Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/13/2020 12:09 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/13/2020 10:49 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 10:36:32 PM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:

Frank, what you are missing is that you don’t always need to waste energy
in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power
riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would
find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it
would hurt to ride barefoot.

?? I haven't said anything in favor of riding barefoot.

- Frank Krygowski


Of course you didn’t, and probably for the same reason as the example I put
out. Even though there would be no greater energy (or power, take your
pick) losses riding barefoot, the localized areas of increased pressure on
the sole of your foot would result in a tendency to apply less force
because it would be uncomfortable to apply more. If you’ve ever run
barefoot and landed on a pebble, you notice it. So stiff soles shoes can
allow greater power transfer simply by making it more comfortable to do so
for sustained periods.

OK, that's more understandable.

I don't doubt that if a person used to have pain, hot foot, numb toes
etc. from older style equipment, that person could produce more power
with comfortable shoes.

But I and several of my friends use "touring" cycling shoes with toe
clips. I've never had any discomfort, and I've never heard those friends
complain. I don't believe we'd see any power increase by changing to
special clipless shoes. In fact, I suspect the formerly uncomfortable
guy I described above could do just as well if he found a _comfortable_
pair of shoes like I use.

Incidentally, we know a couple that are extremely avid tourists and
utility cyclists - the most dedicated in our area. They routinely spend
months at a time touring Europe or the U.S., camping all the way. They
love SPD sandals. That makes me wonder about the "efficiency" and
"pulling up" on a sandal that's firmly clipped to the pedal, but
compared to a shoe, only loosely attached to one's foot.

Of course, I think it makes negligible difference. But do clipless shoe
fans disparage clipless sandals?


Hey, I think we may be slowly converging on a statement we can both agree
on.

Is that allowed here??



Probably not, but I’m willing to give it a shot.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:22:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/12/2020 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:12:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/12/2020 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 8:52:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/12/2020 6:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:01:07 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:54:14 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2020 11:28 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 6:03:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2020 6:05 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I certainly pulled up or across the pedal when track racing, and if I pulled out, it could be catastrophic -- and thus double straps and later clipless (some racers used clipless and straps). Foot retention is important when sprinting and climbing out of the saddle. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2020.1769201

It's a shame they didn't test stiff soled cycling shoes with toe clips.
For a long time those were the default choice for avid cyclists. They're
still my choice for long rides.

But I'll point out, that paper (apparently) did not measure efficiency.
The power improvements were huge (9.7???8.7% power gain by adding toe
clips to soft shoes, and 16.6???10.2% gain with rigid shoes and
clipless). On a five percent grade, that corresponds to a very
noticeable increase in speed. If those gains were due to lack of
efficiency of soft soles, those soles must have been soaking up a hell
of a lot of power. That means they should get very hot.

We can discuss this, but I suspect a lot of the gains measured were due
to the "red bikes are faster" effect. Testers were probably
preconditioned to think toe clips help a lot, and REAL cycling shoes and
clipless are what professionals use. That's a recipe for a powerful placebo.

If not that, then what made the power difference? Where would the power
have been previously lost? We should be able to talk about that in detail.

And shoes can make a big difference. I remember going from Detto, Vittoria or Italia (they all blended together) bicycling/bowling shoes of yore with little steel stiffeners and nail on cleats to Duegis with wood soles and bolt-on plastic cleats. https://www.classicsteelbikes.com/wp...-1-600x400.jpg That was huge -- like going from Michelin 50s to Vittoria CGs (I never rode silks). That was probably the single biggest component improvement I ever had.

Again, we should be able to analyze the exact source of the improvement.
The shoes are not a source of power; they are a simple device for
transmitting power from your foot to the pedal.

I don't doubt that some changes allow better biomechanics and thus
better power output. But it's hard for me to see how shoes do that.


A couple of things: (1) your ankle is not a spring, dropping as the sole flexes. Old cycling shoes were really like bowling shoes and not very stiff. (2) Deeper, more secure cleats -- for better or worse. It was not a subtle change for me at all. Others agree: http://stevetilford.com/2016/05/26/cycling-shoes-2/ YMMV.

I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And
I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain
riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to
_technical_ discussion about power transfer:

Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe
clips. Unfortunately it didn't.

And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from
commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata
Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff
as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for
power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff.

Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a
high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten
pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on
the pedal?

Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place
the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's
the force on that pedal?

The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds.

It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint?

Rather than trying thought experiments, go and try a pair of stiff shoes in a clipless pedal system. Actually experience the modern world before making grand pronouncement about how nothing makes a difference. And BTW, "pulling up" is not a myth -- as anyone who has pulled out in track sprint can tell you. I almost pulled out of my left shoe last night humping up a hill and had to reach down and cinch up the ratchet -- or if I were you, stop and retie my shoe.

