Controversial clipless opinions.
Onan
Posts: 321
I just read this article, on the website of a company that make very nice looking old fashioned steel framed road bikes. I really like the no nonsense old school ethos of his website, and I found his thoughts on clipless pedals interesting.
I have litle contribution to make to this kind of debate, given that I'm still waiting for my first road bike to arrive, but I have certainly never found riding on flat pedals on my hybrid to be a problem, and had I not known about clipless pedals, somebody suggesting I should have my feet attached to them would have seemed insane to me.
I was wondering what you all think about them.
Here's the article:
http://www.rivbike.com/article/clothing/the_shoes_ruse
I have litle contribution to make to this kind of debate, given that I'm still waiting for my first road bike to arrive, but I have certainly never found riding on flat pedals on my hybrid to be a problem, and had I not known about clipless pedals, somebody suggesting I should have my feet attached to them would have seemed insane to me.
I was wondering what you all think about them.
Here's the article:
http://www.rivbike.com/article/clothing/the_shoes_ruse
Drink poison. Wrestle snakes.
0
Posts
I haven't the time to wade through the article, but it 's clear that it's rubbish. Get yourself clipless pedals and don't listen to this nonsense (IMO
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown
The parts that seem to be saying that people are deluded to think there is an advantage to riding clipless pedals are a bit daft though. You can't 'learn to pedal' if you are clipped in? Most riders learn to pedal a long time before they ever look at clipless pedals! And your foot doesn't flex? What to say about that... yes it does. Especially when you are out of the saddle putting power down.
The writer seems to think the main selling point of clipless pedals is that we all think you can pull upwards on every stroke - I've never personally come across any rider who seriously suggests that is how to cycle. However, the cleat positioning being correct means less chance of injury whilst keeping the maximum power transfer and making the most of your positioning consistently.
Anyone who's slipped off a platform pedal while going fast will remember how rubbish it is to suddenly have the handlebars in their face an instant before bike and rider cartwheel down the tarmac...
'07 Tricross Sport with rack and guards
STUNNING custom 953 Bob Jackson *sigh*
Funny how 'old school' technology often costs a similar amount to newer tech. This guy must make a mint. Try looking through the marketing twaddle
'new' steel bikes are even made using up to date geometries.
"during normal pedaling at normal cadences, nobody pulls UP on the backstroke
the elite/efficient pedalers push down less on the upward moving pedal than the rookies do.
Think about that until it sinks in and you're bored. The good pedalersthe guys in the logo costumes and the white sunglasses and shaved legsminimize the downward force on the upward-moving pedal more. They don't pull up on it or even unweight it. They just minimize the downward pressure on it, so one leg isn't fighting the other as much.
That is a far cry from the 360-degrees of power the clickers and media and experts promise you."
As I reacll THIS is precisely what a number of objective studies established when clipless first arrived and BEFORE the trade (and thus the "media") decided that so much money to be made from pedal/shoe systems that it would be a shame not to claim advantages that where at best minimal and mostly - for most riders - non-existent. I've always assumed predominantly marketing nonsense.
"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."
Looking at my own riding style when cruising I do not pull up on the pedal but I do follow through further than is possible on flats. The pedal does lift my leg to some extent but at least I know it will stay on the pedal. One less thing to think about. As a cyclist with over 55 years experience I consider clipless pedal systems to be probably the most important advance in bike components, followed by modern gear systems and frame materials.
I notice that the article is predictably American but is aimed at the leisure rider rather than the sport one and is rather deliberately provocative. If I had a bike just for going down to the shops it would have flat pedals. It would also have flat bars and maybe even a basket on it.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
point though. Just because everyone says so doesn't make it true, i.e. you must have stiff
soled shoes.
Dennis Noward
Eyelids! They move in the same repetitive manner & I don't know a single case of eyelid strain.
That's true to some extent, but it's impossible to pull up on a flat pedal. It's also very difficult at the top of the stroke as you're trying to apply some forward pressure. Sometimes your foot shoots right off. How is that pedalling in circles?! :?
When I first starting using flat pedals on my DH + around town bikes, I did actually find my feet unintentionally lifting off the pedals on the upstoke. so he's wrong about that (although I do do a fair amount of climbing)
But most of the time, if I want efficiency, I don't have to think about which one is best (and just so it remains clear: clipless pedals)
For leisure riding wear what you like. Performance is not an issue
Nobody pedals in circles but at certain times it is beneficial to be clipped in to push or pull a little earlier in the pedal stroke.
Stiff soled shoes most likely help transfer power but leisure riding is less important.
I admit i am actually researching the way that people pedal and after analysing peoples pedaling technique there is a small variation when we're working very close to V02 max when you're pedaling on the falt at submaximal efforts it is not helpfull to pull up.
I did indeed post that at four in the morning, but I wasn't up at that time by choice. I have chronic insomnia.
It's a pain in the censored .
I also really enjoyed all the stuff he had to say about frame sizes, weight, tyre width and volume, unnecessary numbers of gears, and carbon fibre frames.
I'm not saying I agree with him. To be honest, I don't think I'm entitled to an opinion either way, given I do much less riding than most of you here. I just think it's refreshing to hear somebody saying you don't need special clothes, or a bike that weighs less than the bag on your back.
I'm bookmarking his website, so if I ever find myself obsessing about any of the techy stuff that seems to go along with cycling, I can remind myself there are people who don't think that stuff is as important as it's made out to be.
