If it walks like a duck, and it isn't a duck . . .

I know this is not a new topic, but . . .

I rode in a century this past Sunday. I'm not particularly fast; for
me my 15.5 mph average (about 6.5 hrs of riding time) was OK. On my
regular daily rides, an 18 mph average would be about the max, and
16-17 is more typical. This particular ride, Tiverton, RI, is billed
as "The flattest century in the East".

The 50 mile break area was in a paved parking lot, and I took
particular notice of the shoes people were wearing. The great
majority were click-clacking around in shoes with those enormous
protruding cleats, Look, or some other brand like that I suppose. I
was the only one I noticed wearing walk-able SPD mountain bike shoes,
although I did see a few pairs of ordinary sneakers.

I realize that a lot of these people may actually have been amateur
racers, or they may ride with clubs that typically set a faster pace
than I'm used to. Some, on the other hand, who I saw throughout the
ride, were clearly recreational riders at around my level. I assume
that these kind of pedal systems do allow some advantage in
performance. What I'm wondering is if someone has actually measured
the performance difference between systems like SPD, which allow
relatively ordinary shoes, and those which are pretty much useless off
a bike. I mean actual quantitative studies, not just opinion.

One other question, and here I am looking for opinions. Disregarding
walking, do people find the Look type shoes more comfortable, on the
bike, for long rides? Or is performance the only factor being
considered?

BTW, I did, in fact, check the rec.bicycles FAQ and Sheldon Brown's
pages first, so unless you actually *know* that I missed something . .
.. ;-)

MP

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:10:25 GMT, MP
wrote:
16-17 is more typical. This particular ride, Tiverton, RI, is billed
as "The flattest century in the East".

I'd like to do this ride. Care to duplicate it?
majority were click-clacking around in shoes with those enormous
protruding cleats, Look, or some other brand like that I suppose. I

I had SPD-R cleats like that. The Wellgo R4 pedals
they went with were, IMO, terrible. The cleats were
terrible. The shoes are OK, but they don't recess
the cleat (that's going to change soon, though; I
have Shoe Goo, epoxy, and sandals to cut up...)

was the only one I noticed wearing walk-able SPD mountain bike shoes,

I now have SPDs for my road bikes. Soon, I'd like
to have Egg Beaters.

I realize that a lot of these people may actually have been amateur
racers, or they may ride with clubs that typically set a faster pace

No, they just think that you have to have pedals
labelled "road" if you're on a road bike. Some
think it because of said label, others think it
because they want to look cool, and some believe
it makes a difference for them.

Whatever their reasons, if they're happy with
them, great for them. I prefer easy, cheap
pedals and not walking like a duck...

that these kind of pedal systems do allow some advantage in
performance. What I'm wondering is if someone has actually measured

Only in so far as:

-Minor weight savings: not much, actually;
my $20 Nashbar SPDs weigh about the same
as road pedals costing hundreds of dollars.

-Road pedals are commonly higher quality
(and more expensive, to match the quality)

-Their large area is supposed to give
better support to the foot (what difference
does that make in stiff-soled road shoes?)

-Their low profile is supposed to give more
cornering clearance and aerodynamic advantage.
This, IMO, is very, very minor.

the performance difference between systems like SPD, which allow
relatively ordinary shoes, and those which are pretty much useless off
a bike. I mean actual quantitative studies, not just opinion.

That would be great.

One other question, and here I am looking for opinions. Disregarding
walking, do people find the Look type shoes more comfortable, on the
bike, for long rides? Or is performance the only factor being
considered?

Beats me. I just got the SPD sandals, both the
ones by Shimano and the Lake ones; I'll post
reviews when I have formed opinions. They both
have the same bottom of the sole with "Shimano"
molded onto it, but differ above 1/2" elevation.

They apparently have integrated cleat-nuts, so
one must be careful to torque the cleat bolts
perfectly, else one could make the sandals
useless by stripping the cleat nuts.

BTW, I did, in fact, check the rec.bicycles FAQ and Sheldon Brown's
pages first, so unless you actually *know* that I missed something . .
. ;-)

Tell me more about your century. I'd like to
find 100 flat miles, but I live in East Greenwich.
The closest I found was Narragansett, moderately
flat and I could circle it until I get bored or
tired...

MP
--
Rick Onanian

What I'm wondering is if someone has actually measured
the performance difference between systems like SPD, which allow
relatively ordinary shoes, and those which are pretty much useless off
a bike. I mean actual quantitative studies, not just opinion.

No qualititative studies I'm aware of, but Shimano did offer SPD shoe/pedal
systems for road use, and they were pretty much despised by most pro's.

Eventually Shimano was forced to develop differerent pedal/cleat systems
more in line with the competing road pedal/cleat products.

While it is an unscientific comparision, the fact that it was in the pro's
financial interest to use the Shimano SPD product and they refused speaks
volumes.


Chris Neary


"Science, freedom, beauty, adventu what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

"MP" wrote in message
...
. I assume
that these kind of pedal systems do allow some advantage in
performance. What I'm wondering is if someone has actually measured
the performance difference between systems like SPD, which allow
relatively ordinary shoes, and those which are pretty much useless off
a bike. I mean actual quantitative studies, not just opinion.

One other question, and here I am looking for opinions. Disregarding
walking, do people find the Look type shoes more comfortable, on the
bike, for long rides? Or is performance the only factor being
considered?


