I’m of the opinion that the Nike attempt was fine as long as they had been more upfront that it would not have been a real record, and that they were using a windbreak.
The difference with the other analogies is that runners already do get some degree of drafting from other runners, and wind conditions can vary a lot anyway. And shoes have variable spring. So they were trying to optimize various factors that already influence races.
So their attempt tells us something, even if it’s just how much of a difference these factors can make and how we should firm up the rules.
Again stating that I’m totally not knowledgeable about running… but isn’t it still interesting information? That is, “when conditions are not just ideal but somewhat-cheating ideal, the best time that great runners were able to achieve was X… that gives us a goal to aim for, or some idea of what we think the maximum possibility of human physiology is”, or something like that. If people have been thinking that a 2 hour marathon was possible, and then Nike goes and makes everything 105% ideal and 2 hours still can’t be hit, then maybe it’s just not possible? Or maybe that just makes it all the more impressive in 10 years when some prodigy manages it?
See my post #100. Yes, it would be interesting information…EXCEPT that Nike wasn’t honest about it, and their underlying goal was advertising, not the pursuit of interesting information. Those damper my enthusiasm.
That’s the year I ran Boston, and conditions were indeed ideal. The temperatures climbed a bit higher for those of us in the back of the pack, but it was all anyone could hope for. And I did PR.
I can’t speak for the US media but over here everybody and their uncle knew all the specifics of that attempt, everybody knew well in advance that there would be pacers, new shoes, perfect conditions and that no matter what happened the world record would not be valid. If that’s the only problem you have with the attempt then I think you overstate it.
I think it was an interesting experiment, and has value in that it demonstrates that the 2 hour marathon is indeed physically possible. Even with the perfect conditions Kipchoge still had to go out and run at that pace for 2 hours and he very nearly did it, that can only lead to increased motivation for the next generation of elite runners.
I checked Wiki about marathon record criteria and there’s nothing about shoes so I assume they’re covered under IAAF rules for races in general, but I’m not understanding their ban on energy-return springs. I could understand an objection to little rocket motors or mini-solenoids but the springs’ energy are the runners’ own energy being returned to them.
Maybe it’s the same thing as that double amputee with the springy prosthetics?
But it’s already a fact he can run that fast for that long* as long as air resistance is sufficiently reduced*. It’s not speed, it’s energy expenditure and oxygen consumption.
By reducing air resistance, you get more speed for the same metabolic output. The runner has not improved his rate of oxygen (VO2max0 consumption nor has he improved his running efficiency.
He was given a technological boost.
The US press sucked in the coverage. Headlines and lead paragraphs gave the impression of a legitimate attempt.
Even the explanations of why it wasn’t legit weren’t very detailed as to why.
Perhaps a treadmill example might clarify matters? Imagine Kipchonge were barefoot on a treadmill in low-pressure conditions being fed oxygen by a mask. Would that qualify?
Air resistance isn’t a factor on a treadmill. Supplemental oxygen would absolutely disqualify the run.
Sir Roger Bannister (Yes, that Sir Roger Bannister) did experiments on supplemental oxygen.(PFDF)
Bannister ran 8:45 on a treadmill set to a 1 in 7 grade on room air.
On 100% oxygen, he ran 16:32 without reaching the breaking point.
(Table 1, pg 2 in the link)
Pacers are legal (as long as they run the entire race). New shoes are legal (as long as they meet pertinent rules about energy return). Perfect conditions are legal. None of those factors would necessarily preclude this from being a legitimate record attempt.
But the way they used the first two factors is what makes it invalid, and they weren’t up front about that in advance. But even more important, the moving windbreak disguised as a clock was an egregious cheat, and that was never reported in advance that I saw.
If their only cheat was a rotating cast of pacers, I would have been impressed even if I recognized it wasn’t a true record. But that clock fundamentally changed the race in a way that pacers do not.
Even that produced more drafting than you get in competition. It wasn’t just the rotating cast, it was the perfect formation for maximum effect you just don’t see in the real world.
The pacers in the real world are more for pacing, preventing a tactical race or, more importantly, a suicidal early pace. There usually aren’t enough for drafting, the early lead pack does that themselves. But they don’t form up around one person, they tend to move around and everyone get a turn in front.
To claim that “everybody and their uncle” knew what was really going is simply wrong.
Perhaps running enthusiasts did know some or most of what was really happening, sure. But even as an enthusiast, I did not find out until later about the giant clock mounted on the lead car. It’s obviously designed to reduce air resistance, something that Nike certainly were not up-front about. Perhaps you were not aware of that either, since you don’t mention that drafting effect in your comment, when it may have been the largest illegal element in the whole affair?
How about people who aren’t running enthusiasts? Look at this google search for “Nike Record Attempt”:
Was anyone really in doubt that a genuine 2-hour marathon record might be possible when the current world record is 2:02:57?
Was it in doubt that artificially reducing air resistance might potentially result in a 2.5% speed increase?
This attempt really told us nothing at all. It introduced some special new shoes and an artificial reduction in air resistance. We have no idea of the size of the contribution of either factor to the performance; we have no idea what the actual performance of the athlete would equate to under legal marathon conditions. In terms of power output and biomechanics, he may have run the equivalent of a 2:02 marathon or a 2:10 marathon, we really have no idea.
I’ll bite: how do we know that the ‘clock’ was sufficiently close to act as a windbreak? If it were out of range for that it might have been detrimental due to induced turbulence.
What happens if a marathon record attempt is made where one of the pacers runs 26 miles but before they can complete the last few hundred yards, they suffer some sort of catastrophic injury that prevents them from continuing. Would any record set under those conditions be therefore rendered invalid? I understand the reason for the rule and I don’t see how you can compromise on it so I assume the answer is yes.
I’m not sure we know that, but there is enough evidence that it likely had a significant impact:
There was absolutely no reason to have a clock that big on the car except to act as a wind break. You can be sure Nike tested equipment and selected this size for a reason.
When drafting 1 meter behind another runner, you feel only 7% of the air pressure compared to the lead runner. This “clock” was massively bigger than a runner and would be expected to have a much larger zone of influence.
Wind tunnel testing has shown that drafting 100 feet behind a semi going 55 mph provides a 40% reduction in drag. Obviously, we’re talking about very different speeds and a smaller profile, but it demonstrates that drafting can be effective at distance.
Nike might have the exact calculations, or maybe someone has done wind tunnel testing of a similar setup. Without that data, we’re left with what Riemann said - we don’t really know what this time would mean in a regular race, which reduces the interest factor.
I was unclear - it’s not that pacers have to run the entire race, but they must be participants in the race. That means they have to start the race with the runner, and they can’t cycle in and out. They don’t necessarily have to finish.
The pertinent section of IAAF Rule 144 on illegal assistance:
