[all_blue_chucks]

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.

[XMPPwocky]

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

[sorenjan]

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.

[the8472]

bicycles and shoes are not homotopic

[akavi]

What about shoes and roller blades?

[benibela]

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

[ultrarunner]

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.

[hermitdev]

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.

[xmprt]

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.

[zemvpferreira]

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.

[14]

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.