You won't find any quantitative comparisons, there's no difference in
"efficiency" to measure between various pedal/cleat designs. Look cleats are
an obsolete design, still popular because, like tubular tires, their
"advantages" are supported by popular myth.

There aren't any "Look type shoes", just pedals/cleats. The monstrous Look
cleats will stiffen a too floppy sole, but no Look-type cyclist would ever buy
shoes like that in the first place. Enough people rack up enough miles in
reasonably sized cleats to demonstrate there's no need for the plastic
pontoons, unless you like asphalt skating.

My podiatrist and I agree that Look cleats give a wider platform and more
support, especially for those with problem feet.

"Peter Cole" wrote in message news:Xdj7b.294036$cF.90695@rwcrnsc53...
You won't find any quantitative comparisons, there's no difference in
"efficiency" to measure between various pedal/cleat designs. Look cleats are
an obsolete design, still popular because, like tubular tires, their
"advantages" are supported by popular myth.

Not myth, young fella, experience. I use Look pedals because they are
easier to get into than SPDs. I have used both and prefer Looks.

There aren't any "Look type shoes", just pedals/cleats. The monstrous Look
cleats will stiffen a too floppy sole, but no Look-type cyclist would ever buy
shoes like that in the first place. Enough people rack up enough miles in
reasonably sized cleats to demonstrate there's no need for the plastic
pontoons, unless you like asphalt skating.

I don't buy cycling shoes for walking. You don't have to buy $250
shoes to ride comfortably in Looks.

What I'm wondering is if someone has actually measured
the performance difference between systems like SPD, which allow
relatively ordinary shoes, and those which are pretty much useless off
a bike. I mean actual quantitative studies, not just opinion.

It's not about efficiency. The main reason for going to a non-SPD system is
to get a much more secure feeling while pedaling. The normal SPD system
(not the SPD-SL, which is kinda like a LOOK pedal) has a large amount of
mechanical slop in it, such that your foot doesn't just rotate left/right,
but flops around a bit, especially as the shoe wears. In fact, shoe wear
affects how secure the system feels, since a standard SPD pedal actually
makes contact with the bottom of the shoe when new, but, as the sole wears
down, it's no longer supported as well by the pedal.

You also lose weight going to a non-recessed design, and, regardless of what
it actually means to efficiency, lighter shoes *do* feel noticeably nicer
when pedaling, at least to me.

Some make arguments that the smaller platform of an SPD-type pedal is more
likely to give you "hotfoot" or other uncomfortable foot problems, while the
larger platform of other systems give more support. However, given a
near-infinite stiffness for the sole of the shoe, I really can't see where
it matters what the size of the interface between shoe & pedal is (and you
can get recessed-cleat spd-style shoes that have nearly as rigid a sole as a
high-end road shoe).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Dick Durbin" wrote in message
om...
"Peter Cole" wrote in message
news:Xdj7b.294036$cF.90695@rwcrnsc53...
You won't find any quantitative comparisons, there's no difference in
"efficiency" to measure between various pedal/cleat designs. Look cleats
are
an obsolete design, still popular because, like tubular tires, their
"advantages" are supported by popular myth.

Not myth, young fella, experience. I use Look pedals because they are
easier to get into than SPDs. I have used both and prefer Looks.

I ride at least once a week with a large group, most of whom (typically) wear
Look pedals. It's pretty easy to see which pedals are easy/hard to get into
from the amount of fumbling when the group gets started. Looks are notheing
special in that regard, trust me.


There aren't any "Look type shoes", just pedals/cleats. The monstrous Look
cleats will stiffen a too floppy sole, but no Look-type cyclist would ever
buy
shoes like that in the first place. Enough people rack up enough miles in
reasonably sized cleats to demonstrate there's no need for the plastic
pontoons, unless you like asphalt skating.

I don't buy cycling shoes for walking. You don't have to buy $250
shoes to ride comfortably in Looks.

Nor do you have to buy $250 shoes to ride comfortably in SPD's, many tourists
and distance cyclists ride all day in them.

Why do you need side support?

Obviously, some people don't. For myself, I prefer a connection between
cleat and shoe that's very solid. When I use my mountain bike shoes &
pedals (spd) in the winter, I simply don't like the way they feel (compared
to either LOOK or Speedplay). That's me, obviously your mileage may vary.

However, as light as the Sidi MTB shoes
are, they're still a fair amount heavier than the carbon-soled road
shoes
out there.

Got numbers?

Straight from the gram scale, moments ago-

Sidi Dominator (SPD-style), size 45 396 grams ($188.99)
Nike Ventoux (road), size 45 364 grams ($99.99)
Nike Altea (road), size 46 328 grams ($149.99)
Sidi Genius 4 (road), size 45 316 grams ($188.99)
Nike Poggio (road), size 45.5 288 grams ($179.99)
Nike Poggio II (road), size 45 282 grams ($219.99)

These weights are per shoe (not a pair). For the Sidi Genius 4, they do not
take into account the weight of the adapter plate needed for the various
pedals (except Speedplay, which mounts directly to the shoe). Frankly, I'm
surprised; I thought the Sidi Dominator was closer in weight to the
similarly-priced road bike shoes.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

Frankly, I'm
surprised; I thought the Sidi Dominator was closer in weight to the
similarly-priced road bike shoes.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com


Would it be safe to say that the extra 80 grams is all due to the sole on the
Dominator?

Robert