-- Jay Beattie.


If there is a substantial loss of power through "flexing the sole" why
aren't runners wearing hard soled shoes? My guess is that an Olympic
class sprinter is applying at least as much, and possibly more, force
against the ground than a cyclist applies against the pedals. Abebe
Bikila of Ethiopia won an Olympic gold medal in a world-record
2:15:16.2 running barefooted in 1960.

Further to the above, Usain Bolt in breaking the world 100m record
developed a maximum of 2619.5 watts after only 0.89 seconds of the
race.

Not wearing hard soled shoes :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.


Then again Roger Bannister and runners of his era and before
ran in 'running flats', thin very light leather shoes with
leather soles.

And there's been the recent trend of barefoot running.

It may well be that, just like flat or engaged pedals,
humans adapt well to many variants. Crank length seems to be
similar as there aren't objective performance differences
despite rider perception.

Indeed, we're probably the most adaptable animal species ever.

- Frank Krygowski

Perhaps because we aren't "specialized".

A lion can run incredibly fast, about 50 MPH,for a short distance.
Because that is how he gets supper, (actually she gets supper) but
can't climb trees. A Monkey isn't very fast on the flat but scurries
up trees quickly. A human is slower then a lion in a sprint and can't
climb trees as well as the monkey but can do both.

meh.
'We have the Maxim and they have not.'

By "maxim" I assume that you mean Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim's invention
rather than the synonym for "axiom".
--
Cheers,

John B.


It's a quotation and yes it's capitalized.

:-) Ah yes, the complete quotation is,
"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not. "

And did apparently apply to Sir Hiram's invention.

I suppose in modern terms it would read something like "And, we got
more atom bombs then they do" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

IJohn B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And
I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain
riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to
_technical_ discussion about power transfer:

Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe
clips. Unfortunately it didn't.

And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from
commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata
Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff
as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for
power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff.

Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a
high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten
pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on
the pedal?

Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place
the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's
the force on that pedal?

The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds.

It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not
transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal
interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a
climb or a sprint?

"It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg
saying that about a legal issue.

To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and
"energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are
related but not identical; all are used colloquially.)

So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy
lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied
and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance
of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I
hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe
structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable
by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office
shoes never seemed to get hot!


Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy
in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power
riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would
find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it
would hurt to ride barefoot.


I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle
barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate
New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still...
--
Cheers,

John B.



I’m sure we’ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or
another. The question is “Were you at the head of the peloton while doing
so?”


Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few
who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 8/13/2020 5:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:22:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/12/2020 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:12:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/12/2020 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 8:52:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/12/2020 6:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:01:07 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:54:14 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2020 11:28 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 6:03:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2020 6:05 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I certainly pulled up or across the pedal when track racing, and if I pulled out, it could be catastrophic -- and thus double straps and later clipless (some racers used clipless and straps). Foot retention is important when sprinting and climbing out of the saddle. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2020.1769201

It's a shame they didn't test stiff soled cycling shoes with toe clips.
For a long time those were the default choice for avid cyclists. They're
still my choice for long rides.

But I'll point out, that paper (apparently) did not measure efficiency.
The power improvements were huge (9.7???8.7% power gain by adding toe
clips to soft shoes, and 16.6???10.2% gain with rigid shoes and
clipless). On a five percent grade, that corresponds to a very
noticeable increase in speed. If those gains were due to lack of
efficiency of soft soles, those soles must have been soaking up a hell
of a lot of power. That means they should get very hot.

We can discuss this, but I suspect a lot of the gains measured were due
to the "red bikes are faster" effect. Testers were probably
preconditioned to think toe clips help a lot, and REAL cycling shoes and
clipless are what professionals use. That's a recipe for a powerful placebo.

If not that, then what made the power difference? Where would the power
have been previously lost? We should be able to talk about that in detail.

And shoes can make a big difference. I remember going from Detto, Vittoria or Italia (they all blended together) bicycling/bowling shoes of yore with little steel stiffeners and nail on cleats to Duegis with wood soles and bolt-on plastic cleats. https://www.classicsteelbikes.com/wp...-1-600x400.jpg That was huge -- like going from Michelin 50s to Vittoria CGs (I never rode silks). That was probably the single biggest component improvement I ever had.

Again, we should be able to analyze the exact source of the improvement.
The shoes are not a source of power; they are a simple device for
transmitting power from your foot to the pedal.

I don't doubt that some changes allow better biomechanics and thus
better power output. But it's hard for me to see how shoes do that.


