SPD's power advantage....Myth?
Comments
-
i did mention Essex hills right? And to be honest what happens if you're disabled and only have one leg? Clipless pedals come into there own. Dexter Benjamin is a prime example here. Cycle courier saved a kids life from a dump truck and lost a leg in the process. Uses clipless pedals now and hes still one of the fastest couriers there are in the USA0
-
yeh but he is a courier.
I'm talking about mountain biking
not some supper smooth road surface hehe.
And essex.. has hills? i missed them when i passed through hehe will keep my eyes peeled when i'm visiting the bro next0 -
hence i called them Essex hills cos they're more like molehills or lumps in the road... Mountain bikeing though it has to be said when you ride with s*** comoponents like Alivio and Acera you do want clipless so you can pedal with one leg whilst you kick something else back in place! or infract once youve stopped for a rest and a chat you can clip one foot in lift the rear wheel and sort out your rear mech again.0
-
Lol i go with bike upside down so people stop and talk to me myself.
and there not mole hills mate there ramps just hit them as hard as you can hehe.0 -
Have you ridden over a mole hill before they lift your front wheel up an inch before you flatten them off. Thats what Essex hills are like :P I only stick my bike upside down when im at events and dont have a bike stand with me. I dontlike doign that generally because i have bar ends and i dont want them damaged :P0
-
So, in summary... SPDs are perfect for one legged couriers, fat blokes and people who need to kick their bikes to make them work.
Otherwise flats all the way.
btw and a bit of a hijack but is there anywhere decent to ride offroad in Essex yet - I used to live there and we're thinking of moving back and the only places that used to be ok were round Danbury way...0 -
Everybody seems to be using the "we're riding more technical stuff now" reason for using flats, but most of the top downhillers are using SPD's. If you can't go full throttle into a technical section or corner without committing to both feet on the pedals, clipped or unclipped, you're obviously not as rad as you think you are.
I very rarely have to dab a foot and even when I do I'm out and back in the pedal in a flash. The only time I don't like being clipped in is when I'm dirt jumping. I can also bunny hop LOADS better when I'm on flat pedals, which makes no sense at all, but on the whole, I'd rather feel a little shaky hopping or jumping, which is rare, so I can hammer the pedals the rest of the time, I live in the Cotswolds, and the climbs are very steep if not necessarily long.
I used to use toe clips and straps in the 90's on my fully rigid Saracen so I could ride down steps and rooty sections without getting knocked off, switched to SPD's in 2000 and changed to Crank Brothers last summer, I dabbled with flat pedals a couple of years ago because I had a specialized enduro, and that's what everyone was doing. As soon as I had learned to jump properly I realised that most of my riding was actually long distance XC stuff and clipped in was just way better.
I think a lot of riders in the UK are very anti-XC, as if it's seriously uncool or for geeks, so we all end up riding 6" trail bikes, hardcore hardtails, stubby stems, super wide handlebars, adjustable seatposts, massive tyres, body armour, full face helmets or bulky Giro Xens (or my personal "favourite" - pisspots) and, you've guessed it, 5.10's and flat pedals. Then we all go on about how it's all about being rad downhill and having fun downhill and puff our chests out at the guys in lycra as if they're only interested in going up. To think of going out in lycra, clipless pedals and race shoes or a road lid with the visor fitted is just not manly enough for a lot of people. I suspect those people are compensating for something.
They don't do this in the States or on the continent, over there they actually celebrate being a fit XC or road rider, not ridicule them.I had to beat them to death with their own shoes...
HiFi Pro Carbon '09
LTS DH '96
The Mighty Dyna-Sore - The 90's?0 -
Shaggy you make little sense and have added little to this discussion.
Most of us are trail riders, alot of the trails i ride have jumps through them and so on. making flats great. and huge drops.
