Hacker News Reader

Comment by hbosch | Hacker News Reader

So, you must be suggesting that all runners wear the same shoes or run barefoot? Because naturally, every different model of shoe will have slight variance in running performance -- even those shoes within the "legal" band.

If we treat running more like Formula 1 racing, for instance, the sport is elevated beyond just that of runner vs. runner (or in F1, racer vs. racer). Technology improvements the the highest level allow for technology improvements for the rest of world, beyond the sport. This is one of my favorite aspects of F1 racing... the constant innovation that happens in these vehicles, and how that innovation reverberates through the auto industry in the form of aerodynamics, fuel efficiency, weight:stability improvements, and so on.

I hear where you are coming from, but isn't the existence of the Vaporfly essential to push all footwear technology forward?

View on HN

Different shoes are fine by me in all aspects, as long as they don't try to store and return kinetic energy.

This is admittedly not my area of expertise, but don't all shoes do that? Unless the rubber permanently deforms, any rebound at all is returning energy.

They do, with possible the exception of Vibram Fingers, Lunas, and anything else in that category. Where the focus is mostly on avoiding punctures or lacerations of the sole and nothing in the way of support or cushioning.

As someone who has multiples of the above, various trail and road shoes, and two pairs of Vapors too... to me the difference doesn’t appear to be obvious energy return like you’d expect with something like Pistorius’ blades. The return and cushioning seems on par with my old ASICS. The aggressive design underfoot though basically mandates efficient technique. My barefoot options do the same but through being quite unforgiving and painful if you get sloppy.

Also worth pointing out that when I first put them on I definitely got the pace bump advertised but it came at a considerable stamina cost. They encouraged/forced me to run faster but it took quite a while to build back up to being able to maintain that for the distances I’d previously run.

I think F1 is a leading indicator here.

At the beginning F1 was decided mostly by the pilots skills, then increasingly by training. Then technology took the spotlight and was the way to have an edge, and now finally it’s the best lawyering what gets you wins.

I’m guessing is that is some kind of pattern you can’t avoid.

First the athletes compete, then competition gets fierce and simple selection does not cut it, training is required to be at the top of the game. Then when we hit the limits of what’s possible for a human only tech can step in and give you the edge.

Then tech improvements subvert the statu quo and regulation is demanded, regulation kills innovation and brings in a new game, the winner is whoever can argue that they’re not breaking the rules, just bending them a little.

It's still about driver skill. If left unchecked, the engineers could build a car that would be impossible for a human to drive. Too fast, corner too hard, brake like it was on a tether, etc.

So then it would be a case of building a car that just barely didn't kill the most capable human.

That was F1 in the 60s, when you saw all sorts of weird stuff.

F1 has since day one been a competition of who could build the best car and then drive the fastest with it. Other racing series are really about the driver, but F1 has never really been.

It's just in the very early days the guys building the cars would also drive their own car.

I don’t think that barefoot is unreasonable, actually - I have run either barefoot or in very thin-soled toe-shoes for over a decade now. It’s substantially changed how I run (almost exclusively on my toes and the balls of my feet when fast, a sort of shuffling, sliding lope when slow), and I haven’t had knee or hip problems (thanks, rowing) since.

There’s also something really neat about feeling the ground under your feet, the textures, the temperatures, the refreshing moisture of grass, and being able to actually use your feet for traction. Your toes exist for a reason.

If we’re talking about pure athleticism, and taking a technological advantage out of the equation, then I really don’t see why this couldn’t be the way forwards.

>treat running more like Formula 1 racing

There's the issue though isn't it?

There's no F1 at the Olympics.

So running can be changed to be all about tech, but then the Olympic Committee is gonna have a bit to say about things. They have to treat all sports fairly after all. Add to that the fact that they've already proved that nothing is sacred when they dumped wrestling. (Wrestling was, at least to my mind, one of the original sports even in antiquity. They had no problem at all jettisoning it.) And you end up in an environment where Track and Field has to be a bit careful about where we step. We already have, let's say, not the best reputation because of doping. We really didn't need any new headaches. (In all honesty though, I think the wrestling thing woke a lot of sports federations up. A lot of sports are being a bit more careful about things these days. So trying to avoid the attention of the Olympic Committee is definitely not just Track and Field.)

> There's no F1 at the Olympics.

Well sure. But there IS skiing in the Olympics, and that is a sport that is defined by (pun) cutting-edge technology. The constant jockeying for slight improvements makes all skis that much better. Of course, we remember the "cheat suits" worn by some lugers a Winter Olympics' ago, which was a pretty controversial thing but all considered I was on the side of "well, they just showed up better equipped..."

I think the dumping (and re-instating) of wrestling was a good thing for the sport as it forced to innovate in places where it had become insanely passive and boring with very few watching or really caring.

The Olympic Committee hardly has any rules about individual sports. They mostly delegate that to the international governing bodies for each sport.

Car race or endurance events cannot be compared to that of human ones.

In the former case machine is the subject; and humans are innovating to evolve them to next level.

In the later case, assumption is that all humans are at same level of evolution and race is among equal - ideally marathon and races should be bare bodied and bare foot; but if we are making concessions for comfort, it should not be seen as license to augment human capabilities.

F1 is actually quite restrictive these days. There is not much room for innovation. Unfortunately...

Of course there is. The whole season has been a drama about Mercedes and RB trying to smoke out what Ferrari have done with their power unit to get such an increase in power.

Aero innovation is still ongoing, times are going down even with the simpler formula due to the engineers finding new ways to increase DF. It's only now starting to converge more because the rules have been somewhat stable on the PU side since 2014. Aero had a big change last year for turbulence reduction and increasing speeds.

I hope you agree that innovation is much more constrained than it was in the 70s to 90s. You can’t do a V8 or V12, the turbo configuration is prescribed, or can’t do all wheel drive or a six wheeler, wing configuration is very much regulated. There certainly is room for improvement but it’s more detail optimization, not the whole concept. Adrian Newley has been complaining for quite a while that for designers F1 is not much fun anymore.

Right, you're comparing against 50 years ago. Yes it was the Wild West back then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com