[webbo]

would you be happy to chemically dope

OK, no aerobars in road racing, bad comparison, but carbon fames and rims, skinny tyres and bikes that weight about the same as one of the wheels on mine are all fair to compare.

You are struggling with you cycling comparisons Chris. No one rides skinny tyres in road races these days.

[Duma]

Thanks for the patronising nonsense webbo. I understand carbon plated shoes just fine thanks.

For 20 years most of the pro peleton was doping. Assume you agree that doesn't make it ok.

"Only as good as the runner" what an unmitigated crock of shit.

[chriss]

Who took the jam out of your doughnut?

Of course it's all about the runner Vs the shoe. I'll wear my cheating carbon shoes, Bekele can wear wellies & let's see who wins ?

Same as everything in life technology moves on, shit runners will still be shit in 20 years time in Vapour fly 900's .

[webbo]

Thanks for the patronising nonsense webbo. I understand carbon plated shoes just fine thanks.

For 20 years most of the pro peleton was doping. Assume you agree that doesn't make it ok.

"Only as good as the runner" what an unmitigated crock of shit.

I’m not sure what your point is Duma as I haven’t commented on carbon shoes.  I was making a tongue in cheek comment to SAchris but there you go.

[Stabbsy]

I'm with Duma on this one, but possibly for slightly different reasons. A lot of the studies into carbon shoes show that there are responders and non-responders to each shoe. One runner might get no benefit from shoe A vs. shoe B where another might get a 4% efficiency saving at a particular pace. That 4% saving might convert to 1% impact in marathon time (based on the studies from the original Nike Vaporfly). Marathons are won and lost by less than that, so we're saying that the winner of the marathon isn't the best runner, it's a combination of runner and the right shoe for them. Runners don't get to chose their shoe, they get the shoe from their sponsor which they may or may not respond to. That then means that the result of marathons could be determined by who is sponsored by which brand.

Full disclosure - I own and have raced in a pair of carbon road shoes. My 10k PB (2022) was in a pair of Saucony carbon shoes and it's a second quicker than my 10k PB without carbon shoes (from 2016). My HM PB (also from 2022) isn't in carbon shoes, but that might just be because I didn't own any at the time. Out of choice, I prefer the "feel" of running in the non-carbon shoes. I probably wouldn't bother with carbon off-road shoes - particularly the Saucony ones as the first generation had a rep for falling apart.

[SA Chris]

You are struggling with you cycling comparisons Chris. No one rides skinny tyres in road races these days.

Clearly! Anyway, point being if i want to improve my bike times it's easier to drop £10K on a bike to replace my 10 year old aluminium  cyclocross bike than to buy into the equivalent of a Lattice training program.

[chriss]

I enjoyed the SCIENCE, I think it or something similar has been posted before on this topic.

I think you are also reflecting my point in that not all carbon shoes are created equally & most owner's are in the wrong shoe. I'd say most companies produce/ tune the shoes as per there top tier athletes, they know who's likely to place high, so that's all they worry about. They know this will help sell to the parkrun masses.

Disclosure I have/ had 2 carbon & 1 nylon plated pairs. All of my pb have been in them from 1mile to the half. These were done on my own during lockdown when I got super keen.

My only other questions are if they are cheating, who is being cheated & if running is no longer 'pure' what sport is?

[SA Chris]

I probably wouldn't bother with carbon off-road shoes - particularly the Saucony ones as the first generation had a rep for falling apart.

I'll let you know how these last. If things play out, got some long runs planned this summer, and plan to wear them.

[Stabbsy]

My only other questions are if they are cheating, who is being cheated & if running is no longer 'pure' what sport is?

Dennis Kimetto. Maybe. Last person to break the marathon world record before Vaporflys changed the game.

The "Maybe" is the problem though. I want to be able to celebrate Kipchoge and Kiptum's performances as being next level, but there's this little itch in the back of my mind that says what if Kimetto or Gebrselassie had those shoes and they were a responder? Could they have done the same? Could they have done better?

Whatever anyone says now, Pandora's Box has been opened and it's not closing again. World Athletics had the opportunity to limit stack height when the Vaporfly had a 39mm stack - with the stack height being fundamental to the way that the current generation of carbon shoes "work". They chose to set a limit of 40mm. At the time, I thought it was the wrong decision and still do.