But go look at the science earlier in the thread spd do not allow you to pedal hard, just add a few more degrees of push and pull, pretty much nothing. And to be honest most of the downhill events i've seen/been at, alot of the people are on flats, and claim its a choice thing.0 -
meesterbond wrote:So, in summary... SPDs are perfect for one legged couriers, fat blokes and people who need to kick their bikes to make them work.
Otherwise flats all the way.
btw and a bit of a hijack but is there anywhere decent to ride offroad in Essex yet - I used to live there and we're thinking of moving back and the only places that used to be ok were round Danbury way...
SPD's Are Perfect For People Who Know How To Ride With Them Period. XC Racers Road Users As Well. I Ride XC and Singlespeed On The Road.
Essex IS As Flat As A Pankcake To be Honest. There Is Thetford Forest, Danbury And As Far As i'm Aware Thats About It. My Brother Cycles For Loughborough Student Cycling Club And Any off Road Riding he Does He Travels Back Up North To Find Somewhere Decent To Cycle. He Did Twentyfour12 As A pair On the Weekend and came second and he said the course there was far more undulating than the whole of essex crumpled together.0 -
Shaggy_Dog wrote:Everybody seems to be using the "we're riding more technical stuff now" reason for using flats, but most of the top downhillers are using SPD's. If you can't go full throttle into a technical section or corner without committing to both feet on the pedals, clipped or unclipped, you're obviously not as rad as you think you are.
I very rarely have to dab a foot and even when I do I'm out and back in the pedal in a flash. The only time I don't like being clipped in is when I'm dirt jumping. I can also bunny hop LOADS better when I'm on flat pedals, which makes no sense at all, but on the whole, I'd rather feel a little shaky hopping or jumping, which is rare, so I can hammer the pedals the rest of the time, I live in the Cotswolds, and the climbs are very steep if not necessarily long.
I used to use toe clips and straps in the 90's on my fully rigid Saracen so I could ride down steps and rooty sections without getting knocked off, switched to SPD's in 2000 and changed to Crank Brothers last summer, I dabbled with flat pedals a couple of years ago because I had a specialized enduro, and that's what everyone was doing. As soon as I had learned to jump properly I realised that most of my riding was actually long distance XC stuff and clipped in was just way better.
I think a lot of riders in the UK are very anti-XC, as if it's seriously uncool or for geeks, so we all end up riding 6" trail bikes, hardcore hardtails, stubby stems, super wide handlebars, adjustable seatposts, massive tyres, body armour, full face helmets or bulky Giro Xens (or my personal "favourite" - pisspots) and, you've guessed it, 5.10's and flat pedals. Then we all go on about how it's all about being rad downhill and having fun downhill and puff our chests out at the guys in lycra as if they're only interested in going up. To think of going out in lycra, clipless pedals and race shoes or a road lid with the visor fitted is just not manly enough for a lot of people. I suspect those people are compensating for something.
They don't do this in the States or on the continent, over there they actually celebrate being a fit XC or road rider, not ridicule them.
Great post actually. I am amazed how aggressive the "anti-SPD" brigade is on a subject that is such a personal choice. SPDs are not compulsory. If you don't want them, don't buy them, don't use them. Live and let live.0 -
nick.
Actualyl we are not anti SPD we think ride what makes you happy, But we hate being told there better yah yah when the scietific test tell you clearly they really make little to no difference. so we get narked and have to put you back in your boxes 0 -
Blimey this thread is still going!
I agree, top post Shaggy_dog!
There is definitely a an anti-XC mindset expressed by a lot of riders in the UK, usually by the non-competitive so called trail riders.
I don't see a difference between XC and trail they both involve the same kind of terrain (generally). I have the utmost respect for anyone that races but no more than your average joe out on the trail.
Ride what you like, how you like and don't bow to the supposed 'cool' crowd!0 -
I live near Chelmsford. There are some good trails around Danbury, Little Baddow and Stock. Nothing that will really scare you though.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
I think the big thing that differents the people who class themselves as XC compared to trail riders is as follows.
