Why are they so much better? How much faster do they make you over say a half marathon if at all. Do you need to change your running style or technique? Do they tire different muscles to your standard trainers? So many questions…
Usual argument Shirley at elite level might mean something but at club level… really? Maybe run the big miles in moccasins and race in silly shoes
It’s not really the carbon plate, it’s the foam, the carbon plate just allows the foam to be there as it’s too floppy and bouncy otherwise, so it’s mostly just bounce from the foam.
The whole continuing discussion over the last four years is in this thread:
Click summarise to get the main points
Maybe mods could move this thread there
I only have experience of Nike carbon plate shoes… but I have run in all versions Nike does as they work for me
I use old pairs for training and run them to distruction. I find that they are much kinder on my legs so I can run further and more frequently than I can in regular shoes
Old shoes do lose some of their magic speed, so I have race day shoes. When I see shoes on sale I buy a couple of pairs, this way I avoid spending stupid money. I get around 700-1000km a pair
On race day they are faster, around 5% seems about right, partly because they are faster and partly as i get less fatigue
I love them and they find make a big difference to 5km race time.
However… I don’t train in them as am too tight, and perhaps as a result, the one time I wore them for a half marathon my hamstrings were in bits after
In fairness 99% of that thread is discussing prices and colours. A lot to dig through if you actually wanted a useful summary
How dare you Christopher!
Sorry. There was also some discussion about how many times you can return a pair to Nike. With answers ranging from 1 to Poet
That’s where the summary button helps
This thread will go the same route eventually
From my experience of n=1 …
I’d done naff all for about five years, maybe ran 5-8km twice a week.
Did a six month block off nothing, targeted a half marathon time of 1-25-1:30 as a “first thing back”
Bought a pair of VF4% and ran a 1:20
I’d barely ran in the two weeks prior to the “race” too.
So yeah, massive difference.
to balance @poets n=1, sadly that’s not how it played out here
I’ve had two pairs, some Brooks Carbon shoes and VF2’s.
For me, they didn’t make me ‘faster’. They just saved my legs meaning I didn’t get as tired quickly.
Thing is, a lot of runners at all levels have them. If you don’t, put yourself at an immediate disadvantage.
That said, it is course dependent. I think the difference between carbon and non-carbon shoes would be negligible on technical, twisty and courses with steep hills.
That’s what I’m hoping for. A magic solution.
I believe the carbon plates help by helping you move more quickly from foot strike to toe off. The pebax foam allows for greater stack height, which is in itself a benefit and for the plate to be in the mid-sole without additional weight.
All I find is people talking about Nike. There are other carbon plate runners out there. Anyone have experience or advice as I’m not always landing on my forefoot, especially when starting to lag a little, so the top Nikes are a big no no as I understand. Style is as good as neutral and used to run in Saucony Fastwitch. Speed, forgiveness and stability.
Is this article trueish from the vast in depth experience on here?
No, not true at all. Who is saying that? The Nike thread covers other shoes, the principles are the same. Nike are a better known quantity other brands sometimes hit the mark.
Each brand’s carbon shoe generates a different response. I have gone through a number of shoes over last the couple of years and have been lucky to move them in when they have not worked.
I started with the 4% like them but found the squish and lack of stability tough to get on with. I tried Saucony Endorphine Pro and found it triggered a pain just below the patella. The curvature and roll was too much for me. I went back to Nike and the VF2 and had no issues.
I then went onto my ASIC Meta phase and found they were faster (for me) on a rep test than the VF2 but they triggered tendonistis on my ITB that had shelved my training for 6 months. My 3D run scan assessment identified that the AF2 was a performance show compared to the Meta Speed. Back to Nike and no problem with the Brooks as my non plated speed shoe.
Which analysis is that?
Run3D, these are the folk who worked with LCB at RedBull last year. My friend needed a test subject with the experts during her assessment.