pedal question
Mark Cleary
have had no real issues. I have the 4 sided entry because I need all the
help I can get with bike skills. I have been thinking of going to road
style pedals with SPD SL clips. This means I need new pedals and shoes
not cheap even if I try to make it cheap.
The thing I am thinking is all about speed and being able to "go a bit
faster". It would seem that the larger platform and maybe less play or
float would be more efficient and I could generate more power. Generally
these type of pedals are a little less in weight but the Crank Brothers
I have are the lightest of the SPD types.
So give me your thoughts about this and basically you just cannot go
experimenting without really trying them out for a period. My question
is that if " it ain't broke don't fix it," along with the addition funds
needed. The road specific shoes are better in the long run for speed
and after all I don't think racers use spd's for road races. I am not
racing either but I still am looking to improve speed.
So tell me the answer I hate to think too much.
--
Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church
David Scheidt
:So give me your thoughts about this and basically you just cannot go
:experimenting without really trying them out for a period. My question
:is that if " it ain't broke don't fix it," along with the addition funds
: needed. The road specific shoes are better in the long run for speed
:and after all I don't think racers use spd's for road races. I am not
:racing either but I still am looking to improve speed.
:So tell me the answer I hate to think too much.
Practice riding fast.
--
sig 89
Clive George
I don't think the big pedals will help you apart from possibly
psychologically. You won't be losing much on your pedals at all, and
you've currently got shoes you can walk in. Yes, there may be a tiny
advantage to duck shoes, but you won't notice it in your times.
The big pedals are supposed to be better for distance - easier on the
feet. So they won't speed you up but they may make riding longer
distances more fun.
(I've only ever used them on the track - worked fine there, behaved just
as my normal SPDs. Much better than the clip-in toestrap things they
lend out).
Tom Sherman °_°
faster. This bike or similar should work well in the Illinois "Corn
Desert":
<http://www.challenge-recumbents.com/publichtml/index.php?language=en&selection=lowracers-fujinsl1-en>.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
landotter
The answer is that you don't tend to your flock enough if you're
obsessing about cycling shoes. If you're getting hot spots, funky
knees, or you're racing--maybe switch. As it is, ride more. Ride
harder, and you'll get faster.
I'm faster than a lot of folks around here that are kitted to the
nines. It's a lot more fun when I'm not in a monkey suit and cleats--
but on the touring rig in street clothes and Born sneakers. You really
want to get fancy equipment and not be able to blame speed increases
on your own bad self?
Tad McClellan
> I currently use eggbeaters on my road bike and I generally like them
> have had no real issues. I have the 4 sided entry because I need all the
> help I can get with bike skills. I have been thinking of going to road
> style pedals with SPD SL clips. This means I need new pedals and shoes
> not cheap even if I try to make it cheap.
There is also the half-measure of something like Shimano PD-A520
pedals. Larger platform (reduced hot spots for distance riding?)
but still std SPD (not SL) so you can use "walkable" mtn bike shoes.
So for $60 or so, you can try pedals that will work with the shoes you have.
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Mark J.
In several posts I see you looking for upgrades that will make a big
speed difference (or maybe it's just /a/ speed difference). I
sympathize, but as other posters have pointed out, except for comfort
issues, pedals aren't going to do it. For the flattish riding you seem
to be doing, in order of impact (most to least), you'd want:
1) aero bars (the /only/ improvement that will /really/ help speed, IMHO)
2) Good quality tires (but the benefit diminishes once you've reached
the $35-45 per tire level; $25-35 if you're getting online bargains)
3) Maybe a moderately aero front wheel.
I'm guessing you've already got all three.
Alternately, there's a course of back-room EPO, HGH, or steroid
treatments, which I've read will make a big difference, but I sense
you're not that kind of guy.
Other than that, beyond 1-3 above, it doesn't seem possible to buy very
much speed. (Well, there's that Gruber Assist thingie... :) )
Now a word of encouragement: A very wise man once told me that it takes
five years to make a cyclist. In practice, I think he meant that with a
given level of ongoing training, physiological changes continue to occur
for five years. Given that you're apparently already a marathoner, you
may have already arrived in the cardiovascular sense, but allow time for
continued improvement in your legs. Running-optimized muscles can still
improve a lot for cycling.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
-Mark J.
Chalo
>
> I currently use eggbeaters on my road bike and I generally like them
> have had no real issues. I have the 4 sided entry because I need all the
> help I can get with bike skills. I have been thinking of going to road
> style pedals with SPD SL clips. This means I need new pedals and shoes
> not cheap even if I try to make it cheap.
>
> The thing I am thinking is all about speed and being able to "go a bit
> faster". It would seem that the larger platform and maybe less play or
> float would be more efficient and I could generate more power. Generally
> these type of pedals are a little less in weight but the Crank Brothers
> I have are the lightest of the SPD types.
Here is a question for you: Once having achieved decent
cardiovascular fitness and a mileage base, how do you get faster as a
competitive runner?
Hint: It's not by obsessing about the details of your shoelaces.
Spend some time meditating on the nature of vanity.
Chalo
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:huk7d5$75a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Mark: The secret to speed isn't in the pedals, it's in the shoes. You want
the most-comfortable fit and, within reason, the stiffest-possible sole (is
it possible for a sole to be too-stiff? I doubt it, but not sure... I think
issues attributed to a sole being too-stiff are generally related to fit).
Why do you want a stiffer sole? Because your foot is trying to bend itself
around the pedal as you apply increasing amounts of force, and that's not a
good thing. You want to apply pressure to as large an amount of your foot as
possible, and a stiffer sole does that.
Pedal/cleat size is irrelevant if the sole is stiff enough. The only benefit
from a larger pedal is that you get a more-connected (less sloppy) feel than
you get from a smaller cleat. SPDs, for example, rock around a bit, in a way
that has little to do with "float." Yet I've ridden 100 mile rides with my
SPDs and while maybe my body/bike interface didn't feel quite as perfectly
connected, it was certainly better for the task at hand (waiting around for
several hours for the 'Tour to pass through) than it would have been in my
Speedplays.
There is a connection between road-type pedals and stiffer shoes though.
Shoes made for SPDs (and similar) pedals generally assume someone's going to
spend some off-bike time in them, perhaps dismounting to handle a tricky
part of a trail. For walking, an infinitely-stiff sole is far from ideal! So
in general, you'll find a bit less stiffness in a mountain bike shoe than
road bike.
Hope this helps, and yes, it's OK to have a life away from the flock, as
long as you're careful about what life that is!
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> There is a connection between road-type pedals and stiffer shoes though.
> Shoes made for SPDs (and similar) pedals generally assume someone's
> going to spend some off-bike time in them, perhaps dismounting to handle
> a tricky part of a trail. For walking, an infinitely-stiff sole is far
> from ideal! So in general, you'll find a bit less stiffness in a
SiDi Dominators are an exception to the rule, as they are basically
Genius road shoes with molded tread added.
thirty-six
Wear the shoes that fit best and use the wind for free speed.
Mark Cleary
Shimano Shoes black MT32L's than they seem pretty stiff. THey don't
bother my feet and I suppose I am not going to go that much faster if at
all. I do have another question that could be the deal killer. When I
get above 30 mph on downhills and with the wind that seems really fast
to me and at 35 it is flying. These people who routinely go over 40 mph
must be more daring or have much better balance.
--
Peter Cole
The power you can generate is entirely a matter of cardio-vascular
capacity. Shoes, pedals and cleats aren't going to make a difference,
except as a matter of weight while climbing, like any other bike
component. Much is made over the "efficiency" of stiff soles. Efficiency
in a flexing plastic material (even glass or carbon reinforced) is the
result of (viscoelastic) hysteresis, the amount of energy dissipated
when a material flexes (like tire treads). For bike shoes, it's tiny. If
there's any biomechanical advantage to super-stiff soles I have yet to
see it documented.
I find road-specific pedals to be a PITA. I can see it (very marginally)
if you're a weight weenie, but otherwise I like the convenience and
redundancy of 2-sided entry.
