I've read a study recently about the increase in running economy with carbon plated high stack shoes. It turns out that efficient runners with higher cadence, lower stride rate and low vertical oscillation do not benefit much from such shoes (at least for shorter distances, at which these shoes were tested). Add the instability from the ZoomX in the genuine Vaporfly, as you are accustomed to running in racing flats and your efficiency can possibly turn out lower than in the fake one. I think that you have to adapt to the genuine one and will see some improvement then. Usually runners in "super" shoes have a lower cadence and increase their stride length more than cadence at faster paces. This is the opposite to running in racing flats. And the fake one is a scary good copy.
I was looking for some fake Vaporfly Next 3 in Jakarta a couple days ago. Tbh, it's really hard to tell the difference (aside from missing carbon platings) and they're super light like the originals. For about 15-20% of the price of the genuines (only about 30-ish USD), they're about as good as the non-carbon Hokas and Vaporflys.
The Vaporfly Next% provide both greater efficiency than do non- carbon plated shoes AND the ZoomX foam provides reduced leg fatigue over a full marathon distance, thus decreasing form breakdown during the final few kms in the marathon. This reduction of leg fatigue just doesn’t come into play during your treadmill 5km test. Assuming the fake and actual Vaporfly’s weigh exactly the same, perhaps it is the firmer insole of the fake which provides greater energy return on the treadmill deck than does the more cushioned insole of the genuine shoe. Were you to repeat the test over a full marathon distance, I suspect you would get a very different result. You might also want repeat to the test on a non-cushioned, slat-based treadmill in order to better replicate a road surface.
Oh, interesting result! The one you got have real carbon plate inside with EVA foam vs OG with zoomx foam. Though eva foam is definitely not bad foam, mediocre at best ( ummm Hoka?? ), i do think that geometry of the plate inside + shoe shape helps a lot, at least in short distance compared to other fake one without plate inside it! But thanks for review anyway, very insightful! I do think that you will be noticing ZoomX magic more when running on asphalt roads or pavement road instead of treadmill with soft landing on it, but still good EVA foam is still a thing and can be seen still in many "premium" shoes...
I think I found myself on the same boat, I got a pair out of eBay, and then one from Nike and the ones from nike feel stiffer, but also to be fair he has 2 completely different shoes, Next% vs Next%2
seriously??? hahaha , good job Jon for those information! You're not going to believe this, but I got mine for only $30.00, the fake one chinese made, and my red tone color (genuine original) was a sale of $200.00 from a NIKE boutique mall. What really disturbs me was the weight itself. Your right, they're almost the same . Interesting right?
@@GrilledChickenRamyun i bought originals... Nike pegasus trail 4 really cushiony but I don't like it coz I use it for astro turf and hockey....if for trails it's really good
Two things: There is a version of fake next% in Qingdao China which have the real bottom but a fake top,I think you got one of these; The Fake one is a Next% 1.0 Version and the real one in your video is 2.0 Version,I'm sure that will make some diffrence
Yes that's correct I agree with you. Although form what I am aware the differences between version 1 and 2 is very much just the upper and so performance should be very very similar.
@@JonathanJScottFilms Version 2 is about 5% or more heavier then Version 1 so....seeing lots of testing of the 1 and 2 in China and the result is 1 is always better when considering speed(efficiency).
Is it me or those "fake ones" do look exactly like Vaporfly next% v1? I might be wrong, but it seems that you're comparing v2 against it's predecessor - v1. Of course, let me know if I'm wrong :)
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
I've read a study recently about the increase in running economy with carbon plated high stack shoes. It turns out that efficient runners with higher cadence, lower stride rate and low vertical oscillation do not benefit much from such shoes (at least for shorter distances, at which these shoes were tested). Add the instability from the ZoomX in the genuine Vaporfly, as you are accustomed to running in racing flats and your efficiency can possibly turn out lower than in the fake one. I think that you have to adapt to the genuine one and will see some improvement then. Usually runners in "super" shoes have a lower cadence and increase their stride length more than cadence at faster paces. This is the opposite to running in racing flats.
And the fake one is a scary good copy.
Thanks for the insightful comment, very interesting and makes a lot of sense.
Have you cut them open yet to see what's inside?
@@richc8095 not yet, still have a lot of life in them.