XC -riders are goal orientated ie this time to heere and so fitness based and distance.
Trail riders - Dont care how far or fast, just that its bloody good fun and that someone stuck some scary stuff that makes you poo a little bit. also a complete refusal to wear lycra because it makes you look like a bit of a roady wierdo
I don't think there is any anti XC element in our minds, what we hate is being told what is best for our riding, like SPD gives more power, scientific tests show they don't its simple.
The whole technical skills part is partially true some of the fastest people i have know around tracks were roady/xc types because most time is saved via climbing the fact they had to walk some downs or skip most jumps and lips on the down showed me they had little technical skill.
But I personally couldn't give a flying rats nuts about how fast i go up, i like coming down as fast possible while having fun. being as technically solid as i can and my fitness is what it is due to me having fun.0 -
I ride mainly XC. I am all for the choice of the rider and what pedal works best for them.
I use flats.0 -
What if Auriel Forrester is wrong ? A sample of one opinion is not exactly conclusive, is it ?
Mind you, I can't think of any other scientific or pseudo-scientific opinions against this theory.0 -
Have a read of:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... D59Qr0WwEA
and
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=msdT ... st&f=false
With latter start earlier ie page 1150 -
Shaggy_Dog wrote:Riding flat pedals is soul destroying after being clipped in, it is slower and harder work. I don't understand why some people refuse to go clipped in, is it fear of being attached to the bike or wanting to be cool like dirt jumpers and downhillers?
As people in this thread haven't tired of telling us, many downhillers use SPDs, so obviously it's not that :?
IMO you're making the mistake of confusing your own opinion with fact. I went from SPDs to flats just like lots of other people do, and it wasn't soul destroying in the slightest.Uncompromising extremist0 -
Nope, power is the rate at which energy is converted into moiton, in this case.Shaggy_Dog wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Maximum power is when your entire weight is on the frontmost pedal.
Not true, that's maximum torque, maximum power is average torque multilpied by cadence.
You can either spin quickly, or use more torque, essentially. The power output can be measured by how quickly you've moved a load (you and bike) a given distance.
So, if you travel, say 100 metres, with 50 revolutions of the crank in 15 seconds, or travel 100 metres with 500 revolutions of the cranks in 15 seconds, your power output is the same.0 -
This, exactly this, is the reason I get so annoyed by this repetitive argument.Thewaylander wrote:nick.
Actualyl we are not anti SPD we think ride what makes you happy, But we hate being told there better yah yah when the scietific test tell you clearly they really make little to no difference. so we get narked and have to put you back in your boxes0 -
Power output on a bike is usually measured as the crank torque multiplied by crank revs.0
-
that sounds incorrect, Sonic. From a physics perspective, anyway.0
-
That is the power the cyclist is generating via the crank. Power has always been a product of torque and revs. Well, to be correct it is angular velocity ie:
P=τ.ω
where P is power, τ is torque, and ω is the angular velocity.0 -
supersonic wrote:ω
appears to be a tiny ball bag0 -
just to prove I'm not going mental...
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/hdbk101 ... 10_139.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/473289/power
http://www.toolingu.com/definition-5602 ... power.html (quite a way down the page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque0 -
sheepsteeth wrote:supersonic wrote:ω
appears to be a tiny ball bag
just to prove im not going mental, that really looks like a tiny ball bag.0 -
I am not saying you are wrong lol, but when a cyclists power is calculated they determine crank torque and cadence on a stationary trainer and graph it.
You could of course calculate the the distance traveled as in work = force x distance and work out the average power from that if timed.
But how would you measure or calculate the force in the sytem that is doing the work?0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but force in a rotational system would involve the amount of angular rotation per second, based on the amount of resistance. More force = higher RPM for a given load.0
-
werent we discussing that tiny ball bag that sonic posted?0
-
sheepsteeth wrote:werent we discussing that tiny ball bag that sonic posted?
You mean that's not a normal sized one?!
0
