As you admit: "I don't know much about running". For distances on road, you need more than 5mm, but 40mm is totally unnecessary from a cushioning or protection PoV (that limit was set for high jumpers and the IAAF did not think through the implications and possible design developments).couldn't they just limit the sole thickness to 5mm? Just enough to protect your feet basically. I don't know much about running
There's no 'argument': they are faster in use - "facts speak for themselves". The question is whether they should be allowed in competition (and of course that's the whole point of their raison d'etre).but facts speak for themselves,
And now someone wants to argue the effect of faster shoes?
The greatest improvement in 'performance' I ever had, as measured by the very scientific method of Strava segments and time round my usual route, was when I bought some better cycling shoes which fit me properly. This was when I used to belt it round a specific route fairly regularly, my times were falling bit by bit, then I got the shoes and the results were instantaneous.Once soles are stiff enough to resist YOUR bending force, making them stiffer adds no advantage. They may benefit some other rider with more power who can generate more force.
Right, it doesn't apply to most people at all whether fat or not, dad or a cad, it doesn't matter, and it really doesn't matter to elite pro racers either because the speed gains are NOT there after all the expensive technology promising to do so.You said that since 2010 the dots have fallen beneath the prediction line. Firstly, it's not a prediction line, it's a regression line, and secondly there's another variable been introduced. It's perfectly possible that an undoped rider in 2010-16 will have been faster than an undoped rider in 2000-2010. We don't have the data.
You're right about applying it to regular cyclists though, the graph clearly relates to elite athletes and isn't really relevant to a 40yo fat dad.
Some great points here, and I get that some of it being related to selling new equipment at increased costs may certainly be the case.Don't listen to such BS, you can have all the lightest wind cheating stuff you can possibly buy and you're speed won't improve, all that crap is nonsense generated by the cycling industry to goad rich people into parting with their money in the attempt to gain speed. I saw this same crap happen years ago in the golfing world, and knew a guy who bought into the hype of fancy scientific words of the how the clubs were made and how extreme testing proved it, and on and on and on about golf clubs that cost $2,000 EACH! he got the entire set!! so I asked him about 3 months after he bought them if his game was better, his response was: "Shut up Froze! those damn clubs didn't nothing for my game!" And now they're wanting us to buy the speed hype in cycling because cycling is the new corporate golf, and rich people without much brains are cycling.
I can hear a lot of you screaming at me so how can I prove to you that it's all hype....hmmmmmmm, oh I know, let's look at the history of the world's longest bicycle race, the TDF, and see what history says. Please read: http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_tourdefrance_vitesse.htm. At first glance it appears that the speeds keep ramping up, however you need to interpret the chart better, let me explain. If you look at 1974 the line intersects at 35 km per hr, however in 2016 they continue to draw the line upward but in reality since 2010 the little dots show the speeds have actually dropped where the predicted line is, so in 2016 the average speed was 40 km per hr; so for the last 42 years we've only seen a 5 km per hour, or 3 miles per hour, so from non aerodynamic steel bikes to fancy aero CF bike that's the speed increase we get? Actually the picture gets worse because if you look at the dots they were doing 35 km per hour as far back as 1956!! But wait I'm not done having my fun with all of this, for you see since 1956 to now the average distance of the race has been reduced by 700 miles; so in 1958 the total distance was 2,795 miles over 22 days, in 2016 the race was 2,193 miles over 21 days, the race between those two years was actually reduced by 700 miles, but look at the average miles per day raced, in 1956 they raced an average of 127 miles, rounded down, per day, but in 2016 the average miles raced per day was 104, rounded down. This should tell you all that the only reason speed has gone up by a tiny amount of 3 miles per hour over the last 60 years is due to the race being easier in terms of miles, those 700 less miles allows the cyclists to have more energy in reserve and that's why the speeds have gone up, not all the fancy and expensive aero crap.
I know you all are going to deny this information I showed, but facts speak for themselves, and the emperor's new expensive fancy clothes that everyone in his circle said was so nice and he looked so good wearing them, have been reviewed to be no clothes at all.
And now someone wants to argue the effect of faster shoes? LMAO!!! or faster anything for that matter!
I mean, the Tarahumara do it. Barefoot/minimal shoe running is a fairly big thing, and for the vast majority of human history a shoe sole has been, at best, a slab of leather. Clearly humans are capable of running without modern high tech fat-soled shoes, you just might no go as fast or as far.As you admit: "I don't know much about running". For distances on road, you need more than 5mm, but 40mm is totally unnecessary from a cushioning or protection PoV (that limit was set for high jumpers and the IAAF did not think through the implications and possible design developments).
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|had anyone gone faster/further with an electric bike?||Commuting||55|
|M||Go Faster Bacteria||CC Cafe - General Chat||18|
|K||Faster tires for a hybrid bike?||General Cycling Discussions||17|
|Would a modern lighter bike make me cycle faster||General Cycling Discussions||84|