Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 304 posts

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#161

Post by lagadu »

microcolonel wrote: post #154
jartelt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being 3 or 4% more efficient on race day is a HUGE advantage. Maybe not every elite runner wants to have to wear these shoes to compete?

Then they will have to find shoes which are competitive, doesn't seem that crazy to me. It'd be great if footraces continued to advance consumer shoes like stock car racing advances consumer vehicles.

Not a very good example, stock cars are effectively ancient in many ways compared to modern cars. For example they only started playing with (indirect) fuel injection a few years ago.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#162

Post by justinator »

thr0awaz wrote: post #68
mulletbum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really stated or testing, but one of my biggest issues with running is how much pain I feel on my joints. I actually find it really enjoyable to run through the woods with my dog, but my knees just get mad. If these shoes relieved just a tiny bit of that pain I would find them almost worth it. Not saying one should buy an expensive pair of shoes, but if it was the case, maybe the shoes don't just make you…

If your knees hurt it's either a form problem (you're likely overstriding or lifting your knees too high and slamming your feet into the ground), or a shoe problem (shoes are only good for 300-600 miles of running, assuming you never wear them walking and that you let them bounce back at least overnight after a run, or you're wearing like... motion control and heavily padded shoes when you need less stability or less…

Don't forget lack of ankle mobility. If the ankle can't do the job, the knee tries to, and that doesn't work all that well.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#163

Post by justinator »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #58
pdpi wrote: post #33

There's something interesting at play here — clearly, they're selling these shoes to enthusiasts, rather than just targeting elite athletes. While I can see a competitive athlete reaching for whatever legal means they can to try and buy themselves a victory or podium or some other high-profile result that buys them sponsorships, there's just no good reason why amateur runners should care — you don't magically become…

my question is: do amateur runners even buy $250 shoes? I don't think they do spend that much money on a Running Shoe at that stage. Also, how can this be not good marketing if the Shoes does exactly what the marketing message tries to portray?

Dude YES there's certainly a market for $300 shoes if someone would release them.

Suunto just released a $650 GPS watch.

Running has so few accessories - it should be a cheap sport to pursue but, a fool and their money...

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#164

Post by slg »

gascan wrote: post #124
SurrealSoul wrote: post #54

Articles like this make me want to get a NYTimes sub, excellent reporting on something mundane with enough statistics to make it worth the read. If we ban shoes now, will we ban other augments in the future? Will this stunt the progression of such human performance augmentations?

We seem to take it very much case by case. Running efficiency augments are controversial. Drugs are verboten. But better bicycles are OK, and football players can wear eyeblack and grip-enhancing gloves. The closer a sport is to pure human performance, though, the more sensitive we seem to be about it. Perhaps out of a sense of continuity through the ages. Yeah, we train better than Athenian athletes. But we still ru…

Swimming had this exact same issue a few years ago with the new full body suits that reduce drag too much. Each sports handles this differently and most decisions seem completely arbitrary with the biggest deciding factor simply being tradition. For example, no one cares that swimmers have always shaved their entire body and/or worn a cap to prevent drag. However the new suits just provided too big of a single jump to not require an immediate response.

One of the weirdest arbitrary decisions is the difference between almost universally banned "blood doping" and almost universally allowed "platelet-rich plasma therapy". You can draw a patient's blood and put it in a centrifuge to separate out the red blood cells from the platelets. Reinjecting the red blood cells is doping while reinjecting the platelets is an acceptable medical treatment.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#165

Post by chrisseaton »

lagadu wrote: post #161
microcolonel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they will have to find shoes which are competitive, doesn't seem that crazy to me. It'd be great if footraces continued to advance consumer shoes like stock car racing advances consumer vehicles.

Not a very good example, stock cars are effectively ancient in many ways compared to modern cars. For example they only started playing with (indirect) fuel injection a few years ago.

Aren't stock cars literally by definition modern cars? They're cars currently available in the stock of consumer retailers. That's the whole point of the game isn't it?

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#166

Post by lojack »

gascan wrote: post #124
SurrealSoul wrote: post #54

Articles like this make me want to get a NYTimes sub, excellent reporting on something mundane with enough statistics to make it worth the read. If we ban shoes now, will we ban other augments in the future? Will this stunt the progression of such human performance augmentations?

We seem to take it very much case by case. Running efficiency augments are controversial. Drugs are verboten. But better bicycles are OK, and football players can wear eyeblack and grip-enhancing gloves. The closer a sport is to pure human performance, though, the more sensitive we seem to be about it. Perhaps out of a sense of continuity through the ages. Yeah, we train better than Athenian athletes. But we still ru…

> But better bicycles are OK

UCI has lots of rules around the size, geometry, and weight of equipment that can limit how much better you can make a bike. They even explicitly don't allow new innovations without their prior approval. Manufacturers find ways around the rules but to a large degree better bikes are actually not OK.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#167

Post by [deleted] »

fenwick67 wrote: post #157
iguy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have there been any cases under this rule about "incorporates springs"? I mean for things which might vaguely count as running shoes... not oscar pistorius etc.

This is funny to me because there's nothing magical about a metal spring - the sole of every running shoe is a "spring" in that it has a spring force that helps you run.

[deleted]

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#168

Post by [deleted] »

QML wrote: post #139
httpz wrote: post #96

When cleats were first introduced to soccer decades ago people had the same debate. I think technological advancements changing a sport is inevitable. What if Adidas makes a similar shoes that makes you 3% faster? 2% 1%? where do you draw the line?

Why not make pro football players wear standardized shoes during a game? The issue with customized shoes I see is wealthier teams will have better equipment.

[deleted]

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#169

Post by meotai »

not_a_moth wrote: post #94

Whatever happened to the whole "born to run" thing, which surveyed a lot of evidence that running shoes - recent inventions - cause injuries almost universally, that you're better off with totally minimal shoes if not no shoes at all.

Even the author of that research paper that that book is based on doesn't run marathons barefoot. He said humans aren't meant to run 26.2 miles nonstop barefooted.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#170

Post by lacksconfidence »

chrisseaton wrote: post #165
lagadu wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a very good example, stock cars are effectively ancient in many ways compared to modern cars. For example they only started playing with (indirect) fuel injection a few years ago.

Aren't stock cars literally by definition modern cars? They're cars currently available in the stock of consumer retailers. That's the whole point of the game isn't it?

some time ago stock car racing was just that, but these days the types of cars manufacturers run in stock car racing are purpose built race machines that have only a passing superficial relationship to what you can find at a dealer.
Post reply on HN