
average Joe much, even a minute change at the top end can mean the difference
between millions of dollars in winnings and sponsorships.

~~~
keanzu
> won't help the average Joe much

Exactly, it's only a 4% edge. That's going to take my marathon time all the
way from DNF right down to the amazing pace of DNF.

> difference between millions of dollars in winnings and sponsorships.

Worth the the $250 investment then.

------
francisofascii
I commend the innovation involved in this shoe, but I wish this shoe did not
exist. If you buy the shoe you are buying an advantage, but if you don't, you
risk getting passed by those who do. With Boston qualifying times getting
faster each year, people on the bubble will have no choice. With a cost of
$250 and a shoe that only lasts two or three races, running got more
expensive.

------
robocat
Artificial imitations on technology just ruin things.

Make the rules something along the lines of making sure that the shoes are
available to all:

* Must be commercially available to all competitors

* Must have been available for 6 months and have had minimum sales of say 5000 units more than 3 months ago

* Price must be below $250 to allow all competitors to buy them

* Some limitations to customisation

~~~
sorenjan
So you would be ok with running races being won not necessarily by the best
runners, but by the racers with the best tech? Would you be ok with any of
these? How about other sports, like jumping events, or basketball? I don't see
anything wrong with rules limiting technology to keep a sport as it's supposed
to be.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WnbD0YVAlE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WnbD0YVAlE)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70IpV0C6icY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70IpV0C6icY)

~~~
Broken_Hippo
In the first one: So long as they are available to the general public
(easily!) and meet the other guidelines: Sure. They are still obviously shoes.
Runners would choose which tech they want to go with and since there are price
restraints and rules about them being available to everyone for _months_ , I
don't see an issue. The sport is going to look the same to everyone else. It
isn't going to change anything: It isn't like professional runners are going
to be using cheap, bottom-of-the-line running shoes any more than a swimmer is
going to wear baggy swimming shorts. I don't mind customizing shoes based on
activity and weight and so on.

In your second example, he isn't testing shoes. His shoes are still on his
feet as he uses the things. Obviously those wouldn't be left in running
because you aren't _really_ running. I'd understand much more if we were
talking about amputees, and then it would really depend on how it compares to
two-legged folks doing things (I don't know the advantage/disadvantage
compares here).

------
minxomat
BTW here are some pictures and more details on the Alphafly Next%:
[https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a30783617/nike-alphafly-
ne...](https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a30783617/nike-alphafly-next-
percent/)

Released 2 days after the rule change.

~~~
coding123
That whole Next% feels like they named it due to a email software glitch that
didn't replace a variable name. lol

------
tromp
To me this comes down to answering "what is the simplest possible definition
of a shoe?"

A shoe could be anything without moving parts that attaches to your foot.

No moving parts rules out skates. Foot attachment (below ankle only) rules out
jumping stilts.

Does this definition allow for any shoes that feel like obvious cheats?

~~~
boublepop
It rules out all modern shoes. And you’d have to make new ones out of concrete
or thick metals. Though wooden clogs would likely be ok, though I doubt you’d
want to run in those.

------
gorgoiler
I don’t mind what anyone wears as long as you can buy a pair for $49 and run
1000 miles in them.

What’s not cool is it being acceptable to use $250 to buy ones way into
success, and it’s even less cool teaching the kids that money is required for
attaining goals. Goodness knows they are under enough pressure on that front
as it is.

Perhaps a World Rally Championship style homologation, but where shoe
manufacturers have to show they’ve sold X thousand pairs at Y multiples of the
local Big Mac price, as proof of availability to general public at a price
that doesn’t promote consumerist elitism. But where’s the profit in that?

~~~
keanzu
> World Rally Championship style

Such an odd example to choose. World Rally Cars are built on production
1.6-litre four-cylinder cars, but feature turbochargers, anti-lag systems,
four-wheel-drive, sequential gearboxes, aerodynamic parts and other
enhancements bringing the price of a WRC car to around US$1 million.

Only $250 to have the exact same shoes as Eliud Kipchoge, wow!

~~~
gorgoiler
When I was a teenager the “555” Impreza WRC seemed reasonably priced for
consumers to buy. But the point was about homologation — competing with
products that are general available to amateurs — ensuring accessibility to
the sport.

Rally driving is indeed pretty niche, so the entry fee for wannabe drivers
being the cost of a reasonably specialist mass produced car seems fair.

For running: the audience is wider and the cost should be lower. Race
organizers that put a price cap on equipment help to hold back the tide of
performance being affected by gear instead of grit.

------
nimbius
Christ. Of all the litany of legitimate charges against the 36 billion dollar
shoe company Nike, this feels absolutely comical. We basically slept through
35 years of sweatshops and child labor --and the Paradise papers tax evasion
scandal-- to hand Nike free advertisement for their shoes that are too fast.

This is not a scandal, its cheap advertising.

~~~
rhacker
Yeah I was going to say, normally the only people that see the performance of
a shoe are spectators of the sport. Now everyone gets to know about Vaporfly
and how awesome they are.