The biggest speed gains for a very fit yet novice cyclist will come from
optimizing position on the bike. Bike fit can make a huge difference
both in aerodynamic drag and true efficiency, which comes from using
your available capacity to propel the bike, not having your muscles
fight each other or work from a bad position. In comparison, shoes rank
somewhere close to paint color.
As for racers not using SPD's, I think mostly that's tradition. Some
arguments are made for resistance to pull out during sprints, but that's
hardly a problem unique to road cycling. I find the Look duck walk to be
absurd, not to mention dangerous.
thirty-six
> I am sticking with what I have after hearing the stuff. I have these
> Shimano Shoes black MT32L's than they seem pretty stiff. THey don't
> bother my feet and I suppose I am not going to go that much faster if at
> all. I do have another question that could be the deal killer. When I
> get above 30 mph on downhills and with the wind that seems really fast
> to me and at 35 it is flying. These people who routinely go over 40 mph
> must be more daring or have much better balance.
Bicycle stability improves with speed. Any obvious instability should
be rectified before progressing to higher speeds. You need some
steeper hills.
Peter Cole
> I am sticking with what I have after hearing the stuff. I have these
> Shimano Shoes black MT32L's than they seem pretty stiff. THey don't
> bother my feet and I suppose I am not going to go that much faster if at
> all. I do have another question that could be the deal killer. When I
> get above 30 mph on downhills and with the wind that seems really fast
> to me and at 35 it is flying. These people who routinely go over 40 mph
> must be more daring or have much better balance.
Peak downhill speeds don't affect average speed much simply because you
spend much more time climbing. That said, the key to fast downhilling is
position on the bike and picking lines in curves (to avoid unnecessary
braking). Confidence at speed comes with practice. I wouldn't push it to
lethal speeds until I had confidence in bike handling and hazard
avoidance skills. I'm quite comfortable (enough to ride no-hands) in the
30-40 range, at 40 to 50 I'm usually tucked, above 50 I'm tucked and
nervous, but that's probably because I've had so little experience at
those speeds. Since I'm not paid for it, I don't push cornering to the
limit, although I love speed and never brake on a downhill if I can
avoid it.
I've seen several runners go through the transition to cycling. It can
be dangerous because their athletic prowess often exceeds their cycling
skill. I think the best way to rapidly develop bike skills is through
mountain biking, although I realize that's not for everyone.
Lou Holtman
> I am sticking with what I have after hearing the stuff. I have these
> Shimano Shoes black MT32L's than they seem pretty stiff.
They are far from stiff. Those are touring shoes and you suppose to walk
on those pretty easy and for some distance. There are really stiff SPD
shoes. They are as stiff as the stiffest road shoes. Walking is not so
good but still better than my Speedplay cleated shoes (they are the
worse walkwise) and have the recessed cleat feature. I have SPD pedals
on one of my roadbikes and I wear these:
<http://www.bike-components.de/products/info/p20530_SH-M-310-Custom-Fit-MTB-Schuh.html>
Don't expect to do a citytour comfortable by foot with these.
THey don't
> bother my feet and I suppose I am not going to go that much faster if at
> all.
I think it makes a difference.
> I do have another question that could be the deal killer. When I
> get above 30 mph on downhills and with the wind that seems really fast
> to me and at 35 it is flying. These people who routinely go over 40 mph
> must be more daring or have much better balance.
Yep, or more experience, more courage/confidence.
Lou
Jay Beattie
<snip>
> The power you can generate is entirely a matter of cardio-vascular
> capacity. Shoes, pedals and cleats aren't going to make a difference,
> except as a matter of weight while climbing, like any other bike
> component. Much is made over the "efficiency" of stiff soles. Efficiency
> in a flexing plastic material (even glass or carbon reinforced) is the
> result of (viscoelastic) hysteresis, the amount of energy dissipated
> when a material flexes (like tire treads). For bike shoes, it's tiny. If
> there's any biomechanical advantage to super-stiff soles I have yet to
> see it documented.
The biggest improvement I experienced on my old steel racing bikes was
switching from an Italia leather-soled (with internal reinforcing
plate and nail on cleat) to a Duigi birch soled shoe. It was truly
remarkable how much more efficient that super-stiff sole shoe was
climbing. Now, I don't think there is a bicycling specific shoe on
the market that is as limber as the old racing shoes (at least after a
couple of seasons and rainstorms), so that kind of dramatic difference
just does not exist any more -- unless you are going from tennis shoes
and platforms to your first SPD or Look-type pedal and shoe combo. I
did get some effect from switching from first generation Look plastic-
sole shoes to Shimano CF sole shoes, but since then, it is all about
fit, closures, foot position, etc.
> I find road-specific pedals to be a PITA. I can see it (very marginally)
> if you're a weight weenie, but otherwise I like the convenience and
> redundancy of 2-sided entry.
>
> The biggest speed gains for a very fit yet novice cyclist will come from
> optimizing position on the bike. Bike fit can make a huge difference
> both in aerodynamic drag and true efficiency, which comes from using
> your available capacity to propel the bike, not having your muscles
> fight each other or work from a bad position. In comparison, shoes rank
> somewhere close to paint color.
I really, really disagree with this -- shoe fit, arch support,
inserts, shoe weight closures, sole stiffness make big differences.
That is "fit" to a great extent, however, so maybe we don't disagree.
All I know is that bad shoes can be ride-stopping if they cause hot
foot, etc. -- just like a bad saddle or bad fit on the bike.
> As for racers not using SPD's, I think mostly that's tradition. Some
> arguments are made for resistance to pull out during sprints, but that's
> hardly a problem unique to road cycling. I find the Look duck walk to be
> absurd, not to mention dangerous.- Hide quoted text -
SPD pedals and shoes just feel sloppy to me. I commute in them every
day, and they are not as rigid or precise of a connection as my Keos.
I much prefer the feel of my racing shoes and pedals. However, I have
not put SPD cleats on my racing shoes and tried that. It might be
that the sloppiness is from my commuting shoes, although they are
pretty dang stiff CF soled shoes. -- Jay Beattie.
Mark Cleary
If you can go no hands at that speed my hats off you I just barely can
go no hands period. I do better on my old Raleigh at slow speeds, the CF
I ride seems much more responsive/loose in the steering.
You are correct in my ability for long distance related to cardio
development. I could easily bike probably all day and never get really
tired. I still love to run and most good days in the cycling season I
run my usual 40-45 miles a week of running. I also ride about 60-120
miles on a bike. If all I did was bike I could easily ride 50 miles a
day. I am just not really coordinated at least like most. I run about
2100 miles every year week in week out the same 40-45. I have been lucky
to do that too.
I am actually not that fast for runner my best marathon times when I was
30-32 years old were 3:06, 3:09, and 3:10. Respectable for sure
qualified to run Boston 3 times by being under 3:10 but no great feat. A
fellow I run with down the street has run 2:37. At almost 49 I get
slower and slower but the bike is fun I am still improving. I guess I
would like to do a 5 hr century and I think I could do it but I still
think 35 is pretty fast. Seems when I get going that fast any wind
current can through you off.
--
Peter Cole
> On Jun 8, 6:42 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> The power you can generate is entirely a matter of cardio-vascular
>> capacity. Shoes, pedals and cleats aren't going to make a difference,
>> except as a matter of weight while climbing, like any other bike
>> component. Much is made over the "efficiency" of stiff soles. Efficiency
>> in a flexing plastic material (even glass or carbon reinforced) is the
>> result of (viscoelastic) hysteresis, the amount of energy dissipated
>> when a material flexes (like tire treads). For bike shoes, it's tiny. If
>> there's any biomechanical advantage to super-stiff soles I have yet to
>> see it documented.