[lukeyboy]

It's similar to the issue in swimming with skinsuits, though perhaps not quite as pronounced a performance advantage as that. A lot of World records were quickly broken, but interestingly Pandoras box was closed again and WRs with those suits no longer stand.

There's nothing to stop the same thing happening in running, apart from it being too much of a U turn and it's been too long. But in theory they still could if they wanted to.

[Stabbsy]

They could, but I don’t think they will. I presume that’s what Duma is getting when he says running has been sold to Nike. For them to close the box, they need to reverse a previous decision and admit it was wrong.

[SA Chris]

Then all the other shoes companies would all have to follow suit which I don't see happening.

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2024/04/adidas-almost-completely-sweeps-the-2024-london-marathon-podium/

I've still to see why it's any difference in progress in climbing shoe design, which (I guess) everyone on here grasps with both hands. Or should we all still be wearing PAs?

[webbo]

They could, but I don’t think they will. I presume that’s what Duma is getting when he says running has been sold to Nike. For them to close the box, they need to reverse a previous decision and admit it was wrong.

Cycling did this with the world hour record. They disallowed all the records done with aero bars and the likes and would only allow equipment similar to what Eddie Merckx used in 1972.
However they have since relaxed the equipment rules and you are now allowed to use what is allowed in track racing. However what was used by Graham Obree and Chris Boardman would not be allowed. Although Boardman went on to break Merckx’s record on similar equipment.

[Stabbsy]

Then all the other shoes companies would all have to follow suit which I don't see happening.

When I say they need to close the box, I mean World Athletics, not Nike. Clearly one company wouldn’t unilaterally get rid of a massive performance advantage.

I've still to see why it's any difference in progress in climbing shoe design, which (I guess) everyone on here grasps with both hands. Or should we all still be wearing PAs?

I understand the argument, but to me it’s a false equivalence. I think it’s because there’s a massive element of mechanical advantage from carbon shoes - the carbon is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting.

If someone made “Crimping Hooks (TM)” - steel hooks that fit under your fingers to supplement your finger strength on the hardest moves - would you be using them or is it aid climbing?

[chriss]

I think it's pretty obvious that 'the older generations' would of gone faster with new technology, bit like older roadies would go faster, etc..     

Personally I have no issues with technology that is not exclusive to one person/team etc (although everyone was plastering their own logo on Nike's when they came out). They aren't going away & they shouldn't they are aimed at giving the elite the edge, same as every sport to a degree - look at F1, Moto GP etc ... They aren't cheating some just have a better vehicle than other teams .

To me it's like knee pads & new tech shoes, use them or not - up to you, but don't cry about it if someone uses better tech to find decent beta.

[SA Chris]

I understand the argument, but to me it’s a false equivalence. I think it’s because there’s a massive element of mechanical advantage from carbon shoes - the carbon is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting.

I don't think it makes that much difference. Reckon the hardest routes and problems in the world would still go in a pair of EBs? If you think yes, I guess you never wore them much!

[Ballsofcottonwool]

Cycling did this with the world hour record. They disallowed all the records done with aero bars and the likes and would only allow equipment similar to what Eddie Merckx used in 1972.

In running the equivalent would be barefoot. The marathon WR has stood since the 1960 Olympics at 2:15:16, I'm sure there is someone out there who could beat the record tomorrow, but its not going to sell any shoes...

[steveri]

I take an entirely flippant view based on if it works for me. Graeme Obree penalised by the UCI for backroom mods, new positions, setting the hour record on a sawn off child's bicycle seat. Legend. Routes being tamed by a sneaky kneebar. Kudos to you for cunning. Sticky rubber, I'm in. High heelhooks, envious of anyone under 30 for whom this comes naturally.

Billion pound megacorp finding 4% from carbon implants. You could see it coming when para athletes started going super fast based on the best R&D backup. Not happy now that every club event is dominated by £240 foootwear, 'Cheat Shoes' in my club Whatsapp. I almost needed therapy the first time I paid a hundred pounds for shoes. And then again when the same shoes finally made it into Sportsshoes 'last year's model listing'.

The genie's out of the box now and there's too much vested interest in keeping them there.