It also has a carbon fiber plate that runs the length of the shoe it may contribute to the improvement in running economy or exist to stabilize the über-thick midsole, or both.
The numbers make the advantage even more stark: The Nike is significantly lighter, taller, and springier than the older designs. Using data from our RW Shoe Lab measurements of the Zoom Vaporfly 4% Flyknit, we can compare the construction and energy return of the Nike against that of the Adidas and New Balance: Nike Zoom Vaporfly 4% FlyknitĮnergy return: 82.2% Adidas Adizero Adios 3 BoostĪ carbon fiber plate runs the length of the Vaporfly midsole. We can’t say for certain which design elements of the Vaporfly influence its advantage, but we can compare its construction against our two racing shoes of years past. The Adidas shoe saw the second-highest ground contact time, and my feet spent the most time on the treadmill’s belt in the New Balance-evidence of the progression in foam technology. Cadence was the comparable for all three shoes, but I spent the least amount of time on the ground in the Nike shoe. And whereas my heart rate topped out at 195 for the other two shoes, my heart rate max was just 188 while wearing the Vaporfly.
As expected, the ZoomX Vaporfly Next% registered the lowest average heart rate I held 180 beats per minute, compared to 184 bpm for the Adidas and 188 for the New Balance.
0 kommentar(er)