I realize he's trying to sell the idea of his old school bikes, but he sure seems passionate about what he's selling. I love the way he talks about the way his bikes are wrong for people rather than trying the hard sell. You don't get many sales pitches that run along the line of "we'll sell you the bike we think you should have, not the bike you think you want. And it will cost you $3000, and will take 2 years to build".
How does he make any money?
The best position for bars is a few cm higher than the seat??? Not on my race bike it isn't. I'd rather be down out of the wind if it's okay with you. As for most cyclists being on a bike that's too small? I disagree. Most cyclists I've seen ride bike that are too big. And as for his claim that small bikes are uncomfortable........... I managed to get round an Ironman bike course on my extra small Argon 18 without any discomfort
I think he's talking about non-racing bikes, and non-racing cyclists.
As far as I could tell his point is this: Most people who ride bikes do it to commute, or for fitness, and not to race, so comfort and safety are more important than all that stuff. And I think he has a point there. As a newcomer to 'proper' road cycling (I'm getting a road bike so I can do long rides at the weekend to get fitter), all the technological developments, and special clothing, and tiny super light bikes can really put a guy off.
Some of the bikes I sat on which were meant to be the right size for me felt ridiculous. My censored was right up in the air, and I would have had to crane my neck right back to look forwards properly. that might be OK if you want the fastest lightest bike possible to shave seconds off your PB, but I want something a bit more comfortable.
I think the fashion in road bikes is to put massive emphasis on performance, and that filters down to levels of cycling where performance is not that important.
But as I say, maybe when I start getting out on my road bike, I'll change my mind about that, and decide I want skin tight lycra and a carbon fibre frame after all, so I can go even faster.
The second of those sentences may well be true. It does not in any way invalidate the proposition which you deride in the first sentence. For the great majority of PEOPLE WHO RIDE A BICYCLE FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN RACING (i.e. the great majority of people who ride a bicycle) it clearly is correct. As it almost certainly will be for you should you stil be riding when 50-60-70.
"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."
Hold on a minute now I'm 60 and....... well now that you mention it it does seem that my bars are getting higher and I seem to be having trouble remembering what the uses are
for the bottom part of the bar(drops I think they were called way back when I used them).
Non racing seemed to be key words in that article, as I recall.
Dennis Noward
I am 66 but my bars are 8cm below the saddle and I can and do still use the drops. Tri-bars as well sometimes. 70+ mile rides are no problem. But as I said earlier if I had a shopping bike it would have flat pedals and flat bars.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
The price seems to outweigh the benefits to me, to be honest.
It always amuses me when I read about "pedalling in circles". What else does one think the pedal does besides follow a circular path relative to the bottom bracket?
If one is talking about the relative application of torque around a pedal stroke, then the evidence is pretty clear (as is the basic physics that supports it), i.e. the most powerful riders have the greatest ratio of peak torque to average torque (IOW - they just push harder). Just look up the 1991 study by Coyle et al, Physiological and by mechanical factors associated with elite endurance Cycling performance.
Indeed, attempting to "pedal in circles", if by that one means apply a more even application of torque around the pedal stroke, is an ineffective means to improve one's power output.
Just push harder and faster.
But back on topic, I didn't read the item but I get the gist.
Most cycle equipment these days is fashion-based rather than performance-based and for the most part, a reasonably decent frame that fits you properly with basic but well made components is all one needs to enjoy cycling and get good fitness. The thing that makes the most difference is the engine pushing the pedals, not the 11th cog on the cluster or the CF super frame you are riding. It is only when you are racing that the introduction of some specific equipment becomes a factor in performance.
To be honest, when I switched, I did not notice a great deal of difference in pedalling efficiency, even on all day rides. Did have a short period living in fear of the "Bear-trap" till I got used to them, but now I prefer them. My personal level of fitness is far more important than any mariginal benefit the footwear might provide. would consider swapping back if i was racing, but that doesnt happen very often.
No, if you have the tension set correctly you will unclip as you crash - the design was inspired by ski bindings, which do the same...IF you set the tension right.
The price is no more than (decent) regular pedals, and even with toe clips you are likely to be wearing stiff soled shoes (if you have any sense) that are most likely suitable for clipless. When I made the transition many years ago, I already had spd compatible shoes.
i'm not really qualified to comment on the accuracy of this statement - but I like the way you seem to be thinking about it logically -
as a very recent convert to clipless the main benefit i have noticed is at the top and bottom of the pedal-stroke, that it is possible to push the pedals through the vertical crank position without any risk of the foot sliding forwards or backwards off the pedal (as the circular motion is parallel to the ground at this point)
it is intuitive that the torque applied to the pedals in this position will be less than the peak torque (which presumably occurs somewhere closer to the horizontal crank position). however, there is some torque (however small) to be applied at the vertical-crank position nonetheless.
The main problem I have with the article is the notion that one has to be able to "pull up" on the pedal in order to achieve "360degrees of power". Most of us cyclists are in fact blessed with two legs. This means that as long as the front leg pushes down with a greater force than the back leg applies down onto the pedal [for the duration that it is the 'front leg' ie. 180degrees - a half-cycle] - then we end up with "360 degrees of power" transfer.
In this sense then, we need each leg to apply torque for only half of the cycle. Any more is a bonus. And perhaps a clipless system can help ensure torque application around the 'vertical crank' position.
Whether or not we should usefully focus our efforts on increasing the peak torque rather than the smaller 'vertical crank' torque is another discussion. But if clipless pedals do increase the torque that can be applied in this (vertical crank) position, then presumably this can combine with any given peak torque to give an overall higher power output? Admittedly I can't comment on the relative significance of any improvement. I do like that clipped-in feeling of security though!