>
> The biggest improvement I experienced on my old steel racing bikes was
> switching from an Italia leather-soled (with internal reinforcing
> plate and nail on cleat) to a Duigi birch soled shoe. It was truly
> remarkable how much more efficient that super-stiff sole shoe was
> climbing. Now, I don't think there is a bicycling specific shoe on
> the market that is as limber as the old racing shoes (at least after a
> couple of seasons and rainstorms), so that kind of dramatic difference
> just does not exist any more -- unless you are going from tennis shoes
> and platforms to your first SPD or Look-type pedal and shoe combo. I
> did get some effect from switching from first generation Look plastic-
> sole shoes to Shimano CF sole shoes, but since then, it is all about
> fit, closures, foot position, etc.
When I switched to a Cannondale, the bottom bracket stiffness made me
feel like I was climbing much more efficiently, but I really wasn't.
>
>> I find road-specific pedals to be a PITA. I can see it (very marginally)
>> if you're a weight weenie, but otherwise I like the convenience and
>> redundancy of 2-sided entry.
>>
>> The biggest speed gains for a very fit yet novice cyclist will come from
>> optimizing position on the bike. Bike fit can make a huge difference
>> both in aerodynamic drag and true efficiency, which comes from using
>> your available capacity to propel the bike, not having your muscles
>> fight each other or work from a bad position. In comparison, shoes rank
>> somewhere close to paint color.
>
> I really, really disagree with this -- shoe fit, arch support,
> inserts, shoe weight closures, sole stiffness make big differences.
> That is "fit" to a great extent, however, so maybe we don't disagree.
> All I know is that bad shoes can be ride-stopping if they cause hot
> foot, etc. -- just like a bad saddle or bad fit on the bike.
I agree that bad fitting shoes can be a disaster, but that wasn't the
point I was trying to make.
>
>> As for racers not using SPD's, I think mostly that's tradition. Some
>> arguments are made for resistance to pull out during sprints, but that's
>> hardly a problem unique to road cycling. I find the Look duck walk to be
>> absurd, not to mention dangerous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> SPD pedals and shoes just feel sloppy to me. I commute in them every
> day, and they are not as rigid or precise of a connection as my Keos.
> I much prefer the feel of my racing shoes and pedals. However, I have
> not put SPD cleats on my racing shoes and tried that. It might be
> that the sloppiness is from my commuting shoes, although they are
> pretty dang stiff CF soled shoes. -- Jay Beattie.
SPD's have a small cleat, so it's a bit like pedaling on a ball joint. I
find I have to be careful about getting the cleat centered so my feet
don't tend to roll inward or outward when I stand. I never come out of
my SPD's unintentionally despite wearing "multi-release" cleats. Some
people like huge "float", I don't, but I suppose I could get used to it
-- I certainly don't need it, although cleat toe-in angle is critical.
The only time I have ever had knee pain was on a 250 mile brevet, at the
200 mile mark. I had changed my cleat angle the night before. For long
distance rides (brevets), I found through long trial & error, that I had
to wear my shoes sloppy loose (tricky when you're a size 16), else I got
hot foot. It wasn't about the sole stiffness.
Jay Beattie
Descending speed comes with experience -- and no matter how good you
are, you are not going to exceed 55mph without a long, steep and open
grade. All this stuff about the European pros descending twisting
mountain passes at 70mph is utter nonsense. Those 135lb whippets
probably have trouble getting above 55mph on a wide open descent --
but that is just my opinion. -- Jay Beattie.
thirty-six
thirty-six
Weight is important to get up to hgih speeds.
On a long descent (I would term it as steep) I commomly rode with
other racing men;
At 135lb most riders would likely not exceed around 60mph,
at 150lb most would not exceed around 64mph
I and one other could put another 3 or 4mph onto this at 150lb and
over. There was quite a bit of learning to do to with regards to
cornering lines and pedalling speeds to get from the upper 40s
safely. The opportunities for a lighter rider to learn to descend
quickly will not be as frequently be presented so although they
probably could go faster with effort, they do not because of the lack
of development in riding skill.
Dan O
>
> If you can go no hands at that speed my hats off you I just barely can
> go no hands period.
When I started my current commute regimen a few years ago, there was
this one long downhill that kind of spooked me. (Admittedly, it's a
debris strewn shoulder of a busy high speed four-lane divided highway,
but anyway... ) Coming down that the first few times - watching the
front wheel spin and the whole bike kind of oscillating - all I could
think of was, "Wow, a guy could really get messed up if his bike broke
and he crashed right about here."
Before the end of that first year, this downhill was no hands all the
way - a chance to rest, drink some water, adjust messenger bag straps,
etc. This change was partly enabled by confidence in the bike, having
gone through it pretty thoroughly (in turn enabled in large part by
hanging around this newsgroup). (When I hear a big truck coming from
behind I still get ready to grab the bars if need be, though. Those
guys can really throw a wind wake sometimes.)
thirty-six
Sergio Moretti
Mark,
My two cents: the best way to get faster (besides increased fitness)
is to learn to get comfortable using the drops. This should make more
difference than pedals or wheels. I'm not suggesting staying in the
drops the entire ride, but a larger percentage. Particularly when
you're facing a head wind!
- Sergio Moretti
landotter
X2
I went on a rare group hillclimbing ride last week and noticed that
nobody ever used their drops but me. Lots of low-speed carbon and
cross chaining as well.
Frank Krygowski
> On Jun 8, 6:42 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> For bike shoes, it's tiny. If
> > there's any biomechanical advantage to super-stiff soles I have yet to
> > see it documented.
>
> The biggest improvement I experienced on my old steel racing bikes was
> switching from an Italia leather-soled (with internal reinforcing
> plate and nail on cleat) to a Duigi birch soled shoe. It was truly
> remarkable how much more efficient that super-stiff sole shoe was
> climbing.
I wonder - was it remarkable how efficient that sole _was_, or how
efficient that sole _felt_?
We engineers have pretty precise definitions for "efficiency," and
they focus on loss of energy. But there's just not much opportunity
to lose energy in the sole of a shoe, as Peter's pointed out. I think
it's likely that you were responding psychologically to what you
felt.
It may be that we need some new vocabulary here. For example, if you
take your best cycling shoe and put a tiny pebble into it, it won't be
less efficient, but it sure will make you slower. So what's the word
for "enables a cyclist to be as fast as his true capability"?
(Of course, Tom's going to say that word is "recumbent" ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
Sergio Moretti
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's true for many guys I ride with too. They tend to ride smaller
frames (larger seat to bar drop distance) & don't appear to
comfortable on the drops & rarely going lower than the hoods.
- Sergio Moretti
Jay Beattie
Yes, I maybe misusing the term efficiency. But the soles of those
shoes did not flex at all, unlike my Italias -- which were hardly
stiffer than bowling shoes. There was less energy lost flexing the
sole and more engery transmitted to the pedals (that's my ad copy, and
I'm sticking with it). Fresh uppers certainly helped as well -- and a
deeper cleat.-- Jay Beattie.
MikeWhy
> On Jun 9, 9:29 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 7:40 am, Sergio Moretti <morettiath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> My two cents: the best way to get faster (besides increased fitness)
>>> is to learn to get comfortable using the drops. This should make
>>> more difference than pedals or wheels. I'm not suggesting staying
>>> in the drops the entire ride, but a larger percentage. Particularly
>>> when you're facing a head wind!
>> nobody ever used their drops but me. Lots of low-speed carbon and
>> cross chaining as well.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That's true for many guys I ride with too. They tend to ride smaller
> frames (larger seat to bar drop distance) & don't appear to
> comfortable on the drops & rarely going lower than the hoods.
>
> - Sergio Moretti
I had been wondering recently about the difference between drops and hoods.
Not having a "proper" power meter, just an iBike calibrated for the hoods, I
don't really know what's going on. Where I'd spin say 80 rpm on the hoods at
what feels like a one hour pace, dropping down nets over 100 rpm for the
same perceived effort. That's a huge jump, quite a bit more than I expect
from just aero. So I think something else is going on. The alternate
explanation of saving the work of pushing blood into my over engorged brain
isn't satisfying, but certainly can be a part of it. Does someone riding a
PowerTap or SRM have some more insight to share? I was enjoying the inflated
iBike power numbers for a brief while, but that's really screwing up my
workout planning. Just this morning, it read 400W for a moderate climb into
a headwind, sitting down, for what I expect to be at most 300W.
