How old can carbon dating go
And thus cutting that technological progression off at the outset is important.
Applying the same model to competitive situations, how do you know that Athlete X is not beating Y because of that small (or large) advance in tech?
So the first potential problem in that situation was that a better athlete comes along, and with the same technology might run 43.3s, or even faster.
Then you’d be scrambling to ban the technology, and it would very obviously be because he was too fast, and that’s all kinds of discriminatory.
The carbon fiber insert is the solution to the problem.
Now, I’m told that this version of the shoe has a different carbon fiber plate in it, and that it is not curved for its spring-properties.
I don’t think anyone can answer that question clearly, because the instruments we have are too blunt, and the outcomes (economy, performance) are too complex for them.
It’s thus impossible to give a value in response to the question “How large is the advantage? All we know is that a) there is theoretical reason to believe the advantage exists, and b) it might be significant.
), on the Nike Vaporfly Elite shoe that will be worn in Nike’s Breaking 2 attempt (and which has been worn by numerous runners before, too).”, and b) let’s face reality, he wasn’t “too fast”.Had Pistorius been running sub-44s, I dare say the interpretation of the research that DID exist would have been quite different.One of the core problems in this whole thing is that I can’t see a way to regulate a line that divides any device from being there just for some stiffness or smoothness of foot transfer, or being there to make a (possibly) large contribution to energy return, like Nike are claiming in that application.In other words, at what point would that device become “too effective” as a spring?