Hello you say “higher cadence, lower stride rate” is cadence and stride rate not the same thing? Thank you.
I was looking for some fake Vaporfly Next 3 in Jakarta a couple days ago. Tbh, it's really hard to tell the difference (aside from missing carbon platings) and they're super light like the originals. For about 15-20% of the price of the genuines (only about 30-ish USD), they're about as good as the non-carbon Hokas and Vaporflys.
The Vaporfly Next% provide both greater efficiency than do non- carbon plated shoes AND the ZoomX foam provides reduced leg fatigue over a full marathon distance, thus decreasing form breakdown during the final few kms in the marathon. This reduction of leg fatigue just doesn’t come into play during your treadmill 5km test. Assuming the fake and actual Vaporfly’s weigh exactly the same, perhaps it is the firmer insole of the fake which provides greater energy return on the treadmill deck than does the more cushioned insole of the genuine shoe. Were you to repeat the test over a full marathon distance, I suspect you would get a very different result. You might also want repeat to the test on a non-cushioned, slat-based treadmill in order to better replicate a road surface.
Thanks for your input Terry, really interesting stuff.
I was skeptical of your fake vaporfly first but when i also compared the bottom swoosh with my pink VFN, yes yours are scarily fake indeed.
Is there any chance that fake Vaporfly's without that magic carbon plate is better than any budged running shoes?
doesn't matter fake or original.. it's all about your strength and fitness..
Oh, interesting result! The one you got have real carbon plate inside with EVA foam vs OG with zoomx foam. Though eva foam is definitely not bad foam, mediocre at best ( ummm Hoka?? ), i do think that geometry of the plate inside + shoe shape helps a lot, at least in short distance compared to other fake one without plate inside it! But thanks for review anyway, very insightful!
I do think that you will be noticing ZoomX magic more when running on asphalt roads or pavement road instead of treadmill with soft landing on it, but still good EVA foam is still a thing and can be seen still in many "premium" shoes...
Thanks for the input 👍
Have you opened them eventually?
great vid. what factor do you get for your old racing flats?
It was along time ago but like I said in the video, the old race flats were about 3% slower for the same heart rate so about 5secs/km slower.
I think I found myself on the same boat, I got a pair out of eBay, and then one from Nike and the ones from nike feel stiffer, but also to be fair he has 2 completely different shoes, Next% vs Next%2
seriously??? hahaha , good job Jon for those information! You're not going to believe this, but I got mine for only $30.00, the fake one chinese made, and my red tone color (genuine original) was a sale of $200.00 from a NIKE boutique mall. What really disturbs me was the weight itself. Your right, they're almost the same . Interesting right?
best analysis so far
Thanks, glad you liked it
Im gonna try to buy a fake Nike trails to see if it's good! nice video!
Any updatez?
@@GrilledChickenRamyun i bought originals... Nike pegasus trail 4 really cushiony but I don't like it coz I use it for astro turf and hockey....if for trails it's really good
Two things:
There is a version of fake next% in Qingdao China which have the real bottom but a fake top,I think you got one of these;
The Fake one is a Next% 1.0 Version and the real one in your video is 2.0 Version,I'm sure that will make some diffrence
Yes that's correct I agree with you. Although form what I am aware the differences between version 1 and 2 is very much just the upper and so performance should be very very similar.
@@JonathanJScottFilms Version 2 is about 5% or more heavier then Version 1 so....seeing lots of testing of the 1 and 2 in China and the result is 1 is always better when considering speed(efficiency).
@@玉自寒-b7l interesting to know, thanks for your input 👍
Is it me or those "fake ones" do look exactly like Vaporfly next% v1? I might be wrong, but it seems that you're comparing v2 against it's predecessor - v1.
Of course, let me know if I'm wrong :)
Yes they are v1s but they are 100% fake and not made with ZoomX foam.
What's the weight of genuine and fake?
195-200g for both
@@JonathanJScottFilms there's not much difference 😏
@@cb3dartist245 I do mention this in the video but no there isn't, they are practically the same in terms of weight
They are sample trainers. So not exactly a fake
Sample trainers?
@@JonathanJScottFilmshe meant a replica in simple term
How much u buy the fake nike
About €50
Can I ask you a question, how can you buy that fake, in what link
As I said in the video they were bought from an individual seller on eBay just selling that pair.