N8N
I must be doing it wrong then :) There's a several mile long false
flat that I ride somewhat regularly, and I usually am in the drops the
whole way. Then again my frame is what I feel is appropriately sized
for me (not too much seatpost showing) and my bars aren't super-low.
nate
thirty-six
Ninja
carl...@comcast.net
<boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sergio Moretti wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 9:29 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 7:40 am, Sergio Moretti <morettiath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> My two cents: the best way to get faster (besides increased fitness)
>>>> is to learn to get comfortable using the drops. This should make
>>>> more difference than pedals or wheels. I'm not suggesting staying
>>>> in the drops the entire ride, but a larger percentage. Particularly
>>>> when you're facing a head wind!
>>> I went on a rare group hillclimbing ride last week and noticed that
>>> nobody ever used their drops but me. Lots of low-speed carbon and
>>> cross chaining as well.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> That's true for many guys I ride with too. They tend to ride smaller
>> frames (larger seat to bar drop distance) & don't appear to
>> comfortable on the drops & rarely going lower than the hoods.
>>
>> - Sergio Moretti
>
>I had been wondering recently about the difference between drops and hoods.
>Not having a "proper" power meter, just an iBike calibrated for the hoods, I
>don't really know what's going on. Where I'd spin say 80 rpm on the hoods at
>what feels like a one hour pace, dropping down nets over 100 rpm for the
>same perceived effort. That's a huge jump, quite a bit more than I expect
>from just aero.
[snip]
Dear Mike,
For the same effort, a 25% increase from 80 to over 100 RPM is
unlikely for moving from the hoods to the drops.
Try 250-350-450 watts for each rider, tubulars, and run through the
positions with this calculator:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html
250w 350w 450w
mph mph mph position
20.70 23.36 25.54 bar tops
21.09 23.80 26.02 bar ends
21.63 24.41 26.69 *hoods
23.47 26.51 29.01 *drops
25.42 28.75 31.46 aero bars
The predicted speed increase from hoods to drops:
250w 23.47/21.63, ~8.5%.
350w 26.51/24.41, ~8.6%
450w 29.01/26.69, ~8.7%
The lamentably vanished Kreuzotter calculator (always save really
interesting web site pages) uses different defaults. At 223 watts, it
predicts for "narrow racing tires" and different weights . . .
223w
mph
21.6 bar tops
23.4 drops
24.7 triathlon (aerobar)
Again, less than a 25% speed increase. With greater power, the speed
increases are very slightly larger because wind drag becomes more
important at higher speeds.
You may have a bad hoods position, but a good drops posture. Bar tops
is the worst, since it puts you more upright than hoods. The speed
difference predicted for bar-tops versus drops is 13~14%, but that's
still considerably less than over 25%.
Or your perceived effort may change more than you think.
Or your RPM change may be closer to 85/95 than 80/100:
100/80 = 25.0% increase
98/82 = 19.5% increase
95/85 = 11.8% increase
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Mark Cleary
stretched out on a 61 CM frame with 590 tt length. Going to the drops
does get me down lower and I feel more balance. Sometimes I find that I
can breath better on the hoods and breath a little easier. I am not fat
probably average for 6'2 and 176 lbs. the AM. Maybe all these years of
running I just cannot suck air in like a cyclist. I ride the drops when
ever I want to push harder. I sometimes stay in them long periods and
other times on the hoods. I huge wind we get here at times I sometimes
give up and ride the hoods till I turn around.
--
thirty-six
> When I am on my hoods I feel almost as low as the drops. I am pretty
> stretched out on a 61 CM frame with 590 tt length. Going to the drops
> does get me down lower and I feel more balance. Sometimes I find that I
> can breath better on the hoods and breath a little easier. I am not fat
> probably average for 6'2 and 176 lbs. the AM. Maybe all these years of
> running I just cannot suck air in like a cyclist.
Get an inspiratory (think that's what they are called) excerciser.
You might want the sports model not the standard. Gets you used to
sucking in air hard and fast.
> I ride the drops when
> ever I want to push harder. I sometimes stay in them long periods and
> other times on the hoods. I huge wind we get here at times I sometimes
> give up and ride the hoods till I turn around.
I think your in the hooks position is not ideal. With the elbows at
or below the hands the upper arms are about vertical. The knee should
not come forward of the pedal spindle. With your elbows down and your
shoulders just above your hips there should be no interference with
abdominal breathing from thigh movement. If there is, then its time
for shorter cranks, ( assuming seat location wrt crank centre is good).
MikeWhy
Again, very interesting numbers. Again, thanks.
I found the data recording corresponding to the epiphany moment. It was
closer to 20%; 78 rpm to 94 rpm before I noticed and shifted up a gear.
Perceived effort being what it is, that's probably close enough. A
subconscious desire to traverse that section of road quickly, scared rabbit
style, easily accounts for the rest.
I still think it's worth mentioning in context of the OP. It feels very much
like free speed and a disproportionate power boost for the effort. I do tend
to prop myself on locked elbows on the hoods at times. All the same, it
spins easier and faster in the drops for me. Maybe take the time and have
the bike fitted at the local shop. It took quite a bit of fiddling, mostly
on seat fore/aft, to happen onto what I'm now using. That also was an
epiphany. Two months ago, like you, I didn't think I would ever use the
drops.
Michael Press
<3521dc3f-6148-4df6...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 1:20 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 6:42 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > For bike shoes, it's tiny. If
> > > there's any biomechanical advantage to super-stiff soles I have yet to
> > > see it documented.
> >
> > The biggest improvement I experienced on my old steel racing bikes was
> > switching from an Italia leather-soled (with internal reinforcing
> > plate and nail on cleat) to a Duigi birch soled shoe. It was truly
> > remarkable how much more efficient that super-stiff sole shoe was
> > climbing.
>
> I wonder - was it remarkable how efficient that sole _was_, or how
> efficient that sole _felt_?
>
> We engineers have pretty precise definitions for "efficiency," and
> they focus on loss of energy. But there's just not much opportunity
> to lose energy in the sole of a shoe, as Peter's pointed out. I think
> it's likely that you were responding psychologically to what you
> felt.
You do not account for the energy expended
in isometric muscle contraction, nor for
the fatigue induced by that muscle contraction.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can only guess that the change in balance of weight makes
pedaling in the drops an easier proposition. Sound as if
your set up is excellent.
Then there is the loss of wind resistance ...
--
Michael Press
Frank Krygowski
> In article
> <3521dc3f-6148-4df6-9a25-bd48d51f8...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Do we know anything about the magnitude of such effects?
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Press
<e6d8b701-4afb-4642...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
You did not account for it, did you?
--
Michael Press
Frank Krygowski
At this point, I don't even know it exists! If you have some
information on this, I'd be interested.
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Press
<5cb6bf57-fd45-4130...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
When the shoe sole flexes the rider expends energy making
his foot stiff through muscle contraction in the lower leg
--
Michael Press
Frank Krygowski
OK... any idea how much energy?
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Press
<763ef3b5-2f23-44ec...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Enough to sap energy from the lower leg hindering it in
carrying out other tasks it has turning the cranks. Not
a lot for casual or training or recrational rides; but
enough to bother a racer.
I infer that you never did consider muscle exhaustion
from isometric contraction.
--
Michael Press
David Scheidt
: Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why not answer "no", since that's clearly the answer.
--
sig 92
Frank Krygowski
I was hoping for numbers.
>
> I infer that you never did consider muscle exhaustion
> from isometric contraction.
Since you've got no numbers, I infer that nobody has bothered to
measure it, probably because it's unimportant. In the reading I've
done on cycling power requirements, ergonometric studies, etc. I
don't recall anyone ever mentioning power losses due to lack of pedal
stiffness. In observing my own muscle action and thinking about this
during the ride I did yesterday, I couldn't visualize a way it would
make much difference.
But I'm certainly willing to reconsider, if you've got some data.
