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

191–200 of 304 posts

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

#191

Post by praneshp »

Swizec wrote: post #160
jopsen wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I tried I had to immediately cancel on principal since the pricing was deliberately obscured. Credibility was lost before I could even read the articles.

If The New York Times, a 166 year old newspaper with a tradition of fine reporting, can lose all its credibility over that ... I don't even know what to say. You sound like a terrible customer and I'm sure they're happy not to have you?

I'm sure they prefer having another customer, and would probably try to educate them about principal vs principle.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/principal

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

#192

Post by lfowles »

crypt1d wrote: post #131
meritt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to get a NYT sub but they operate like SiriusXM when it comes to cancellations. You have to talk to a human, during business hours, and you have to fight with them for 15 minutes to get cancelled (meanwhile they offer you continually cheaper rates to stay on, so if you pay rack rates you're clearly overpaying in the first place). If they offered a way to self-manage a subscription that I could cancel at any…

Is such a cancellation model common in the US? I didn't think anyone does that anymore, except maybe porn sites. Its a really cheap sales tactic and would probably dissuade me from subscribing in the first place.

My cable provider requires calling in to downgrade services, but adding them can be done with just a click online! I've also seen it occasionally for services like eMeals.

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

#193

Post by ccmonnett »

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?

If you like this, you (and many others here) may also enjoy this great visual breakdown of how the American economy has changed since the recession in 2008:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/05/upshot/how-th...

P.S. I am also a happy NYT subscriber. +1 for supporting high-quality journalism!

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

#194

Post by lancewiggs »

ndrake wrote: post #122
meritt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to get a NYT sub but they operate like SiriusXM when it comes to cancellations. You have to talk to a human, during business hours, and you have to fight with them for 15 minutes to get cancelled (meanwhile they offer you continually cheaper rates to stay on, so if you pay rack rates you're clearly overpaying in the first place). If they offered a way to self-manage a subscription that I could cancel at any…

I recently cancelled via online chat. Only took 5 minutes.

But why should it take longer than 2 messages? Why chat at all?

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

#195

Post by riazrizvi »

monkmartinez wrote: post #11

So at what point can we just start using jumping stilts [1] or something similar? I mean the shoes are $250 and the stilts from Amazon [2] are like $50 more when you include shipping. WRT to carbon fiber plate... how is that not "cheating" like the stilts? Its like electric motors in bicycles if you ask me. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCqvUGFwee4 [2] https://www.amazon.com/Air-Trekkers-JUMPING-EXTREME-Exercis…

I would certainly watch more marathons if jumping stilts were allowed.

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

#196

Post by ccmonnett »

justinator wrote: post #158
mpg33 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes. That's what I would do. You'd have a slight boost on top of the usual race day boost and $250 to get ~4 marathons/8 half marathons isn't bad. I mean that would probably be 4+ years for a lot of non-serious runners.

Meh, a 4% off a crappy marathon time is still a crappy time. I would save your money.

People train months (and years) to take minutes off their time, especially as their times get lower and the returns diminish.

4% of 3 hours is more than 7 minutes! That could be equivalent to tens of hours on the road. $250 is a _great_ investment at that rate.

This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again. When it's your hobby, and it's important to you, the thought process behind the purchase is very different.

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

#197

Post by userbinator »

Buldak wrote: post #5

>Compared with typical training shoes, the Vaporflys are believed to wear out quickly: Some runners have said they lose their effectiveness after 100 miles or so. This is about two weeks of peak marathon training, although if the shoes are as advantageous as the article claims that's impressive in any case. I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes.

I'm not surprised --- it's similar to the automotive world too, where racing slicks are not meant to last more than a race or even fraction thereof, made with very soft rubber so the traction is high but so is the wear. These shoes seem like the human equivalent.

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

#198

Post by lanestp »

justinator wrote: post #158
mpg33 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes. That's what I would do. You'd have a slight boost on top of the usual race day boost and $250 to get ~4 marathons/8 half marathons isn't bad. I mean that would probably be 4+ years for a lot of non-serious runners.

Meh, a 4% off a crappy marathon time is still a crappy time. I would save your money.

I don’t know 10 minutes off a 4 hour marathon is pretty huge.

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

#199

Post by chairmanwow »

What a phenomenal piece of journalism. If anything, I think a piece like this can expose the limits of statistical analysis to the unfamiliar. They made a very thorough analysis of something rather boring, all without making untrue statements about the limitations of each approach. I enjoyed this a lot.

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

#200

Post by notatoad »

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…

it's case-by case, and also sport-by-sport. each sport is governed by their own organization that decides which technical advantages are fair and which aren't.

and it's interesting that you mention better bicycles being okay, because for the most part they aren't. UCI rules state "no technical innovation regarding anything used, worn or carried by any rider or license holder during a competition (bicycles, equipment mounted on them, accessories, helmets, clothing, means of communication, etc.) may be used until approved by the UCI executive bureau."

the full ruleset for what constitutes a race-legal bicycle is here: http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/51/...

Post reply on HN