A couple of things: (1) your ankle is not a spring, dropping as the sole flexes. Old cycling shoes were really like bowling shoes and not very stiff. (2) Deeper, more secure cleats -- for better or worse. It was not a subtle change for me at all. Others agree: http://stevetilford.com/2016/05/26/cycling-shoes-2/ YMMV.

I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And
I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain
riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to
_technical_ discussion about power transfer:

Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe
clips. Unfortunately it didn't.

And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from
commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata
Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff
as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for
power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff.

Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a
high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten
pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on
the pedal?

Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place
the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's
the force on that pedal?

The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds.

It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint?

Rather than trying thought experiments, go and try a pair of stiff shoes in a clipless pedal system. Actually experience the modern world before making grand pronouncement about how nothing makes a difference. And BTW, "pulling up" is not a myth -- as anyone who has pulled out in track sprint can tell you. I almost pulled out of my left shoe last night humping up a hill and had to reach down and cinch up the ratchet -- or if I were you, stop and retie my shoe.

-- Jay Beattie.


If there is a substantial loss of power through "flexing the sole" why
aren't runners wearing hard soled shoes? My guess is that an Olympic
class sprinter is applying at least as much, and possibly more, force
against the ground than a cyclist applies against the pedals. Abebe
Bikila of Ethiopia won an Olympic gold medal in a world-record
2:15:16.2 running barefooted in 1960.

Further to the above, Usain Bolt in breaking the world 100m record
developed a maximum of 2619.5 watts after only 0.89 seconds of the
race.

Not wearing hard soled shoes :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.


Then again Roger Bannister and runners of his era and before
ran in 'running flats', thin very light leather shoes with
leather soles.

And there's been the recent trend of barefoot running.

It may well be that, just like flat or engaged pedals,
humans adapt well to many variants. Crank length seems to be
similar as there aren't objective performance differences
despite rider perception.

Indeed, we're probably the most adaptable animal species ever.

- Frank Krygowski

Perhaps because we aren't "specialized".

A lion can run incredibly fast, about 50 MPH,for a short distance.
Because that is how he gets supper, (actually she gets supper) but
can't climb trees. A Monkey isn't very fast on the flat but scurries
up trees quickly. A human is slower then a lion in a sprint and can't
climb trees as well as the monkey but can do both.

meh.
'We have the Maxim and they have not.'

By "maxim" I assume that you mean Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim's invention
rather than the synonym for "axiom".
--
Cheers,

John B.


It's a quotation and yes it's capitalized.

:-) Ah yes, the complete quotation is,
"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not. "

And did apparently apply to Sir Hiram's invention.

I suppose in modern terms it would read something like "And, we got
more atom bombs then they do" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.


Back to your point, yes monkeys climb trees better and a
lion's sprint is formidable, but we became the dominant
species for a different set of features and adaptability is
high among them.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 19:16:34 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Back to your point, yes monkeys climb trees better and a lion's sprint
is formidable, but we became the dominant species for a different set of
features and adaptability is high among them.

Hmm, sounds perfectly plausible until you have to deal with 'the monkeys'
working on an 'IT Hhelp Desk'.

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 19:16:34 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/13/2020 5:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:22:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/12/2020 9:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:12:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/12/2020 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 8:52:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/12/2020 6:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:01:07 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:54:14 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2020 11:28 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 6:03:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2020 6:05 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I certainly pulled up or across the pedal when track racing, and if I pulled out, it could be catastrophic -- and thus double straps and later clipless (some racers used clipless and straps). Foot retention is important when sprinting and climbing out of the saddle. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2020.1769201

It's a shame they didn't test stiff soled cycling shoes with toe clips.
For a long time those were the default choice for avid cyclists. They're
still my choice for long rides.

But I'll point out, that paper (apparently) did not measure efficiency.
The power improvements were huge (9.7???8.7% power gain by adding toe
clips to soft shoes, and 16.6???10.2% gain with rigid shoes and
clipless). On a five percent grade, that corresponds to a very
noticeable increase in speed. If those gains were due to lack of
efficiency of soft soles, those soles must have been soaking up a hell
of a lot of power. That means they should get very hot.

We can discuss this, but I suspect a lot of the gains measured were due
to the "red bikes are faster" effect. Testers were probably
preconditioned to think toe clips help a lot, and REAL cycling shoes and
clipless are what professionals use. That's a recipe for a powerful placebo.

If not that, then what made the power difference? Where would the power
have been previously lost? We should be able to talk about that in detail.

