Problem is that with price there is not only increase in stiffness but shoes are better looking, lighter, better quality materials etc... If you want softer shoe you compromise on everything else. I hope companies starts to make premium shoes with comfort in mind now that people are going more for comfort over speed (wider tires, tubeless, endurance/gravel bikes).
Can't say I'm surprised by the results. Finding a shoe which fits you must make more of a difference. Have a pair of mavics for winter, fizik r4 for summer. There's never been a notable power difference, only a comfort and 'feel'. The fiziks are a bit lighter and more secure, so they feel nicer on hard efforts - but that's all there is to it!
I think the results are questionable as you do not measure the power input (before the shoe) in comparison with the power output (after the shoe). I think this is not even possible. In other words: you are just measuring the power output, but you can not verify if you need to pedal stronger with the softer sole for achieving the same power output.
For me, the predominant purpose of a stiff sole has always been comfort - particularly on MTB pedals. The stiffer the sole, the more evenly weight is distributed across the sole and less likely the pedal itself is to create a pressure point. I've had some MTB shoes with not so stiff nylon soles and I could literally feel the pedal on the bottom of my shoe from the small metal SPD cleat creating a hot spot. Switching to a stiffer sole instantly resolved discomfort.
For a couple of hours or so, no issues with less stiff soles but once I’m out for longer rides I need them stiffer otherwise my feet start to hurt. This is on Shimano no cage SPD’s.
@@br5380 Yup. That era of clipless MTB pedals really made it noticeable, like the 959 pedals, Time ATAC, Ritcheys, all the unbranded Wellgo pedals, original Eggbeaters, etc. A stiff sole was a godsend for those tiny pedals, especially those of us with huge feet (Euro 48). I remember doing a 12 hour race with the original Eggbeaters and a pair of Sidi's with nylon soles because of sponsor requirements...I was pretty much in tears by the end from metatarsal pain, couldn't ride for a few days after. Eventually switched to carbon soled Shimano shoes and never looked back. I think even the o.g. Shimano road clipless pedals helped push for stiff soles (the steel cleat SPD style version before the SPD-SL), because it was noticeable on road too.
Did you have any similar problems with road bike clickless system? I had a similar experience. Had a bike trip for several days (MTB SPD) and after that my one food had a numbness feeling for a few months. I switched to road bike shoes and also got personalized soles, but I still have problems and I am thinking right now if upgrading to a carbon shoe would finally solve it.
Why are you talking about MTB SPD shoes when the video is about SPD-SL? Even in cheapest shimano shoes i never felt cleat under my ball of foot and i did 600W sprints.
Tried lots of shoes and in the end there's 3 brands I use, sidi wire, Mavic and Shimano sphyre. A proper fit and a good insole makes a huge difference. A good upper and fastening is as important if not the most important component. Cleat is very important too
There is an element that has not been considered and is the degrading stiffness of fiberglass soles on the softer shoes. The fact is that when new fiberglass soled shoes feel really good and I agree that the power output will be similar to carbon stiff ones. But with time and use the softer shoes become too flexy and they lose their initial characteristics. Carbon ones will stay the same and deliver the power as when they were new. Overall after few months of use the carbon ones will keep going strong and the softer ones will become even softer.
This is why I trust Bikeradar. The same is true for stiffer frames, the energy that is ‘lost’ in frame flex is returned at the bottom of the pedal stroke.
You forget that some energy is lost during the flex as heat, but really, it's likely very negligible so you can assume the energy is effectively is returned.
Are you referring to the gcn video? Yeah the power was returned clockwise on the right side, but then it’s going to counter clockwise on the left side , opposite of the crank rotation, canceling that out. They didn’t get into that.
I've had shoes that were not stiff enough though. They may not have effected my power but they sure gave me hot spots after a few hours of riding. I bought a nice pair of upper mid-range shoes and never had a problem again. My current shoes are very stiff and top end. The only difference I notice is that I feel everything through the shoes on the high end while the mid-range is more muted. The mid-range are actually more comfortable except on the hottest days. The higher end have better air flow. They are the same brand.
I’ve come to prefer not-so-stiff shoes. They feel more comfortable on longer rides. The older I get, the more I realize all the money I could have saved in my 20s and early 30s =/
All that proves the efficacy of the marketing power of the cycling industry! I had read the article you talk about it the video, and came to the conclusion that I was right to opt for a good, comfortable, reasonably stiff but not the stiffest shoe. It’s more comfortable, it costs less, and it changes nothing on your power, peak or sustained. And if somebody still insists that he or she is better with a stiffest shoe, it’s because he or she buys that marketing hype instead of listening to science.
@@jeansebastienroy5456 I've found the stuffer se shoes tend to been better featured in the uppers and adjustments on certain brands. You can have super stuff soles but it means very little if your insole is low grade or you float is extreme.
@@glennoc8585 I am not talking about bad fitting entry level shoe. My actual shoe is Specialized Torch 3.0 and it’s a perfect fit, comfortable, and stiff, but not as much as the SWorks…
As a heavy rider, I always choose stiffer shoes to help eliminate hot spots I used to get with more flexibl non-carbon (original sidi genius) soles. I wish they would have accounted for that in the testing as well.
I expected this result. I have top of the range, mid range and entry level shoes. Mid range are my favorites but you do get a difference from jumping up from entry level shoes. Marketing hype revealed. Great job 👏🏾
If the cleat is over the ball of the foot or pretty close, there can be no effect from the sole construction from the pedal rearwards because there's no force transmission in that area, you could remove this section of sole and it would make no difference. The situation gets more interesting as you move the cleat rearwards, when you get to mid foot the sole stiffness will have more influence but it would have to be stiff enough to stop the sole collapsing and that's probably stiff enough.
The study confirms what many Audax, Randonnuers have understood anecdotally. Stiff soles do not provide a meaningful performance advantage but instead transmit road vibration into the foot sole, especially over rougher asphalt (common for North American Rando events). Many of us prefer less stiff soles b/c they transmit less vibration, reduce foot fatigue and discomfort.
Absolutely. I had the stiffest possible shoes, custom built, with custom orthotics. They are super light, crazy stiff, fit like a glove, and are miserable after a few hours. My older touring shoes are stiff enough to distribute pressure from the cleat, and still comfy after most of a day. I think that the bike industry hypes stiffness beyond all reason because it's easy to advertise. I mean, even Contador eventually said the new bikes were too stiff, and that was 3 years of stiffness increases before some makers started to change their minds even a bit. But here we are, with 99% of reviewers still emphasizing that the newest model is 12% stiffer than the one that was 8% stiffer than the one that was 15% stiffer than...
Very much agree with you. I change from entry level nylon sole to carbon reinforced sole. Immediately noticed the vibration issue. Though it feels better when climbing, less hot spot occurence, feet feels more stable on pedal. It took me like a month (300 km) to adapt to the new shoes.
Stiffness matters up to the point at which one's power can no longer flex the outsole significantly. Adding additional stiffness provides no benefit (all other things being equal). Imagine a shaft that that can resist 500 newton meters before it yields. Designing a different shaft that can resist 1000 newton meters doesn't mean much unless more than 500 newton meters of force are applied. Therefore, I think the question becomes where is the balance point with respect to certain wattages. Perhaps there should be different outsoles designed for people of different strength. However, I think the test methodology is flawed because it's measuring power at the pedal, after power has already been transferred through the outsole. Therefore, any power lost through the flexing of the outsole isn't measured, i.e. the total power required to generate the equivalent wattage using an outsole that doesn't flex. I'm not sure how you'd design the test, but I think you'd want one strain gauge in the outsole itself, upstream, and a second strain gauge downstream, in the pedal or crankarm, etc.
In the first test the limeting factor is his fitness and what's "left" gets sent to the pedal. In the second test his hearth rate is the control. I dont see the problem? (At least the one you are reffering to)
If the results of the sprint runs were significantly different in terms of fatigue, you might have a point re: losses between foot and cleat. Since the presenter was going all-out on all six efforts and the power results were consistent... I don't think what you describe is happening. Same for the steady state - if the shoes had a significantly different efficiency in transmitting power, the heart rate would not be the same. (BTW - Nm indicates torque/momentum, not force; N is a unit of force)
There isn't such a threshold when it comes to material deflection i.e. flex. A stiffer shoe just flexes less than a less stiff shoe at all foot forces / power outputs. It then becomes a matter of hysteresis in the shoe material i.e. how much energy is lost when the shoe flexes back? Based on the shoes in the studies, it appears there's no significant difference
I tried the beautiful Bontrager XXX shoes and nearly destroyed my feet and ankles. I definitely learned my lesson. I bought those shoes because they look great, the stiffest available and great Boa dials the micro adjust both directions. The road vibrations were painful and caused numbness in my heels. No padding around the heel cups cause nerve damage and closed a nerve tunnel. set me back a few weeks. Since then I went back to basic shoes with more heel cup padding and medium stiff rating 🤷
I know it's anecdotal, but I've tried both of Specialized's Torch 3.0 and Sworks7. There was a significant difference in felt stiffness, which translated into a more secure fit and power transfer. I do believe there's a point of diminishing returns.
Thanks for your comment - I definitely agree it's possible to feel the difference in stiffness between low/mid-range cycling shoes and high-end ones. I'm a big fan of Bont shoes and I always assumed it made a difference, but the study (and my testing) seems to suggest it doesn't actually matter when it comes to power transfer or efficiency. It might be like how very high tyre pressures can feel fast, but actually they slow you down - feel isn't always a good indicator for these things. Cheers for watching! Simon ✌️
What I can’t understand is why all reviews on Bike Radar are lumped into the “Road shoe” category. There should be a tremendous difference in shoes used for racing versus shoes used for endurance efforts. Why can’t we get a best of list for each category?
Good video. I'd like to see you repeat this experiment with a wider gap between the tested shoes' stiffness ratings. Going the SPD route might open this testing up. I've tried Shimano MTB shoes rated 3/12 for stiffness and they were noticeably less comfortable at the 100 km mark than stuff rated higher.
Simon here - FWIW, I also find stiffer cycling shoes more comfortable over longer rides, so that is definitely something worth considering too. If you get a chance to read the original article I based this test on, you can see the study we cite actually does test a more entry-level shoe, like you describe, and the results were the same - it doesn't appear to make any significant difference to sprinting power (within the limited scope of the study, of course); www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/ Cheers for watching! Simon ✌️
@@bikeradar FWIW as well, in the hunt for greater comfort, I've contrasted those softer Shimanos to S-Works 6 XCs, which are about as stiff as a MTB shoe could get. The S-Works 6 XCs had downsides of their own (great on the bike, terrible to walk around in), so I went with a Fizik Terra Powerstrap X4. They're rated 7/12 by Fizik, so not directly comparable, but from experience they're similar to Shimano's "RT"/"road touring" shoe lineup which sit about 5-6/12 on their stiffness scale. I bolstered the Fiziks with Solestar x Ergon IP3 insoles to add just that little bit of long-ride stiffness, and that did the job. I now alternate between these two pairs depending on what kind of riding I have in store. Cheers.
Really good video piece this, the Rc702 are the obvious compromise here, also worth noting that each company has their own stiffness chart/ratio wether for example its 12 for shimano or 15 for northwave which makes you wonder if any of them can be accurate
J’ai eu plusieurs chaussures,des Northwave et des Ares sworks la vraie différence était les points de compression et le maintien,les Ares sont vraiment bien en maintient et on a l’impression de faire corp avec la chaussure même sur de gros sprints. Pour ce qui est des performances ça ne change rien mais c’est plus agréable,on ne devrait pas communiquer sur la rigidité de la semelle mais le confort et le maintien qui apportes plus de plaisir .
Shoe stiffness makes cycling more comfortable for me. I hated those bendy MTB shoes which killed my feet. But part of the improvement could be that the stiffer shoes also lock in better
Carbon soles are about lower stack, not better power transfer. The closer the rider’s foot is to the pedal axle, the more stable the foot will be, assuming it’s supported properly by the shape of the last and insole. So, the relative torsional stiffness of a carbon sole versus a fiberglass/carbon blend sole when tested by hand is just byproduct of the material choice, as that thin plate of carbon has to be made to be very stiff torsionally, otherwise it would just break under the torque of the rider’s pedaling force. Also, lower stack means you can run your saddle and in turn your handlebars lower, resulting in a lower rider center of gravity and less frontal area. And then there’s weight…. Just ge that shoes that fit the best, as that trumps everything by a lot.
I ride with 180 cranks and either 75 or 80 1X rings' - carbon stiff soles tend to either break or pull off the uppers. I moved to road and away from SPD/MtB cleats as the small metal backing plate just pulled through the soles on these. Plastic lasts longer, carbon just splinters - no noticeable difference between the power transfer 👍
I personally dont like the feeling of a wet noodle for a cycling shoe. I’ll take my Bonts any day of the week, heat mouldable and one of the wider option shoes on the market.
You don't really need the cleats either apparently. At least two independant studies I know of have shown that no one is really pulling up on the back stroke. Riders un-weight the trailing leg but they're not pulling up because it's an unnatural movement. It seems the brain is wired for push-push and not push-pull. When riders were asked to consciously pull up on the back stroke they all said they felt they were putting out more power (because they were working harder) but the instrumentation showed a drop in power. Clipless shoes for roadies are mostly a fashion statement to show that you are a "serious" cyclist
Interesting and I do believe the results. BUT have you thought about shoes stiffness wearing. After 5000km, I’m pretty sure the RC5 will be much more flexible.
I think it's quite intuitive: If more flexible soles were less efficient, they would experience plastic (permanent) deformation get noticeably warm. In truth, when you spend energy by bending a shoe, the shoe returns most of that energy by bending back.
no not really the problem is, that flexy parts would be compressed when power is applied and extend back into shape when the other foot pushes on the pedal. this way, the extension of the flexible part is not translated into usable power. Thus you only waste energy.
Love your test. I was cynical that after alleged 90 testers in the study , you would disprove all 90 of em .And expensive stiff shoes win. Thanks for being objective. Marketing of shoes to average riders should be cost effective, cost efficient but a good fitted shoe is more the point with all weather benefits. Margins made on massed produced high end goods means it pays for media marketed platforms to push a product that brain washes the brand savvy fops into spending £300 just to convince them they do go faster but i look cooler than unbranded , very talented paupers out there.
In the 90th I had Look Shoes with Look-Cleats. The sole was as soft as a running shoe (more comfort for walking). It was a pain in the arse to ride this shoes. The sole was to soft and you feel where the Cleat is seated. To my Opinion, you need stiffness, but not highend stiffness. Today i ride reasonable prised Sidi shoes.
I may be misunderstanding the setup of this experiment. But if we're only measuring power output on the bike once the force has been transferred, then how would we know how much of it was wasted in the transfer process due to different stiffness of the interface (shoe;) There's probably a point at which sole stiffness no longer makes a difference. A soft MTB shoe would certainly make power transfer less efficient. But in the realm of stiff road shoes, the variance in shoe performance isn't that significant.
Hi Wojciech, the idea is that if more power is lost to flex, the average/peak power recorded at the pedal/crank should, in theory, be lower - and vice versa, of course. It's well worth reading the original article and study if you get time - it's a really interesting topic; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/
With Stiffness = Force / Displacement, makes me wonder whether the negligible difference in power transfer observed when the input power is the same is because a less stiff shoe will ‘waste’ the same energy as a stiffer one, but through a greater range of displacement (flex).
I went from cheap Shimano plastic soled shoe to a Lake MX332 carbon sole. Both fit me very well. However the Lake is much more comfortable over distance as it stabilises the foot. The trouble with scientific studies is that the results don't apply to everyone. It is all personal preference.
The question is what were the expectations? Comparing good stiff shoes to very good stiff shoes I would not expect much difference, maybe about 1% or less. But this 1% or 0.1% can be important for competitive cyclist and still almost impossible to measure at the street with 6 attempts. Nevertheless, expensive shoes look cool, feel cool and just lift my mood. To measure the difference you should have started fron slippers to chinese wobbly cycling shoes to shimano. Then difference would be pretty big.
I think what the study is saying, the difference in stiffness from 8-12 is negligible. And is more about marketing and having the consumer pay a premium. Convincing them to pay for features they don not need. Painting the perception that full carbon sole is infinitely superior to a carbon composite. It would be good to get a light weight shoe in medium stiff sole at a reasonable price. Weight saving, comfort and affordable.
Hi Daniel, thanks for your comment - the scientists who performed the original study pretty much did just that (and the results were the same!), so it's definitely worth checking out our article on it; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/ Thanks for watching! Simon ✌️
Weight is not mentioned much with shoes... that is more important than the marginal stiffness. I'd take a lighter shoe any day over a stiffer shoe, and if it's cheaper it's a huge bonus. If you ride a lot I'd be interested in knowing if post ride sore feet have any relation to stiff soles...
I bought some aliexpress bont style shoes and they are great. I prefer carbon because they stay stiff over the years. No need to buy a new pair every year or so unless you can't stand the stench.
Assuming the cleats are mounted under the ball of the foot and there is not much force acting in front of the ball of the foot. How is it even possible to bend the sole? The pedal will always rotate.
Does this mean stiffness doesn’t matter at all, or just that there’s no measurable difference between stiff and very stiff? In other words, like wearing running shoes?
In my opinion the sprint test is irrelevant, the rc502 is a mid-range shoe and a 900 watt sprint is a mid-range power output. Would like to see this test done with someone who can reach closer to 2000 watts to really put the shoes stiffnes to test.
You save my money bro, this is the great video, i go with slightly stiff shoes than fully carbon stiffest shoes it cost a lot!! Save your money and get midrange shoes
I own 30 quid retail rockrider cheapness for commuting and i own 100 quid retail shimano cross country shoes with a SSI of 5 the rockriders i can almost bend like a trainer and the shimanos are miles stiffer i can definitely feel a difference in connection to the bike
Hi Henrik, I agree it's easy to feel the difference - the RC502 shoes are noticeably flexy and (as someone who loves Bont cycling shoes), I don't like it one bit haha... BUT according to this study and the (admittedly limited) testing I've done, it doesn't seem to make much difference to efficiency or sprint power. Worth reading the original article and study if you get a chance - it's made me have a serious rethink of how I evaluate cycling shoes; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/ Cheers for watching! Simon 🥳`🤝
Strange measurement periods: who of us finds 50 meter sprints important? Who rides in 5 minute intervals? I hope there will be a study on this for real life purposes, like 1 hour rides at least with two-three types of shoes.
I have no idea where my shoes sit on that scale but there’s little to no bend in them. I have some damage to my left foot so a stiff shoe protects it… I can’t put much load through that foot in a flexed position unsupported without pain (e.g. I can’t stand on tip toes) so I’d always choose the stiffer shoe
It has never made sense to me: your own foot is not stiff, the foot attachment to the shoe itself is not stiff (unless you screw it down), so what's the point of marginal extra stiffness?
Annoyingly, the S-Phyre is a super comfortable shoe for me. I never thought they made me faster or more efficient, but my dumb feet don’t cramp when using them. They’d batter last a long time.
I have found that a better end product in a cycling shoe is obtained by purchasing a mid-tier shoe and take the money saved and invest in a high quality shoe insert. The inserts that come with even the most expensive cycling shoes are often pieces of Doo Doo 💩. A quality insert can make a substantial difference in comfort. My inserts of choice are Sole Actives. But, of course, there are other quality options.
On SPD, definitely the stiffer the better, the soles of my feet can even get sore after 150km in less stiff shoes. I don't necessarily need carbon, a pretty stiff plastic one will do.
I think the RC502's are more 105 level (there's an RC702 which is Ultegra level) - and really we used these two pairs because those are what we had access to! It's worth checking out the original article and study, as that did compare low-end soles to high-end soles - in a double blind experiment, with many more participants; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/ Simon
Carbon souls seem 100% neccessary for comfort over long rides. Cheap cycling shoes would always have my feet aching after 60+ mile rides. Then after upgrading to some nicer cycling shoes with carbon souls I've never felt the same level of discomfort.
Hi WIll, personally, I'm with you on that - I also find stiffer cycling shoes more comfortable. That said, we know not everyone agrees with that, so it's good to know it doesn't seem to matter much either way in terms of power output! Cheers for watching. Simon 👏
For a pro like Van Aert, who... god knows what his 50m sprint power would be, I'm assuming a bit more than Simon's here in the video - but he's probably at the level where it matters and where he might be getting a carbon sole to flex a bit. For the rest of us who aren't punching out four-figure wattage, we're not overwhelming the capability of a mid-level Shimano shoe let alone a high-end one. They're all going to be a good platform to put power through compared to a sneaker - remember how revelatory your first ride in cycling shoes was compared to sneakers?? So it's just down to personal preference and what you're sensitive to after that.
It's not all about numbers I've been there done that with flexing shoes it gave my feet hell especially out of the seat I love my 902s best shoe's I've owned..
Can we agree that these is a difference between a stiff sole and a stiff upper? I believe a stiffer upper is better for sprinting but COMFORT is the most important thing for everyday cyclists.
I have plastic and carbon shoes, I can tell the difference if I think about it, but I notice no real stiffness difference if I’m not thinking about it. You just know when stiffness comes in a number without units it’s not meaningful.
I can tell the difference with my super stiff shoes but I put it down to better quality upper and inner soles on the stiff shoes. My best times are on my 7/12 stiffness shoes.
It does matter stiffness matter on cleats shoes because the stiffer the outsole the better and you don't feel pain while pedaling or sprinting well plastic nylon polyester outsole is 50%stiffer than carbon tho and durable than carbon
These shoes work with the Peloton bike+ (April 2022), th-cam.com/users/postUgkxGPkov2mNjgZfG33r6Bwvies8jKE4AKZB and are of good enough quality. I have completed 10 rides so far and there are no issues. The first time trying to fit them on the Peloton bike took 10 minutes (even with the help of an experienced cyclist friend who wears the same type of cleats). It took a couple of rides to break in. After the first two rides there were no issues at all.
Thanks for the confirmation. I am wearing RC5 , aliexpress bibs jersey set and on alloy bike. Still dropped most fancy riders in Sworks/ sphyre shoes, PNS/ Rapha set on SWorks bike. 🤐
Hi Simon, I notice your cleats look a long way back - is that a conscious decision to place them behind the conventional ‘ball of foot over pedal axle’ wisdom? Could this influence your results as you have reduced the effective length of the lever between ankle and pedal axle?
Yes, the pedal spindle should land between the first and fifth metatarsals of your foot. This doesn't affect the effective length as it should be dependent on your foot, not the shoe. My EU40 Torch 2.0 (wide fit) were set up in a similar manner because strictly speaking, my shoes are too long for my foot, even when I picked the wide fit counterpart (my feet are both wide and short, like a duck's). My perfect size would've been EU38.5/39 on a different brand and model, like fi'zi:k's Vento Infinito Carbon 2 Wide.
Hey Mark, yeah - It's definitely a conscious decision. I basically run my cleats as far back as I can (within the constraints of having them in the same position across the (too) many pairs of cycling shoes I have - first world problem, I know). I started doing it years ago, after reading Steve Hogg's advice on the subject; www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/04/power-to-the-pedal-cleat-position/ Personally, I think there are a lot of benefits to more rearward cleats, especially for those doing TT's (including lower saddle height = more aero, which Steve Hogg doesn't mention 😉). Worth checking it out! I think the whole "ball of the foot over pedal axle" thing is a bit of myth. It may be a fair starting point, but it's also not a rule - it's a bit like "knee over pedal spindle". Probably won't be massively wrong for anyone, but likely isn't optimal either. Personally, I don't think this would influence the results here, though - the cleats were in the same place across each shoe, so each shoe had a fair run. Reducing the length of the lever between the ankle and the pedal just means I don't need to recruit my lower leg muscles to stabilise my foot during pedalling as much. If you watch me pedalling in slow-mo, I've noticed I don't ankle much at all, which can possibly be attributed to my cleat positioning - I'm pretty sure it helps my efficiency. Cheers for watching! Simon
Lachlan Moreton managed the entire TdF route plus transfers, days before the actual race got to Solaris in a pair of flip flops…. I don’t think stiffness was the thing there….
We learned absolutely nothing because you didn't force statistically significant enough variation. 3rd type of shoe, much softer one, would gave some kind of reference point. Maybe even trail shoe for MTBing
Hi Drogos, thanks for your comment. I'm well aware my testing has limitations compared to the original study, so it's well worth reading the original article and study if you're interested in finding out more; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/ Cheers for watching! Simon ✌️
I wonder what the results would be with a bigger heavier rider with large feet up a steep climb, comparing nylon soles to carbon fiber. I think if the larger forces and leverage at play don't show any measurable difference again, maybe it would be worth it to try one more time with a rubber sole to see if stiffness matters at all.
Playing a bit the roll of devil's advocate....don't stiffer more expensive shoes also shed some weight from their lower priced cousins? Maybe that isn't going to show up in a 5 second test, or a 5 minute test....but hours into a ride there will be efficiencies gained from wearing lighter shoes.
Need to take the human out of the equation to mean anything. I’d think running a mechanical foot at a set watt and then measuring the wattage somewhere on the bike, ideally close to the shoe, would be better. Then swap the shoes and compare. Repeat at different input watts and compare.
What do you think? Are you still going to buy stiffer cycling shoes anyway? Or do you think it's a waste of money? Let us know in the comments!
Problem is that with price there is not only increase in stiffness but shoes are better looking, lighter, better quality materials etc... If you want softer shoe you compromise on everything else. I hope companies starts to make premium shoes with comfort in mind now that people are going more for comfort over speed (wider tires, tubeless, endurance/gravel bikes).
@@Flexo_l Perhaps this is what we'll start seeing in the future. Thanks for watching our video!
Can't say I'm surprised by the results. Finding a shoe which fits you must make more of a difference.
Have a pair of mavics for winter, fizik r4 for summer. There's never been a notable power difference, only a comfort and 'feel'. The fiziks are a bit lighter and more secure, so they feel nicer on hard efforts - but that's all there is to it!
I think the results are questionable as you do not measure the power input (before the shoe) in comparison with the power output (after the shoe). I think this is not even possible.
In other words: you are just measuring the power output, but you can not verify if you need to pedal stronger with the softer sole for achieving the same power output.
I don’t go for stiff but, I do go for light and they usually accompany each other.
The stiffer shoes do significantly lighten the wallet, that's one key advantage for hill climbs.
For me, the predominant purpose of a stiff sole has always been comfort - particularly on MTB pedals. The stiffer the sole, the more evenly weight is distributed across the sole and less likely the pedal itself is to create a pressure point. I've had some MTB shoes with not so stiff nylon soles and I could literally feel the pedal on the bottom of my shoe from the small metal SPD cleat creating a hot spot. Switching to a stiffer sole instantly resolved discomfort.
For a couple of hours or so, no issues with less stiff soles but once I’m out for longer rides I need them stiffer otherwise my feet start to hurt. This is on Shimano no cage SPD’s.
@@br5380 Yup. That era of clipless MTB pedals really made it noticeable, like the 959 pedals, Time ATAC, Ritcheys, all the unbranded Wellgo pedals, original Eggbeaters, etc. A stiff sole was a godsend for those tiny pedals, especially those of us with huge feet (Euro 48). I remember doing a 12 hour race with the original Eggbeaters and a pair of Sidi's with nylon soles because of sponsor requirements...I was pretty much in tears by the end from metatarsal pain, couldn't ride for a few days after. Eventually switched to carbon soled Shimano shoes and never looked back. I think even the o.g. Shimano road clipless pedals helped push for stiff soles (the steel cleat SPD style version before the SPD-SL), because it was noticeable on road too.
Did you have any similar problems with road bike clickless system? I had a similar experience. Had a bike trip for several days (MTB SPD) and after that my one food had a numbness feeling for a few months. I switched to road bike shoes and also got personalized soles, but I still have problems and I am thinking right now if upgrading to a carbon shoe would finally solve it.
Why are you talking about MTB SPD shoes when the video is about SPD-SL? Even in cheapest shimano shoes i never felt cleat under my ball of foot and i did 600W sprints.
Tried lots of shoes and in the end there's 3 brands I use, sidi wire, Mavic and Shimano sphyre. A proper fit and a good insole makes a huge difference. A good upper and fastening is as important if not the most important component. Cleat is very important too
Hi Glenn, thanks for watching - I 100% agree fit, and how well the shoes hold your foot are absolutely crucial. Cheers, Simon 🤝
A good fitting shoe is much more beneficial than a stiff sole. And for me, I'd pick a slightly softer sole anyway, purely for less road vibrations.
There is an element that has not been considered and is the degrading stiffness of fiberglass soles on the softer shoes. The fact is that when new fiberglass soled shoes feel really good and I agree that the power output will be similar to carbon stiff ones. But with time and use the softer shoes become too flexy and they lose their initial characteristics. Carbon ones will stay the same and deliver the power as when they were new. Overall after few months of use the carbon ones will keep going strong and the softer ones will become even softer.
I'm shopping for new shoes and my concern is about degrading stiffness and power output stability over time
This is why I trust Bikeradar.
The same is true for stiffer frames, the energy that is ‘lost’ in frame flex is returned at the bottom of the pedal stroke.
You forget that some energy is lost during the flex as heat, but really, it's likely very negligible so you can assume the energy is effectively is returned.
Not sure how that is measured though.
Are you referring to the gcn video? Yeah the power was returned clockwise on the right side, but then it’s going to counter clockwise on the left side , opposite of the crank rotation, canceling that out. They didn’t get into that.
I've had shoes that were not stiff enough though. They may not have effected my power but they sure gave me hot spots after a few hours of riding. I bought a nice pair of upper mid-range shoes and never had a problem again. My current shoes are very stiff and top end. The only difference I notice is that I feel everything through the shoes on the high end while the mid-range is more muted. The mid-range are actually more comfortable except on the hottest days. The higher end have better air flow. They are the same brand.
I agree, stiff soles were always about comfort to distribute the load and avoid feeling the pedal through the sole.
I’ve come to prefer not-so-stiff shoes. They feel more comfortable on longer rides. The older I get, the more I realize all the money I could have saved in my 20s and early 30s =/
All that proves the efficacy of the marketing power of the cycling industry!
I had read the article you talk about it the video, and came to the conclusion that I was right to opt for a good, comfortable, reasonably stiff but not the stiffest shoe. It’s more comfortable, it costs less, and it changes nothing on your power, peak or sustained. And if somebody still insists that he or she is better with a stiffest shoe, it’s because he or she buys that marketing hype instead of listening to science.
I'd tour or audax on a less stuff sole shoe. My MTB shoes are quite a flexible sole now that previous shoes.
@@jeansebastienroy5456 I've found the stuffer se shoes tend to been better featured in the uppers and adjustments on certain brands. You can have super stuff soles but it means very little if your insole is low grade or you float is extreme.
@@glennoc8585 I am not talking about bad fitting entry level shoe. My actual shoe is Specialized Torch 3.0 and it’s a perfect fit, comfortable, and stiff, but not as much as the SWorks…
@@jeansebastienroy5456 I have both and prefer the torch as my daily shoes. The recon is very stiff, you can tell after a 5 hr ride.
As a heavy rider, I always choose stiffer shoes to help eliminate hot spots I used to get with more flexibl non-carbon (original sidi genius) soles. I wish they would have accounted for that in the testing as well.
I expected this result. I have top of the range, mid range and entry level shoes. Mid range are my favorites but you do get a difference from jumping up from entry level shoes. Marketing hype revealed. Great job 👏🏾
If the cleat is over the ball of the foot or pretty close, there can be no effect from the sole construction from the pedal rearwards because there's no force transmission in that area, you could remove this section of sole and it would make no difference. The situation gets more interesting as you move the cleat rearwards, when you get to mid foot the sole stiffness will have more influence but it would have to be stiff enough to stop the sole collapsing and that's probably stiff enough.
The study confirms what many Audax, Randonnuers have understood anecdotally. Stiff soles do not provide a meaningful performance advantage but instead transmit road vibration into the foot sole, especially over rougher asphalt (common for North American Rando events). Many of us prefer less stiff soles b/c they transmit less vibration, reduce foot fatigue and discomfort.
I'd wear my more flexible shoes in a long ride, audax or touring
Absolutely. I had the stiffest possible shoes, custom built, with custom orthotics. They are super light, crazy stiff, fit like a glove, and are miserable after a few hours. My older touring shoes are stiff enough to distribute pressure from the cleat, and still comfy after most of a day. I think that the bike industry hypes stiffness beyond all reason because it's easy to advertise. I mean, even Contador eventually said the new bikes were too stiff, and that was 3 years of stiffness increases before some makers started to change their minds even a bit. But here we are, with 99% of reviewers still emphasizing that the newest model is 12% stiffer than the one that was 8% stiffer than the one that was 15% stiffer than...
Very much agree with you. I change from entry level nylon sole to carbon reinforced sole. Immediately noticed the vibration issue. Though it feels better when climbing, less hot spot occurence, feet feels more stable on pedal. It took me like a month (300 km) to adapt to the new shoes.
Stiffness matters up to the point at which one's power can no longer flex the outsole significantly. Adding additional stiffness provides no benefit (all other things being equal). Imagine a shaft that that can resist 500 newton meters before it yields. Designing a different shaft that can resist 1000 newton meters doesn't mean much unless more than 500 newton meters of force are applied.
Therefore, I think the question becomes where is the balance point with respect to certain wattages. Perhaps there should be different outsoles designed for people of different strength.
However, I think the test methodology is flawed because it's measuring power at the pedal, after power has already been transferred through the outsole. Therefore, any power lost through the flexing of the outsole isn't measured, i.e. the total power required to generate the equivalent wattage using an outsole that doesn't flex. I'm not sure how you'd design the test, but I think you'd want one strain gauge in the outsole itself, upstream, and a second strain gauge downstream, in the pedal or crankarm, etc.
That's it in a nutshell.
In the first test the limeting factor is his fitness and what's "left" gets sent to the pedal.
In the second test his hearth rate is the control.
I dont see the problem?
(At least the one you are reffering to)
If the results of the sprint runs were significantly different in terms of fatigue, you might have a point re: losses between foot and cleat. Since the presenter was going all-out on all six efforts and the power results were consistent... I don't think what you describe is happening. Same for the steady state - if the shoes had a significantly different efficiency in transmitting power, the heart rate would not be the same.
(BTW - Nm indicates torque/momentum, not force; N is a unit of force)
There isn't such a threshold when it comes to material deflection i.e. flex. A stiffer shoe just flexes less than a less stiff shoe at all foot forces / power outputs. It then becomes a matter of hysteresis in the shoe material i.e. how much energy is lost when the shoe flexes back? Based on the shoes in the studies, it appears there's no significant difference
I tried the beautiful Bontrager XXX shoes and nearly destroyed my feet and ankles. I definitely learned my lesson.
I bought those shoes because they look great, the stiffest available and great Boa dials the micro adjust both directions.
The road vibrations were painful and caused numbness in my heels. No padding around the heel cups cause nerve damage and closed a nerve tunnel. set me back a few weeks.
Since then I went back to basic shoes with more heel cup padding and medium stiff rating 🤷
I know it's anecdotal, but I've tried both of Specialized's Torch 3.0 and Sworks7. There was a significant difference in felt stiffness, which translated into a more secure fit and power transfer. I do believe there's a point of diminishing returns.
Thanks for your comment - I definitely agree it's possible to feel the difference in stiffness between low/mid-range cycling shoes and high-end ones. I'm a big fan of Bont shoes and I always assumed it made a difference, but the study (and my testing) seems to suggest it doesn't actually matter when it comes to power transfer or efficiency.
It might be like how very high tyre pressures can feel fast, but actually they slow you down - feel isn't always a good indicator for these things.
Cheers for watching! Simon ✌️
What I can’t understand is why all reviews on Bike Radar are lumped into the “Road shoe” category. There should be a tremendous difference in shoes used for racing versus shoes used for endurance efforts. Why can’t we get a best of list for each category?
Good video. I'd like to see you repeat this experiment with a wider gap between the tested shoes' stiffness ratings. Going the SPD route might open this testing up. I've tried Shimano MTB shoes rated 3/12 for stiffness and they were noticeably less comfortable at the 100 km mark than stuff rated higher.
Simon here - FWIW, I also find stiffer cycling shoes more comfortable over longer rides, so that is definitely something worth considering too.
If you get a chance to read the original article I based this test on, you can see the study we cite actually does test a more entry-level shoe, like you describe, and the results were the same - it doesn't appear to make any significant difference to sprinting power (within the limited scope of the study, of course); www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/
Cheers for watching! Simon ✌️
true, on longer rides soft soled shoe hurts my foot begging for a more stiffer shoe
@@bikeradar FWIW as well, in the hunt for greater comfort, I've contrasted those softer Shimanos to S-Works 6 XCs, which are about as stiff as a MTB shoe could get.
The S-Works 6 XCs had downsides of their own (great on the bike, terrible to walk around in), so I went with a Fizik Terra Powerstrap X4. They're rated 7/12 by Fizik, so not directly comparable, but from experience they're similar to Shimano's "RT"/"road touring" shoe lineup which sit about 5-6/12 on their stiffness scale.
I bolstered the Fiziks with Solestar x Ergon IP3 insoles to add just that little bit of long-ride stiffness, and that did the job. I now alternate between these two pairs depending on what kind of riding I have in store. Cheers.
Really good video piece this, the Rc702 are the obvious compromise here, also worth noting that each company has their own stiffness chart/ratio wether for example its 12 for shimano or 15 for northwave which makes you wonder if any of them can be accurate
J’ai eu plusieurs chaussures,des Northwave et des Ares sworks la vraie différence était les points de compression et le maintien,les Ares sont vraiment bien en maintient et on a l’impression de faire corp avec la chaussure même sur de gros sprints. Pour ce qui est des performances ça ne change rien mais c’est plus agréable,on ne devrait pas communiquer sur la rigidité de la semelle mais le confort et le maintien qui apportes plus de plaisir .
Shoe stiffness makes cycling more comfortable for me. I hated those bendy MTB shoes which killed my feet. But part of the improvement could be that the stiffer shoes also lock in better
Carbon soles are about lower stack, not better power transfer. The closer the rider’s foot is to the pedal axle, the more stable the foot will be, assuming it’s supported properly by the shape of the last and insole. So, the relative torsional stiffness of a carbon sole versus a fiberglass/carbon blend sole when tested by hand is just byproduct of the material choice, as that thin plate of carbon has to be made to be very stiff torsionally, otherwise it would just break under the torque of the rider’s pedaling force. Also, lower stack means you can run your saddle and in turn your handlebars lower, resulting in a lower rider center of gravity and less frontal area. And then there’s weight…. Just ge that shoes that fit the best, as that trumps everything by a lot.
I ride with 180 cranks and either 75 or 80 1X rings' - carbon stiff soles tend to either break or pull off the uppers. I moved to road and away from SPD/MtB cleats as the small metal backing plate just pulled through the soles on these. Plastic lasts longer, carbon just splinters - no noticeable difference between the power transfer 👍
I personally dont like the feeling of a wet noodle for a cycling shoe. I’ll take my Bonts any day of the week, heat mouldable and one of the wider option shoes on the market.
You don't really need the cleats either apparently. At least two independant studies I know of have shown that no one is really pulling up on the back stroke. Riders un-weight the trailing leg but they're not pulling up because it's an unnatural movement. It seems the brain is wired for push-push and not push-pull. When riders were asked to consciously pull up on the back stroke they all said they felt they were putting out more power (because they were working harder) but the instrumentation showed a drop in power. Clipless shoes for roadies are mostly a fashion statement to show that you are a "serious" cyclist
PS Don't show up for your next club run in 5-10's and pinned flats or you may be severely beaten,hehe.
You had Vector pedals and had left/right power data, but didn't ride with a mismatched pair as a part of the testing?
Interesting and I do believe the results. BUT have you thought about shoes stiffness wearing. After 5000km, I’m pretty sure the RC5 will be much more flexible.
I think it's quite intuitive: If more flexible soles were less efficient, they would experience plastic (permanent) deformation get noticeably warm. In truth, when you spend energy by bending a shoe, the shoe returns most of that energy by bending back.
no not really the problem is, that flexy parts would be compressed when power is applied and extend back into shape when the other foot pushes on the pedal. this way, the extension of the flexible part is not translated into usable power. Thus you only waste energy.
Now I'm curious if there are any efficiency difference between SPD-SL and SPD.
Love your test. I was cynical that after alleged 90 testers in the study , you would disprove all 90 of em .And expensive stiff shoes win. Thanks for being objective. Marketing of shoes to average riders should be cost effective, cost efficient but a good fitted shoe is more the point with all weather benefits.
Margins made on massed produced high end goods means it pays for media marketed platforms to push a product that brain washes the brand savvy fops into spending £300 just to convince them they do go faster but i look cooler than unbranded , very talented paupers out there.
In the 90th I had Look Shoes with Look-Cleats. The sole was as soft as a running shoe (more comfort for walking). It was a pain in the arse to ride this shoes. The sole was to soft and you feel where the Cleat is seated. To my Opinion, you need stiffness, but not highend stiffness. Today i ride reasonable prised Sidi shoes.
I may be misunderstanding the setup of this experiment. But if we're only measuring power output on the bike once the force has been transferred, then how would we know how much of it was wasted in the transfer process due to different stiffness of the interface (shoe;)
There's probably a point at which sole stiffness no longer makes a difference. A soft MTB shoe would certainly make power transfer less efficient. But in the realm of stiff road shoes, the variance in shoe performance isn't that significant.
Hi Wojciech, the idea is that if more power is lost to flex, the average/peak power recorded at the pedal/crank should, in theory, be lower - and vice versa, of course.
It's well worth reading the original article and study if you get time - it's a really interesting topic; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/
With Stiffness = Force / Displacement, makes me wonder whether the negligible difference in power transfer observed when the input power is the same is because a less stiff shoe will ‘waste’ the same energy as a stiffer one, but through a greater range of displacement (flex).
I went from cheap Shimano plastic soled shoe to a Lake MX332 carbon sole. Both fit me very well. However the Lake is much more comfortable over distance as it stabilises the foot. The trouble with scientific studies is that the results don't apply to everyone. It is all personal preference.
Thank you for being fair and honest . ❤
I think to measure the power saving, you need to build a hysteresis curve graph for the flexing.
The question is what were the expectations? Comparing good stiff shoes to very good stiff shoes I would not expect much difference, maybe about 1% or less. But this 1% or 0.1% can be important for competitive cyclist and still almost impossible to measure at the street with 6 attempts.
Nevertheless, expensive shoes look cool, feel cool and just lift my mood.
To measure the difference you should have started fron slippers to chinese wobbly cycling shoes to shimano. Then difference would be pretty big.
I think what the study is saying, the difference in stiffness from 8-12 is negligible. And is more about marketing and having the consumer pay a premium. Convincing them to pay for features they don not need. Painting the perception that full carbon sole is infinitely superior to a carbon composite.
It would be good to get a light weight shoe in medium stiff sole at a reasonable price. Weight saving, comfort and affordable.
Did they do a test on non-cycling shoes vs cycling shoes?
Would love to see the same tests for an entry level shoe vs mid/top level shoe
Hi Daniel, thanks for your comment - the scientists who performed the original study pretty much did just that (and the results were the same!), so it's definitely worth checking out our article on it; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/
Thanks for watching! Simon ✌️
Weight is not mentioned much with shoes... that is more important than the marginal stiffness. I'd take a lighter shoe any day over a stiffer shoe, and if it's cheaper it's a huge bonus. If you ride a lot I'd be interested in knowing if post ride sore feet have any relation to stiff soles...
I like the higher end shoe because you get better materials, closure system and workmanship. The stiff sole is a plus.
I bought some aliexpress bont style shoes and they are great. I prefer carbon because they stay stiff over the years. No need to buy a new pair every year or so unless you can't stand the stench.
It would have been interesting to see of there was any difference in the pedal dynamics between the shoes since power meter pedals were used.
Assuming the cleats are mounted under the ball of the foot and there is not much force acting in front of the ball of the foot. How is it even possible to bend the sole? The pedal will always rotate.
Does this mean stiffness doesn’t matter at all, or just that there’s no measurable difference between stiff and very stiff? In other words, like wearing running shoes?
In my opinion the sprint test is irrelevant, the rc502 is a mid-range shoe and a 900 watt sprint is a mid-range power output. Would like to see this test done with someone who can reach closer to 2000 watts to really put the shoes stiffnes to test.
You save my money bro, this is the great video, i go with slightly stiff shoes than fully carbon stiffest shoes it cost a lot!! Save your money and get midrange shoes
I own 30 quid retail rockrider cheapness for commuting and i own 100 quid retail shimano cross country shoes with a SSI of 5 the rockriders i can almost bend like a trainer and the shimanos are miles stiffer i can definitely feel a difference in connection to the bike
the difference in comfort going from an aldi's finest to a pair Bont shoes was an experience .so stiffness matters to a point .
I will always prefer stiff carbon cyclingshoes. When sprinting it's easy to feel a cheap shoe flexing under the foot.
Hi Henrik, I agree it's easy to feel the difference - the RC502 shoes are noticeably flexy and (as someone who loves Bont cycling shoes), I don't like it one bit haha... BUT according to this study and the (admittedly limited) testing I've done, it doesn't seem to make much difference to efficiency or sprint power.
Worth reading the original article and study if you get a chance - it's made me have a serious rethink of how I evaluate cycling shoes; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/
Cheers for watching! Simon 🥳`🤝
You don't buy cycling shoes for power, you buy them to make a fashion statement. Everything else just helps rationalize the price!!
Have a Shimano RC7 for shitty conditions and a S-WORKS Ares for good ones. Can't tell the difference tbh (but in terms of comfort, I definitely can)
Strange measurement periods: who of us finds 50 meter sprints important? Who rides in 5 minute intervals?
I hope there will be a study on this for real life purposes, like 1 hour rides at least with two-three types of shoes.
I have no idea where my shoes sit on that scale but there’s little to no bend in them. I have some damage to my left foot so a stiff shoe protects it… I can’t put much load through that foot in a flexed position unsupported without pain (e.g. I can’t stand on tip toes) so I’d always choose the stiffer shoe
That's interesting, cycling shoes are so individual! Thanks for your comment!
how about a test of say sneakers (good fitting ones) or casual shoes to stiff shoes
Stiff sole kinda easier to pedal since it's kinda support the foot.
It has never made sense to me: your own foot is not stiff, the foot attachment to the shoe itself is not stiff (unless you screw it down), so what's the point of marginal extra stiffness?
Need to have a stiffness study done on bike frames too.
Annoyingly, the S-Phyre is a super comfortable shoe for me. I never thought they made me faster or more efficient, but my dumb feet don’t cramp when using them.
They’d batter last a long time.
Only matters perhaps if you are doing serious competitive racing.
Scientifically speaking red is faster tho? Hence Simon Bromley wears a red space jacket for speaking videos?
Simon's wardrobe contains almost all red clothing...
Stiff shoes are uncomfortable to wear and hazardous when twisting off tipping over twice.
I have found that a better end product in a cycling shoe is obtained by purchasing a mid-tier shoe and take the money saved and invest in a high quality shoe insert. The inserts that come with even the most expensive cycling shoes are often pieces of Doo Doo 💩. A quality insert can make a substantial difference in comfort. My inserts of choice are Sole Actives. But, of course, there are other quality options.
Amen! I’ve always believed that stiffer shoes did not translate to efficiency if you understand mechanics.
I would think that weight has a lot to do with it. I guess a carbon shoe weighs a lot less. A few ounces after a long day can actually add up.
Yes and no I've got very light composite soled shoes and heavier full carbon soled shoes.
On SPD, definitely the stiffer the better, the soles of my feet can even get sore after 150km in less stiff shoes. I don't necessarily need carbon, a pretty stiff plastic one will do.
If shimano stiffness 7 will you feel pedal after long rides? I’m 58kg btw
@@samuraioodon sorry, what is the question?
Those shoes seem like comparing Ultegra to Dura-Ace. I'd rather see how the low-end ones (the ones with velcro) compare to the S-Phyres.
I think the RC502's are more 105 level (there's an RC702 which is Ultegra level) - and really we used these two pairs because those are what we had access to!
It's worth checking out the original article and study, as that did compare low-end soles to high-end soles - in a double blind experiment, with many more participants; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/
Simon
Carbon souls seem 100% neccessary for comfort over long rides. Cheap cycling shoes would always have my feet aching after 60+ mile rides. Then after upgrading to some nicer cycling shoes with carbon souls I've never felt the same level of discomfort.
Hi WIll, personally, I'm with you on that - I also find stiffer cycling shoes more comfortable. That said, we know not everyone agrees with that, so it's good to know it doesn't seem to matter much either way in terms of power output!
Cheers for watching. Simon 👏
For a pro like Van Aert, who... god knows what his 50m sprint power would be, I'm assuming a bit more than Simon's here in the video - but he's probably at the level where it matters and where he might be getting a carbon sole to flex a bit. For the rest of us who aren't punching out four-figure wattage, we're not overwhelming the capability of a mid-level Shimano shoe let alone a high-end one. They're all going to be a good platform to put power through compared to a sneaker - remember how revelatory your first ride in cycling shoes was compared to sneakers?? So it's just down to personal preference and what you're sensitive to after that.
"I'm assuming a bit more than Simon's here in the video" - how dare you! 😂 Cheers for watching, Simon.
It's not all about numbers I've been there done that with flexing shoes it gave my feet hell especially out of the seat I love my 902s best shoe's I've owned..
Another great video . I think these tests are great but there is so much more that could be tested. i.e fatigue to muscles during longer ride etc..
I would have used both shoe, right vs left and swopped its again to balance it out.
Can we agree that these is a difference between a stiff sole and a stiff upper? I believe a stiffer upper is better for sprinting but COMFORT is the most important thing for everyday cyclists.
Comfort and footpain, I find with a stiffer show I suffer lest foot issues regardless of performance attributes.
Yep, i'm with you on that - I think stiffer cycling shoes are more comfortable too... But not everyone agrees on that 🙂
Cheers for watching! Simon 🤓
I have plastic and carbon shoes, I can tell the difference if I think about it, but I notice no real stiffness difference if I’m not thinking about it. You just know when stiffness comes in a number without units it’s not meaningful.
I can tell the difference with my super stiff shoes but I put it down to better quality upper and inner soles on the stiff shoes. My best times are on my 7/12 stiffness shoes.
@@glennoc8585 my max power is not much more than 800 so there is also that 😂. I’m
It does matter stiffness matter on cleats shoes because the stiffer the outsole the better and you don't feel pain while pedaling or sprinting well plastic nylon polyester outsole is 50%stiffer than carbon tho and durable than carbon
I'm glad that someone finally produced a video proving that it's OK to wear Crocs on a road bike. 🤭
These shoes work with the Peloton bike+ (April 2022), th-cam.com/users/postUgkxGPkov2mNjgZfG33r6Bwvies8jKE4AKZB and are of good enough quality. I have completed 10 rides so far and there are no issues. The first time trying to fit them on the Peloton bike took 10 minutes (even with the help of an experienced cyclist friend who wears the same type of cleats). It took a couple of rides to break in. After the first two rides there were no issues at all.
Thanks for the confirmation. I am wearing RC5 , aliexpress bibs jersey set and on alloy bike. Still dropped most fancy riders in Sworks/ sphyre shoes, PNS/ Rapha set on SWorks bike. 🤐
Mind blown. This video saved me $200/£200/€200.
Hi Simon, I notice your cleats look a long way back
- is that a conscious decision to place them behind the conventional ‘ball of foot over pedal axle’ wisdom? Could this influence your results as you have reduced the effective length of the lever between ankle and pedal axle?
Yes, the pedal spindle should land between the first and fifth metatarsals of your foot. This doesn't affect the effective length as it should be dependent on your foot, not the shoe.
My EU40 Torch 2.0 (wide fit) were set up in a similar manner because strictly speaking, my shoes are too long for my foot, even when I picked the wide fit counterpart (my feet are both wide and short, like a duck's). My perfect size would've been EU38.5/39 on a different brand and model, like fi'zi:k's Vento Infinito Carbon 2 Wide.
Hey Mark, yeah - It's definitely a conscious decision. I basically run my cleats as far back as I can (within the constraints of having them in the same position across the (too) many pairs of cycling shoes I have - first world problem, I know).
I started doing it years ago, after reading Steve Hogg's advice on the subject; www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/04/power-to-the-pedal-cleat-position/
Personally, I think there are a lot of benefits to more rearward cleats, especially for those doing TT's (including lower saddle height = more aero, which Steve Hogg doesn't mention 😉). Worth checking it out!
I think the whole "ball of the foot over pedal axle" thing is a bit of myth. It may be a fair starting point, but it's also not a rule - it's a bit like "knee over pedal spindle". Probably won't be massively wrong for anyone, but likely isn't optimal either.
Personally, I don't think this would influence the results here, though - the cleats were in the same place across each shoe, so each shoe had a fair run.
Reducing the length of the lever between the ankle and the pedal just means I don't need to recruit my lower leg muscles to stabilise my foot during pedalling as much. If you watch me pedalling in slow-mo, I've noticed I don't ankle much at all, which can possibly be attributed to my cleat positioning - I'm pretty sure it helps my efficiency.
Cheers for watching! Simon
Lachlan Moreton managed the entire TdF route plus transfers, days before the actual race got to Solaris in a pair of flip flops…. I don’t think stiffness was the thing there….
We thought this too! If you missed it we caught up with Lachlan during his challenge --> th-cam.com/video/cEXpm9ATkyY/w-d-xo.html
Rc902 vs rc702? i could get away with it for half the price? Nearly the same? Help me out! 🍀
I’ll save money and drool over SIDI and DTM, but buy Bontrager or Fiźik.
You should also include a pair of clogs in the mix.
The lab study doesn’t factor in the pain from a pressure point loading under your foot from a flexible sole…
If you ride multiple days several hours a day, you start to appreciate stiff soles. You also want good insoles otherwise your foot will start to burn.
We learned absolutely nothing because you didn't force statistically significant enough variation. 3rd type of shoe, much softer one, would gave some kind of reference point. Maybe even trail shoe for MTBing
Hi Drogos, thanks for your comment. I'm well aware my testing has limitations compared to the original study, so it's well worth reading the original article and study if you're interested in finding out more; www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter/
Cheers for watching! Simon ✌️
I ride my road bike with shimano spd sandals and giro empire shoes.. There def is a difference
Shoes take so long to break in, especially stiff ones. This study clearly overlooked this and should be discredited.
But they transfer the same energy more efficiency, so less tiring, less fatigue etc.
Do a comparison with flats and sneakers!
Thanks for the feedback!
I wonder what the results would be with a bigger heavier rider with large feet up a steep climb, comparing nylon soles to carbon fiber. I think if the larger forces and leverage at play don't show any measurable difference again, maybe it would be worth it to try one more time with a rubber sole to see if stiffness matters at all.
good indication to know.
I only buy high end cycling shoes for the better fit and lighter weight.
Playing a bit the roll of devil's advocate....don't stiffer more expensive shoes also shed some weight from their lower priced cousins? Maybe that isn't going to show up in a 5 second test, or a 5 minute test....but hours into a ride there will be efficiencies gained from wearing lighter shoes.
Need to take the human out of the equation to mean anything. I’d think running a mechanical foot at a set watt and then measuring the wattage somewhere on the bike, ideally close to the shoe, would be better. Then swap the shoes and compare. Repeat at different input watts and compare.
Why not test the extreme? Use slippers with old fashion toe clips.
Just goes to show all the sales hype that goes into selling bikes and associated products.
Anyone who watches Hambini knows this already.