- Frank Krygowski
thirty-six
It's a ridiculous proposition, the upper and lower legs draw all the
blood and the feet stay rigid. That's why you can't ankle
continuously at extreme power levels. What a rigid sole does is
prevents a spasm by being in full contact5 with the sole of the foot.
carl...@comcast.net
> Since you've got no numbers, I infer that nobody has bothered to
> measure it, probably because it's unimportant. In the reading I've
> done on cycling power requirements, ergonometric studies, etc. I
> don't recall anyone ever mentioning power losses due to lack of pedal
> stiffness. In observing my own muscle action and thinking about this
> during the ride I did yesterday, I couldn't visualize a way it would
> make much difference.
>
> But I'm certainly willing to reconsider, if you've got some data.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Dear Frank,
The only study that I can find about bicycle shoe sole stiffness
determined that a stiffer sole increased the peak force on the foot
18% at the same 400 watts and 90 RPM:
http://www.tulane.edu/~sbc2003/pdfdocs/0405.PDF
The conclusion seems to be ouch!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Interesting. Although obviously, they're not attempting to measure
any effect on efficiency or power output.
Regarding peak plantar pressure, which they are measuring - I suppose
it's logical that some flexibility in the sole would decrease that
pressure in most cases. Flexibility would allow the area of highest
contact to flex away a bit, thus distributing force over a larger area
and registering less peak pressure. A rigid shoe would have high
pressure at the point of highest contact.
OTOH, I suppose it's conceivable that a perfectly tailored customized
rigid insole might be designed to distribute very even pressure over
the entire forefoot - at extremely high cost.
That Armstrong guy has a big budget. I wonder what he uses?
- Frank Krygowski
Jeff Liebermann
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That Armstrong guy has a big budget. I wonder what he uses?
>- Frank Krygowski
Nike is his sponsor, but he's been seen using Rocket 7 shoes:
<http://cyclingshoesonline.com/opinion/lance-armstrong-may-prefer-rocket7-shoes-over-sponsor-nike/>
Only $1450:
<https://www.rocket7.com/shoes.htm>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
thirty-six
That's what we call clogs.
http://www.clogmaker.co.uk/pictures.php
Bit pricier than I expected, thought about £90, but if you want a firm
footbed that fits, it's a clogger you want.
thirty-six
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
> >That Armstrong guy has a big budget. I wonder what he uses?
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> Nike is his sponsor, but he's been seen using Rocket 7 shoes:
>
> Only $1450:
> <https://www.rocket7.com/shoes.htm>
>
There is an alternative. Wear some thick socks when choosing new
racing shoes. Buy the best fitting, forget the feature list and
decoration. Add up to 1/4" of cork or leather insole and ride in thin
socks. The leather or cork will conform with moisture and heat.
Takes 1000 miles if that.
Jay Beattie
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
> >That Armstrong guy has a big budget. I wonder what he uses?
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> Nike is his sponsor, but he's been seen using Rocket 7 shoes:
>
> Only $1450:
> <https://www.rocket7.com/shoes.htm>
The guy who designed Nike's first or second shoe for Lance was a
friend of mine -- who was by then a former Nike employee and a
freelance designer. I used to talk to him about designing shoes, which
seemed to be more about buckles and style than biomechanics or
orthopedics. He had to use a requisite number of proprietary bells
and whistles that would distinguish the shoe from others on the
market. It was my understanding that there was some one somewhere who
understood foot bone structure that was designing lasts and footbeds,
but it wasn't the Nike shoe designers. -- Jay Beattie.
Michael Press
<33e335ac-7e6a-498e...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Shoe sole stiffness.
> In observing my own muscle action and thinking about this
> during the ride I did yesterday, I couldn't visualize a way it would
> make much difference.
Did you ride 40 miles wearing running shoes?
> But I'm certainly willing to reconsider, if you've got some data.
--
Michael Press
David Scheidt
: Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
:Shoe sole stiffness.
All the time. I've got real pedals, and not ones with half a square
inch of load bearing area. They work just fine.
I've never seen anyone give an explanation about why stiff shoes are
better, other than "stiff shoes are better, because stiff shoes are
better". It's not at all obvious that that should be true, and I'd
really like to see numeric results showing it is or isn't. I'm not
going to hold my breath, though.
--
sig 9
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> The guy who designed Nike's first or second shoe for Lance was a
> friend of mine -- who was by then a former Nike employee and a
> freelance designer. I used to talk to him about designing shoes, which
> seemed to be more about buckles and style than biomechanics or
> orthopedics. He had to use a requisite number of proprietary bells
> and whistles that would distinguish the shoe from others on the
> market. It was my understanding that there was some one somewhere who
> understood foot bone structure that was designing lasts and footbeds,
> but it wasn't the Nike shoe designers. -- Jay Beattie.
My daughter used to be a product line manager at Nike. One of her
good friends is a shoe engineer/researcher (although not, AFAIK,
cycling shoes) for Nike.
IIRC, he's got a degree in biomechanical engineering and apparently
knows quite a lot about foot and bone structure. He's visited here,
staying at our house, and spent considerable time talking to my
brother about his rather complicated foot problems.
Cosmetic design is another matter, as is design for
manufacturability. For serious sport shoes, those need to be done
within the bounds of what works with the important stuff - the
mechanics.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Since you've got no numbers, I infer that nobody has bothered to
> > measure it, probably because it's unimportant. In the reading I've
> > done on cycling power requirements, ergonometric studies, etc. I
> > don't recall anyone ever mentioning power losses due to lack of pedal
> > stiffness.
>
> Shoe sole stiffness.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
>
> > In observing my own muscle action and thinking about this
> > during the ride I did yesterday, I couldn't visualize a way it would
> > make much difference.
>
> Did you ride 40 miles wearing running shoes?
Not that day. But I've ridden that far and further in ordinary shoes.
A few years ago, my wife and I spent six weeks traveling Europe with
our Bikes Friday, including their travel cases, which tow behind the
bikes as trailers. http://community.bikefriday.com/bfcatalog This
was not a classic bike tour, but more of a tourist trip; we did a lot
of walking, museum visiting, train riding, etc. and couldn't take much
with us. So no cycling shoes.
Yet we biked up to 50 miles between cities on small wheel bikes,
towing the trailers. I forget what shoes my wife had, but I was
wearing Rockport walking shoes - same thing I wore on the Europe trip
we just finished last week, again with Bikes Friday. Neither of us
had any problem at all. Granted, we weren't being "sporty." We were
just riding our bikes.
I'm still willing to learn about this, if someone comes up with
measurements.
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
> On Jun 13, 6:03 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <33e335ac-7e6a-498e-be0c-7fdcf649a...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> > Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since you've got no numbers, I infer that nobody has bothered to
> > > measure it, probably because it's unimportant. In the reading I've
> > > done on cycling power requirements, ergonometric studies, etc. I
> > > don't recall anyone ever mentioning power losses due to lack of pedal
> > > stiffness.
>
> > Shoe sole stiffness.
>
> Yeah, that's what I meant.
>
>
>
> > > In observing my own muscle action and thinking about this
> > > during the ride I did yesterday, I couldn't visualize a way it would
> > > make much difference.
>
> > Did you ride 40 miles wearing running shoes?
>
> Not that day. But I've ridden that far and further in ordinary shoes.
>
a pair of rubber soled shoes -- either very early Nike waffle-soles or
Bata Bikers. Riding in rubber soled shoes certainly can be done, but
it is not optimal in terms of power transfer, IMO. There is really
no way to compare these days because most stiff-soled shoes are for
use with step in systems, so you don't have the same slop of a rubber
soled shoe pulling up against a strap or nothing at all. It's not an
apples to apples comparison. -- Jay Beattie.
Peter Cole
> Did you ride 40 miles wearing running shoes?
I have, many times.
There was one guy I used to ride brevets with who wore sneakers.
landotter
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snip]
> :Did you ride 40 miles wearing running shoes?
>
> All the time. I've got real pedals, and not ones with half a square
> inch of load bearing area. They work just fine.
>
> I've never seen anyone give an explanation about why stiff shoes are
> better, other than "stiff shoes are better, because stiff shoes are
> better". It's not at all obvious that that should be true, and I'd
> really like to see numeric results showing it is or isn't. I'm not
> going to hold my breath, though.
I do a ton of riding on flat pedals as well. In Born or Keen sneaks.
No problems. I think it's like barefoot running, your feet just get
used to it, provided your pedals don't suck and the sole of the shoe
grips well enough.
SPuDs are fine--I'll be wearing them for the Monday night hillclimb
ride. They're good when you're on a single speed and fried enough to
maybe slip off the pedals on that last monster climb.
Grant Peterson talks at length about this, and while he has some
really loopy opinions to justify luddism--promoting cheap and cheerful
flat pedals isn't one of them, in my experience.
Of course, I'm not talking about racing--and there certainly may be an
efficiency edge there, and safety considerations in the peloton. That
said, the intimidation factor of wearing bibs with Tevas and some MKS
Grip Kings might be the new edge.
landotter
I also rode with quills and Batas, both the bikers and the luxe slot
cleat version. That said--we now have a wonderful availability of
grippy mtb and bmx pedals. For $20 you can get some pinned Wellgo
flats that will comfortably work with any number of sneakers, sans
straps.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear LD,
Peterson's take on shoes:
http://www.rivbike.com/article/clothing/the_shoes_ruse
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Norman
I've ridden a few thousand miles in floppy, worn-out
wrestling shoes.
Dennis Bean-Larson has the pictures to prove it.
Like running barefoot, your foot muscles get used
to providing a large portion of the stiffening that
would otherwise be done by your shoe. I mean,
ballerinas can stand on point for quite a while, &
their shoes are just heavy cotton socks.
thirty-six
As I see it, the reason for stiff soles was to provide a comfortable
platform under the forefoot when combined with the classic racing
pedal. It is not essential and plimsols slippers or pumps can be used
with platform pedals. Even bare feet can be used over short distances
(should the weather be appropriate). Leather soled shoes are perhaps
the best with a semi-platform for when full consideration is given to
both on and off the bike.
MikeWhy
> On Jun 14, 7:12 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> Did you ride 40 miles wearing running shoes?
>>
>> I have, many times.
>>
>> There was one guy I used to ride brevets with who wore sneakers.
>
> I've ridden a few thousand miles in floppy, worn-out
> wrestling shoes.
>
> Dennis Bean-Larson has the pictures to prove it.
>
> Like running barefoot, your foot muscles get used
> to providing a large portion of the stiffening that
> would otherwise be done by your shoe.
Fine so far, insofar as that goes.
> I mean,
> ballerinas can stand on point for quite a while, &
> their shoes are just heavy cotton socks.
I don't pretend to know much about such things, but my niece did the tippie
toe dance thing for a while. Her "heavy cotton socks" definitely had flat,
squared off walking surfaces for en pointe.
Jay Beattie
>
> - Show quoted text -
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointe_shoes Ballerinas dance on
pointe because it is required. It is punishing to the feet, and you
will never see a ballerina strolling casually down the street on
pointe. What is comfortable to me on a bike is a properly fitting shoe
on a solid platform -- which can be a platform pedal or a stiff
sole. A pair of flip flops on a NR cage pedal is miserable, but it
can be done. That is one thing with step in pedals -- you're screwed
if you don't have the right shoes. I still much prefer step in pedals
and shoes because I like to have a solid connection to my pedals. --
Jay Beattie.
thirty-six
> On Jun 15, 5:56 am, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Norman wrote:
> > > On Jun 14, 7:12 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> Michael Press wrote:
> > >>> Did you ride 40 miles wearing running shoes?
>
> > >> I have, many times.
>
> > >> There was one guy I used to ride brevets with who wore sneakers.
>
> > > I've ridden a few thousand miles in floppy, worn-out
> > > wrestling shoes.
>
> > > Dennis Bean-Larson has the pictures to prove it.
>
> > > Like running barefoot, your foot muscles get used
> > > to providing a large portion of the stiffening that
> > > would otherwise be done by your shoe.
>
> > Fine so far, insofar as that goes.
>
> > > I mean,
> > > ballerinas can stand on point for quite a while, &
> > > their shoes are just heavy cotton socks.
>
> > I don't pretend to know much about such things, but my niece did the tippie
> > toe dance thing for a while. Her "heavy cotton socks" definitely had flat,
> > squared off walking surfaces for en pointe.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> pointe because it is required. It is punishing to the feet, and you
> will never see a ballerina strolling casually down the street on
> pointe. What is comfortable to me on a bike is a properly fitting shoe
> on a solid platform -- which can be a platform pedal or a stiff
> sole. A pair of flip flops on a NR cage pedal is miserable, but it
> can be done. That is one thing with step in pedals -- you're screwed
> if you don't have the right shoes.
Not true. I'd have never bought my Time pedals only that I could also
use them with gymn shoes and they allowed higher cornering speeds.
The snap action was and is irrelevant to me, apart from my dislike to
the noise when twenty or more riders snap in.
> I still much prefer step in pedals
> and shoes because I like to have a solid connection to my pedals. --
I generally use my feet in whatever footwear. Seems solid enough to
me. I dont use jelly pedals, perhaps that's the difference.
Jobst Brandt
>>>>>> Did you ride 40 miles wearing running shoes?
>>>>> I have, many times.
>>>>> There was one guy I used to ride brevets with who wore sneakers.
>>>> I've ridden a few thousand miles in floppy, worn-out wrestling
>>>> shoes.
>>>> Dennis Bean-Larson has the pictures to prove it.
>>>> Like running barefoot, your foot muscles get used to providing a
>>>> large portion of the stiffening that would otherwise be done by
>>>> your shoe.
>>> Fine so far, insofar as that goes.
>>>> I mean, ballerinas can stand on point for quite a while, & their
>>>> shoes are just heavy cotton socks.
>>> I don't pretend to know much about such things, but my niece did
>>> the tippie toe dance thing for a while. Her "heavy cotton socks"
>>> definitely had flat, squared off walking surfaces for en pointe.
>> See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointe_shoes
>> Ballerinas dance on pointe because it is required. It is punishing
>> to the feet, and you will never see a ballerina strolling casually
>> down the street on pointe. What is comfortable to me on a bike is a
>> properly fitting shoe on a solid platform -- which can be a
>> platform pedal or a stiff sole. A pair of flip flops on a NR cage
>> pedal is miserable, but it can be done. That is one thing with
>> step in pedals -- you're screwed if you don't have the right shoes.
> Not true. I'd have never bought my Time pedals only that I could
> also use them with gymn shoes and they allowed higher cornering
> speeds. The snap action was and is irrelevant to me, apart from my
> dislike to the noise when twenty or more riders snap in.
Please explain how the pedal and show attachment "allow higher
cornering speeds". It is unclear whether you are considering up hill
or flat ground cornering while pedaling, or how steep you can bank
while descending.
>> I still much prefer step in pedals and shoes because I like to have
>>a solid connection to my pedals.
> I generally use my feet in whatever footwear. Seems solid enough to
> me. I dont use jelly pedals, perhaps that's the difference.
What means "use my feet"?
Jobst Brandt
thirty-six
Lean angle while pedalling.
>
> >> I still much prefer step in pedals and shoes because I like to have
> >>a solid connection to my pedals.
> > I generally use my feet in whatever footwear. Seems solid enough to
> > me. I dont use jelly pedals, perhaps that's the difference.
>
> What means "use my feet"?
Pedalling.
thirty-six
>
> What means "use my feet"?
I should say, cycling!
Jobst Brandt
>>>> See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointe_shoes
> Lean angle while pedaling.
>>>> I still much prefer step in pedals and shoes because I like to
>>>> have a solid connection to my pedals.
>>> I generally use my feet in whatever footwear. Seems solid enough
>>> to me. I don't use jelly pedals, perhaps that's the difference.
>> What means "use my feet"?
> Pedaling.