And shoes can make a big difference. I remember going from Detto, Vittoria or Italia (they all blended together) bicycling/bowling shoes of yore with little steel stiffeners and nail on cleats to Duegis with wood soles and bolt-on plastic cleats. https://www.classicsteelbikes.com/wp...-1-600x400.jpg That was huge -- like going from Michelin 50s to Vittoria CGs (I never rode silks). That was probably the single biggest component improvement I ever had.

Again, we should be able to analyze the exact source of the improvement.
The shoes are not a source of power; they are a simple device for
transmitting power from your foot to the pedal.

I don't doubt that some changes allow better biomechanics and thus
better power output. But it's hard for me to see how shoes do that.


A couple of things: (1) your ankle is not a spring, dropping as the sole flexes. Old cycling shoes were really like bowling shoes and not very stiff. (2) Deeper, more secure cleats -- for better or worse. It was not a subtle change for me at all. Others agree: http://stevetilford.com/2016/05/26/cycling-shoes-2/ YMMV.

I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And
I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain
riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to
_technical_ discussion about power transfer:

Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe
clips. Unfortunately it didn't.

And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from
commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata
Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff
as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for
power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff.

Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a
high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten
pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on
the pedal?

Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place
the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's
the force on that pedal?

The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds.

It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint?

Rather than trying thought experiments, go and try a pair of stiff shoes in a clipless pedal system. Actually experience the modern world before making grand pronouncement about how nothing makes a difference. And BTW, "pulling up" is not a myth -- as anyone who has pulled out in track sprint can tell you. I almost pulled out of my left shoe last night humping up a hill and had to reach down and cinch up the ratchet -- or if I were you, stop and retie my shoe.

-- Jay Beattie.


If there is a substantial loss of power through "flexing the sole" why
aren't runners wearing hard soled shoes? My guess is that an Olympic
class sprinter is applying at least as much, and possibly more, force
against the ground than a cyclist applies against the pedals. Abebe
Bikila of Ethiopia won an Olympic gold medal in a world-record
2:15:16.2 running barefooted in 1960.

Further to the above, Usain Bolt in breaking the world 100m record
developed a maximum of 2619.5 watts after only 0.89 seconds of the
race.

Not wearing hard soled shoes :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.


Then again Roger Bannister and runners of his era and before
ran in 'running flats', thin very light leather shoes with
leather soles.

And there's been the recent trend of barefoot running.

It may well be that, just like flat or engaged pedals,
humans adapt well to many variants. Crank length seems to be
similar as there aren't objective performance differences
despite rider perception.

Indeed, we're probably the most adaptable animal species ever.

- Frank Krygowski

Perhaps because we aren't "specialized".

A lion can run incredibly fast, about 50 MPH,for a short distance.
Because that is how he gets supper, (actually she gets supper) but
can't climb trees. A Monkey isn't very fast on the flat but scurries
up trees quickly. A human is slower then a lion in a sprint and can't
climb trees as well as the monkey but can do both.

meh.
'We have the Maxim and they have not.'

By "maxim" I assume that you mean Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim's invention
rather than the synonym for "axiom".
--
Cheers,

John B.


It's a quotation and yes it's capitalized.

:-) Ah yes, the complete quotation is,
"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not. "

And did apparently apply to Sir Hiram's invention.

I suppose in modern terms it would read something like "And, we got
more atom bombs then they do" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.


Back to your point, yes monkeys climb trees better and a
lion's sprint is formidable, but we became the dominant
species for a different set of features and adaptability is
high among them.

Adaptability? In what manner? Mankind doesn't adapt, in any real
sense, to outside events, they simply learn to live in those
circumstances.

..... or perhaps I'm wrong. A day or so ago I researched the *average*
weight of the USian female and discovered that the average weight is
170.6 pounds and the average height is 5'4".

Apparently the average USian IS adapting to McDonalds :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

IJohn B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And
I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain
riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to
_technical_ discussion about power transfer:

Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe
clips. Unfortunately it didn't.

And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from
commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata
Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff
as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for
power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff.

Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a
high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten
pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on
the pedal?

Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place
the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's
the force on that pedal?

The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds.

It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not
transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal
interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a
climb or a sprint?

"It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg
saying that about a legal issue.

To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and
"energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are
related but not identical; all are used colloquially.)

So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy
lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied
and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance
of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I
hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe
structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable
by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office
shoes never seemed to get hot!


Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy
in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power
riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would
find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it
would hurt to ride barefoot.


I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle
barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate
New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still...
--
Cheers,

John B.



IÂ’m sure weÂ’ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or
another. The question is “Were you at the head of the peloton while doing
so?”


Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few
who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John, I’m not sure how you manage to find the time to purposely
misunderstand everything that other people say. Retirement must be nice.

