Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottlegrand2 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Agreed. The only limits should be for safety purposes. Allowing improvement is important, because the technology trickles down from elite athletes to ordinary runners and pedestrians. The faster the shoes, the more likely they are to use them, with great health and environmental benefits.

I'd hate to see running tech crippled by regulation like the UCI did to cycling.

If you keep adding technology to shoes eventually the high tech shoes will become something different entirely.

For example, imagine the bottom of your shoes had something like tank treads or rectilinear (snake-like) sections on the bottom propelling you forward using stored energy while you run. Are you still competing in the same sport as someone without this tech?

My point is there is definitely a line somewhere. "Springy" shoes like these Nikes might not be enough, but eventually we will need to define clearly where that line is.

Imagine if your shoes had some sort of linear bearing system that would allow you to glide over the ground, preventing energy loss while allowing brief rest periods.

I don't know if I can even satisfactorily define running itself on the spot, but I'm pretty sure I know it when I see it.

I think you could succinctly define running as a motion similar to walking, except only one foot has contavt with the ground at the time.

And, ultimately, what is a bicycle but a very efficient pair of running shoes?

bicycles and shoes are not homotopic

What about shoes and roller blades?

Or shoes with really strong springs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_stilts

UCI has very strict rules for bikes, like minimum weight and geometry. Otherwise everyone would be using recumbent bikes with fairings, and that would be a different sport.

I don't think there's anything wrong with limiting technological advances in order to preserve a sport, people that want to compete with recumbent bikes or leaf springs under their feet can do so among themselves.

I think most people would say that any improvement in running tech is a good thing. Like the parent commenter mentioned, if this tech trickles down to consumers, we'll be able to live better, more efficient lives. If you wanted it to be an even playing field then everyone should run barefoot. Money already plays a massive role in athletics (better diets, personal trainers, a fixed regimen, not having to worry about a second job to put food on the table) so claiming that some people can't afford the latest tech isn't fair. I think the regulation that requires shoes to be on the market is fair and worry about the specifics is overstepping.

Why is a technology that makes shoes faster at the expense of their durability something that will the average joe’s life “better, more efficient”? That’s quite the claim.

If technology doesn’t improve (and maybe decreases) affordability, barrier to entry, or safety, why is it better? because it’s more performant in competition? It just seems like inflation to me.

I think it is good because first they prove a technology is possible then as it is improved over time things like durability and cost can be tackled.

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

Every thousand miles or so. Which is to say three times a year because I walk/run about 10 miles a day, which I once thought was original behavior, but see Nikolai Tesla.

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...

However long it takes for the hole at the big toe to get too big.

FWIW, I can generally start feeling a pair of shoes going off at about 300-400 miles. And I get more prone to injury after 500-600. At this point, they are visibly worn and the foam is often visibly squished. The uppers are nowhere near worn out. If it’s a pair I like aesthetically, I’ll wear the casually for a lot longer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com