As you can see on the picture, there ain't no pedaling once you have
leaned into a fast curve:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
The cranks are below pavement before any part of the pedal that would
hit first get down there.
Jobst Brandt
thirty-six
What are you wittering on about. the two trains of thought were not
connected by me, go find your fight with Jute, he's also spoiling for
it.
James
I thought real pros didn't have their hands anywhere near the brakes
on a corner like that. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?
http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/2006/descend.htm
JS.
Jobst Brandt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointe_shoes
>>> Pedaling.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
> http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/2006/descend.htm
That's an endless and pointless melange about cornering. Sticking the
knee out is a desire to drag the foot in curves, but pedal attachment
only allows swinging the upper leg out. All fast descenders enter
curves too fast and brake to the apex, acceleration as with a
motorcycle in not possible because the pedals are too low to the
ground. The outside foot is down because most of the weight is on the
compliant leg to allow continuous maximum lateral traction.
Braking in a 45° lean angle curve at 0.1g added to the 1g force of
cornering, gives the SQRT(1^2+ 0.1^2) which is 1.005g or essentially
nothing significant. To make up for that 0,1g braking rapidly reduces
the lean angle and allows for harder braking.
The picture of the rider in that article shows he isn't fast in
curves. I don't think he understands what's going on. He loosely
uses the term "hairpin curve", something that usually requires less
than 20 mph for good riders on steep mountain roads.
Those are hairpin turns! More than 15mph is difficult here.
Jobst Brandt
Kevan Smith
> http://tinyurl.com/yl72r82
>
> Those are hairpin turns! More than 15mph is difficult here.
That's a fantastic photo, Jobst! Thanks for sharing. I would love to try
a descent like that some day.
thirty-six
>
> I thought real pros didn't have their hands anywhere near the brakes
> on a corner like that. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?
>
> http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/2006/descend.htm
Depends how quick you want to corner. For super quick cornering I
hold my brakes all the way to the turn-in point, the braking helps
speed the bike into the lean with a forced turn. Once it is
established that speed is appropriate then yes the fingers should be
off the levers.
Ben C
> James Steward wrote:
[...]
>> I thought real pros didn't have their hands anywhere near the brakes
>> on a corner like that. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?
>
>> http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/2006/descend.htm
>
> That's an endless and pointless melange about cornering. Sticking the
> knee out is a desire to drag the foot in curves, but pedal attachment
> only allows swinging the upper leg out. All fast descenders enter
> curves too fast and brake to the apex, acceleration as with a
> motorcycle in not possible because the pedals are too low to the
> ground.
Yes, this is a good point you've made before-- the line is different
than on a motorbike because you aren't accelerating hard out of the
corner. So you need a wider entry and a later apex.
In his article James seems to be saying forget about apexing the corner
at all, and that's just a left-over myth from the days of cross-ply
tyres!
I don't think that's right. You do still want to hit the apex (subject
to it being safe and not going on the wrong side of the road unless you
can see a long way).
thirty-six
Chuck your slide rule away, those curves are easily managed at
20mph. Like he says, you have to get on the shoulder of the tyre
early to make the wheel corner. Lifting off the saddle gets the
weight distribution best for cornering. Shoving the knee into t he
corner and twisting the body really helps in getting a bike to turn in
when it seems too fast and it appears to be straight-lining the
corner. This is easier to learn with a short wheelbase bike and will
almost come naturally to some. With conscious effort the techniques
can be applied to a long touring bike with astounding results.
James
> On 2010-06-16, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > James Steward wrote:
> [...]
> >> I thought real pros didn't have their hands anywhere near the brakes
> >> on a corner like that. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?
>
> >>http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/2006/descend.htm
>
> > That's an endless and pointless melange about cornering. Sticking the
> > knee out is a desire to drag the foot in curves, but pedal attachment
> > only allows swinging the upper leg out. All fast descenders enter
> > curves too fast and brake to the apex, acceleration as with a
> > motorcycle in not possible because the pedals are too low to the
> > ground.
>
> Yes, this is a good point you've made before-- the line is different
> than on a motorbike because you aren't accelerating hard out of the
> corner. So you need a wider entry and a later apex.
>
> In his article James seems to be saying forget about apexing the corner
Just want to point out that I am not the author of the article.
That's not to say that I either agree nor disagree with the content,
just that it is not mine. I had heard from Phil Anderson that braking
should occur before the corner. Maybe he was instructing the group I
was with to be safe rather than fast.
JS.
Mark Cleary
course. Someone told me brake pads heat up to the point they can be a
problem. Seems unlikely but what do I know?
--
Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church
thirty-six
> I don't think that's right. You do still want to hit the apex (subject
> to it being safe and not going on the wrong side of the road unless you
> can see a long way).
It's not requirement to hit the apex, going as deep into the bend as
you can (and then a bit more) before turning in, is usually a
requirement for the quickest through the bend times. Only by doing it
regularly do you realise that there is still roadspace and you could
have gone quicker if you only had the entry speed. Sometimes entry
speed is still low (er than optimal for speed) despite not using the
brakes.
thirty-six
Depends on the blocks. If you fear the corners and hold your brakes
all the way down, you may melt them and they will be out of adjustment
resulting in poor braking when you need it most, compounding any fears
you may already have. Stay off rim brakes as much as possible and
they will still be there when you need them. Brake late and hard for
the bends and your rims and blocks temperatures will remain
servicable..
AMuzi
>> James Steward wrote:
>>> I thought real pros didn't have their hands anywhere near the brakes
>>> on a corner like that. Have I been doing it wrong all these years?
>>> http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/2006/descend.htm
> Jobst Brandt wrote:
>> That's an endless and pointless melange about cornering. Sticking the
>> knee out is a desire to drag the foot in curves, but pedal attachment
>> only allows swinging the upper leg out. All fast descenders enter
>> curves too fast and brake to the apex, acceleration as with a
>> motorcycle in not possible because the pedals are too low to the
>> ground. The outside foot is down because most of the weight is on the
>> compliant leg to allow continuous maximum lateral traction.
>>
>> Braking in a 45° lean angle curve at 0.1g added to the 1g force of
>> cornering, gives the SQRT(1^2+ 0.1^2) which is 1.005g or essentially
>> nothing significant. To make up for that 0,1g braking rapidly reduces
>> the lean angle and allows for harder braking.
>>
>> The picture of the rider in that article shows he isn't fast in
>> curves. I don't think he understands what's going on. He loosely
>> uses the term "hairpin curve", something that usually requires less
>> than 20 mph for good riders on steep mountain roads.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yl72r82
>>
>> Those are hairpin turns! More than 15mph is difficult here.
Mark Cleary wrote:
> Cool pictures Jobst but do you have any trouble braking on this type of
> course. Someone told me brake pads heat up to the point they can be a
> problem. Seems unlikely but what do I know?
Braking is changing motion into heat. Ideally 'swept area',
which is your rim, is the heat dissipating part. The rim in
air cools effectively for normal braking.
When things go awry (more mass or velocity or time than the
designer allowed) yes things get hot ( rims, pads, tires ).
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Mark Cleary
--
Mark J.
> So Andrew tell when this happens? At what speed and for how long?
Probably not in Illinois at any speed, I doubt there's a descent long
enough. Coming to a stop on level ground is almost certainly not an
issue, unless you're somehow doing 200 mph to begin with. We're talking
thousands of feet of elevation loss here, or perhaps half that for
tandems (more energy to dissipate).
Mark J.
AMuzi
Mark Cleary wrote:
> So Andrew tell when this happens? At what speed and for
> how long?
I do not have any hard numbers but with 600lb of pilots on a
tandem, even here where there are no mountains, rim brakes
are often insufficient.
A modern stamped shell coaster hub (thin, light) under a
200lb rider with 700/27 rims can melt out grease and blue
the chrome on normal city hills.
Jobst Brandt
>>> curves. I don't think he understands what's going on. He loosely
>>> uses the term "hairpin curve", something that usually requires less
>>> than 20 mph for good riders on steep mountain roads.
>>> Those are hairpin turns! More than 15mph is difficult here.