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 01:02:54 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

IJohn B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And
I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain
riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to
_technical_ discussion about power transfer:

Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe
clips. Unfortunately it didn't.

And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from
commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata
Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff
as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for
power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff.

Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a
high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten
pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on
the pedal?

Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place
the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's
the force on that pedal?

The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds.

It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not
transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal
interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a
climb or a sprint?

"It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg
saying that about a legal issue.

To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and
"energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are
related but not identical; all are used colloquially.)

So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy
lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied
and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance
of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I
hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe
structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable
by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office
shoes never seemed to get hot!


Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy
in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power
riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would
find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it
would hurt to ride barefoot.


I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle
barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate
New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still...
--
Cheers,

John B.



I?m sure we?ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or
another. The question is ?Were you at the head of the peloton while doing
so??


Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few
who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John, I’m not sure how you manage to find the time to purposely
misunderstand everything that other people say. Retirement must be nice.

How so? You ask "Were you at the head of the peloton while doing
so?" apparently referring to my comment about riding barefooted as a
youth.

I reply that I hadn't realized that were talking about those few
capable of riding at the head of the peloton.

And I misunderstood?

I might add that I grew up in a small village in New Hampshire where,
probably, half the population spoke, or at least understood, French
and I never heard of a "peloton" while growing up.

--
Cheers,

John B.

Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

IJohn B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And
I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain
riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to
_technical_ discussion about power transfer:

Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe
clips. Unfortunately it didn't.

And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from
commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata
Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff
as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for
power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff.

Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a
high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten
pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on
the pedal?

Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place
the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's
the force on that pedal?

The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds.

It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not
transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal
interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a
climb or a sprint?

"It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg
saying that about a legal issue.

To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and
"energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are
related but not identical; all are used colloquially.)

So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy
lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied
and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance
of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I
hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe
structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable
by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office
shoes never seemed to get hot!


Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy
in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power
riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would
find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it
would hurt to ride barefoot.


I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle
barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate
New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still...
--
Cheers,

John B.



IÂ’m sure weÂ’ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or
another. The question is “Were you at the head of the peloton while doing
so?”


Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few
who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John, I’m not sure how you manage to find the time to purposely
misunderstand everything that other people say. Retirement must be nice.



+1

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 01:02:54 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

IJohn B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And
I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain
riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to
_technical_ discussion about power transfer:

Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe
clips. Unfortunately it didn't.

And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from
commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata
Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff
as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for
power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff.

Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a
high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten
pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on
the pedal?

Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place
the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's
the force on that pedal?

The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds.

It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not
transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal
interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a
climb or a sprint?

"It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg
saying that about a legal issue.

To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and
"energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are
related but not identical; all are used colloquially.)

So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy
lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied
and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance
of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I
hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe
structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable
by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office
shoes never seemed to get hot!


Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy
in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power
riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would
find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it
would hurt to ride barefoot.


I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle
barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate
New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still...
--
Cheers,

John B.



I?m sure we?ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or
another. The question is ?Were you at the head of the peloton while doing
so??


Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few
who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John, IÂ’m not sure how you manage to find the time to purposely
misunderstand everything that other people say. Retirement must be nice.

How so? You ask "Were you at the head of the peloton while doing
so?" apparently referring to my comment about riding barefooted as a
youth.

I reply that I hadn't realized that were talking about those few
capable of riding at the head of the peloton.

And I misunderstood?

I might add that I grew up in a small village in New Hampshire where,
probably, half the population spoke, or at least understood, French
and I never heard of a "peloton" while growing up.

--
Cheers,

John B.

I’m fairly certain that you understood my original comment perfectly well
and are just yanking my chain because there’s nothing better for you to do
today, but what the hell, let me explain.

The discussion was on the topic of whether stiffer shoes and clips
translated into higher power at the cranks. Remember that, because the rest
of the conversation depends on that context. Frank was saying that he
didn’t believe it and I was arguing that a stiffer sole meant that you
could put more pressure on the pedal without discomfort, and to make the
point easier to visualize, I made the extreme example of riding barefoot.
You then chimed in about riding barefoot in the halcyon days of your youth.
At that point, I replied, still within the context of whether a stiffer
shoe could result in higher power at the crank, that essentially anybody
could pootle along barefoot on a bike, but the effect I was hypothesizing
would only be noticeable at extreme efforts, therefore unless you were at
the head of the peloton, your barefoot bicycling experience was of no
significance to the conversation.

PS: you may not have known the word peloton when you were a shoeless youth,
but you damn well know it now, so whether or not you ever heard the word
peloton in your youth is again, immaterial to the discussion.

This cantankerous man will now do something other than argue with random
people on the internet.