>> Cool pictures Jobst but do you have any trouble braking on this
>> type of course. Someone told me brake pads heat up to the point
>> they can be a problem. Seems unlikely but what do I know?
You don't. Ive been riding down this pass since 1959 and never had a
brake pad overheat. The overheating one must avoid is the rim and
tire blow-off. As You can see, the straight-aways are long enough to
gain much air cooling speed, especially with good tires. I first used
tubulars mounted on epoxy saturated (hard) rim strips) that insulated
the tire glue from the hot rim.
> Braking is changing motion into heat. Ideally 'swept area',
> which is your rim, is the heat dissipating part. The rim in
> air cools effectively for normal braking.
Of course it helps to go fast and to not continually brake to allow
cooling. Austrians have continuously steep and curvy passes that can
overheat rims. See Zirler Berg:
Bicycles are not permitted on this Austrian descent because too many
had blowouts and suffered significant injuries. Although there is a
hokey story accompanying this picture, there are six such runaway
track on the descent.
> When things go awry (more mass or velocity or time than the
> designer allowed) yes things get hot (rims, pads, tires ).
I have not had melting brake pads except on Matthauser pads that I
never used again after hard flatland braking tests. Kool-stop have
performed excellently for many challenging descents, including the
Stelvio, Gavia, and Sonora pass.
Jobst Brandt
kolldata
drove 108 with snow on top. very interesting for an easterner.
multiple spring greenesses. 4 wheel discs and ABS.
have you tried disks on the bike or not ? and ?
John Dacey
On 17 Jun 2010 04:28:20 GMT, Jobst Brandt <jbr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Cool pictures Jobst but do you have any trouble braking on this
>>> type of course. Someone told me brake pads heat up to the point
>>> they can be a problem. Seems unlikely but what do I know?
>
>You don't. Ive been riding down this pass since 1959 and never had a
>brake pad overheat. The overheating one must avoid is the rim and
>tire blow-off. As You can see, the straight-aways are long enough to
>gain much air cooling speed, especially with good tires. I first used
>tubulars mounted on epoxy saturated (hard) rim strips) that insulated
>the tire glue from the hot rim.
>
>> Braking is changing motion into heat. Ideally 'swept area',
>> which is your rim, is the heat dissipating part. The rim in
>> air cools effectively for normal braking.
>
>Of course it helps to go fast and to not continually brake to allow
>cooling.
Compared to traditional box-section models, to what extent could deep
vee aluminum rims provide an extra measure of safety by dint of their
additional surface area (more effective cooling) and mass (bigger heat
sink)?
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Comprehensive catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996
http://businesscycles.com
-------------------------------
kolldata
> "Invitat culpam qui delictum praeterit." - Syrus
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
deep vee's maybe hard to true but believe you me ura gonna need all
the help you can get rolling down the east side.
kolldata
Jobst Brandt
>>>> Cool pictures Jobst but do you have any trouble braking on this
>>>> type of course. Someone told me brake pads heat up to the point
>>>> they can be a problem. Seems unlikely but what do I know?
>> You don't. Ive been riding down this pass since 1959 and never had
>> a brake pad overheat. The overheating that one must avoid is rim
>> and subsequent tire blow-off. As You can see, the straight-aways
>> are long enough to gain much air cooling speed, especially with
>> good tires. I first used tubulars mounted on epoxy saturated
>> (hard) rim strips) that insulated the tire glue from the hot rim.
>>> Braking is changing motion into heat. Ideally 'swept area', which
>>> is your rim, is the heat dissipating part. The rim in air cools
>>> effectively for normal braking.
>> Of course it helps to go fast and to not continually brake to allow
>> cooling.
> Compared to traditional box-section models, to what extent could
> deep vee aluminum rims provide an extra measure of safety by dint of
> their additional surface area (more effective cooling) and mass
> (bigger heat sink)?
I have often descended in winds that would most likely affect
aerodynamic rims, the MA-2 rims I use are affected enough to make
descending fast in turbulent air require careful control.
Jobst Brandt
John Dacey
On 17 Jun 2010 17:45:27 GMT, Jobst Brandt <jbr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>John Dacey wrote:
>> Compared to traditional box-section models, to what extent could
>> deep vee aluminum rims provide an extra measure of safety by dint of
>> their additional surface area (more effective cooling) and mass
>> (bigger heat sink)?
>
>I have often descended in winds that would most likely affect
>aerodynamic rims, the MA-2 rims I use are affected enough to make
>descending fast in turbulent air require careful control.
That doesn't answer my question. What extra measure of protection
against heat issues in a rim and tire on long descents might a deep
vee rim provide over those like your MA-2s?
Jobst Brandt
>>> Compared to traditional box-section models, to what extent could
>>> deep vee aluminum rims provide an extra measure of safety by dint
>>> of their additional surface area (more effective cooling) and mass
>>> (bigger heat sink)?
>> I have often descended in winds that would most likely affect
>> aerodynamic rims, the MA-2 rims I use are affected enough to make
>> descending fast in turbulent air require careful control.
> That doesn't answer my question. What extra measure of protection
> against heat issues in a rim and tire on long descents might a deep
> vee rim provide over those like your MA-2s?
Just weight. How much more mass is there to heat is in the rim you
have in mind, ride stability not considered?
Jobst Brandt
AMuzi
About 550g or roughly 100g more than your MA2 rims or
roughly 20~25% more aluminum.
I think John's question, of which I am also curious, is if
the 'aero' shape, with relatively larger surface area per
mass, is helpful for more rapid cooling or merely looks
different.
My intuition is that any difference in cooling rate is
probably real but not significant to riding bicycles. Then
again I do not know.
thirty-six
> "Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit." - Cicero
>
>
> >John Dacey wrote:
> >> Compared to traditional box-section models, to what extent could
> >> deep vee aluminum rims provide an extra measure of safety by dint of
> >> their additional surface area (more effective cooling) and mass
> >> (bigger heat sink)?
>
> >I have often descended in winds that would most likely affect
> >aerodynamic rims, the MA-2 rims I use are affected enough to make
> >descending fast in turbulent air require careful control.
>
> That doesn't answer my question. What extra measure of protection
> against heat issues in a rim and tire on long descents might a deep
> vee rim provide over those like your MA-2s?
>
Something else that doesn't answetr your question, unless you have
particularly large tyres on that deep V then the ride is going to be
harsh over any rough sections and unless you are already a highly
skilled rider, you are going to want to run slower to maintain a
perceivably good control.
Frank Krygowski
I did some steep, twisty Western Pennsylvania descents today. I
admit, I worried a little bit about rim heating, partly because I was
on a ride where a friend blew a tire just at the bottom of one of
those hills. Oh, and IIRC he was running an aero rim.
Today I was thinking of mounting a cheap infrared thermometer like
http://www.harborfreight.com/non-contact-pocket-thermometer-93983.html
or http://tinyurl.com/2equzn3 where it would point at the rim. But I
don't think that would give good results. One disadvantage would be
that this unit doesn't allow a remote reading, and (I think) stores
only one value. A much bigger disadvantage is that it assumes
emissivity is 0.95 and that's non-adjustable. An even bigger
disadvantage is that aluminum's emissivity is highly variable, and
nowhere near 0.95.
I recall that in a discussion of tire blowouts on descents, Jobst had
proposed installing a temperature monitoring system. Jobst, did
anything come of that project?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Something else that doesn't answetr your question, unless you have
> particularly large tyres on that deep V then the ride is going to be
> harsh over any rough sections and unless you are already a highly
> skilled rider, you are going to want to run slower to maintain a
> perceivably good control.
... because the deep V rims are going to deflect 0.00001" less???
- Frank Krygowski
John Dacey
The practical limit for depth of aluminum rims seems to be about 30
mm, plus or minus a little, where weights commonly fall in the 575 to
600 gram range. Although the weight increases 125 to 150 grams over an
MA2, the surface area of the deep rim exposed to the air is likely
three times or so that of the MA2.
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
http://businesscycles.com
-------------------------------