Are clipless pedals faster?

ddraver

Oh really? We re going to go through this again?

The first bit in bold is irrelevant

The second bit is wrong - BMXers (for the 3rd time) Do use clipless pedals

the bit below is also irrelevant

(you have a major hard on for this bloke don't you...)

Trev The Rev

ddraver wrote:

Oh really? We re going to go through this again?

The first bit in bold is irrelevant

The second bit is wrong - BMXers (for the 3rd time) Do use clipless pedals

the bit below is also irrelevant

(you have a major hard on for this bloke don't you...)

I respect his contributions over the years to cycling science, particularly his work on training with power meters.

How you find what he has said here irrelevant to how fast you can ride a bike says a lot about you. Your crude turn of phrase says even more.

I will ignore your posts in future.

ddraver

AS an aside Kiddies - Trev's post are excellent examples of how quacks, journalists and alternative medicine fans argue their cases. Concentrating far more on the individual person they re quoting rather than what has been said, Repeating ad nauseum a bit of research, no matter how tangentially related to their subject rather than concentrating on research that deals with the actual question, then just running away and hiding.

It is a shame but it has become more and more common recently particularly in alternative medicine and in creation/evoloution debates in the US. To learn how to counter act people like this, you can do a lot worse than read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre or the "How to read a paper" book I linked to early. There is also a famous book on critical thinking that is usually very cheap on amazon.

If you re starting/doing/or even have done a scientific degree, I'd recommend having a read, I wish I had done before mine.

ddraver

Trev The Rev wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Oh really? We re going to go through this again?

The first bit in bold is irrelevant

The second bit is wrong - BMXers (for the 3rd time) Do use clipless pedals

the bit below is also irrelevant

(you have a major hard on for this bloke don't you...)

I respect his contributions over the years to cycling science, particularly his work on training with power meters.

How you find what he has said here irrelevant to how fast you can ride a bike says a lot about you. Your crude turn of phrase says even more.

I will ignore your posts in future.

I'm giving up - go and read what me and THMNET have told you multiple times already again. I retract my comment about you learning, it was premature and I apologise.

Trev The Rev

ddraver wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Oh really? We re going to go through this again?

The first bit in bold is irrelevant

The second bit is wrong - BMXers (for the 3rd time) Do use clipless pedals

the bit below is also irrelevant

(you have a major hard on for this bloke don't you...)

I respect his contributions over the years to cycling science, particularly his work on training with power meters.

How you find what he has said here irrelevant to how fast you can ride a bike says a lot about you. Your crude turn of phrase says even more.

I will ignore your posts in future.

I'm giving up - go and read what me and THMNET have told you multiple times already again. I retract my comment about you learning, it was premature and I apologise.

You mean, THMNET and I.

NewTTer

I'm giving up - go and read what me and THMNET have told you multiple times already again. I retract my comment about you learning, it was premature and I apologise.[/quote]

Glad you did this, I nearly had to criticise you there for a minute, Trev is a classic part of a sickness that we suffer with in the UK, where a noisy minority spouting total nonsense try to impart their radical and nosnesical rubbish on the masses, when we all know it is the madness of King George. However the masses either tire of trying to impart common sense, or just ignore it.

Trev The Rev

NewTTer,

Didn't you say you were going to meet me soon?

Trev.

NewTTer

Trev The Rev wrote:

NewTTer,

Didn't you say you were going to meet me soon?

Trev.

And we shall, but isnt the anticipation so exciting, escpecially for a non entity such as you, who clearly struggles for any fulfillment in normal life.

Neale1978

Iam no doctor or scientist but untill 2 days ago had been riding flat pedals on mtbs and bmxs for 15 - 20 years and after switching to a road bike this year ive got clipped in now and i can def feel an improvement esp climbing and when going for it

Its obvious to me that clips improve the spin with the pushing and pulling which in turn makes you go forward easier and so will make you faster

As mentioned by someone also pro bmx racers are all on clips now and its said that you cannot win on flats

laurentian

Trev The Rev wrote:

For the final time Dr Coggan says,

Quote;Many years ago, we measured VO2max, LT, and efficiency in cyclists pedaling w/ and w/o toe clips, and found no difference. Other studies have also failed to show any benefits.

BMX riders produce enormous power at very high pedaling rates w/o having their feet attached to the pedals.End Quote

It is time for others to back up their argument with evidence.
t

But that's not the point!

When asking the question "are clipless pedals faster?" The only variable should be the pedals used. You then ascertain whether they make a difference to what you are measuring i.e. speed.

Indeed, any meaningful experiment to ascertain the answer to the question would HAVE to have these factors (VO2, LT etc) the same. The only difference being the pedals used.

If I were doing the experiment (and I've done a few, though not cycling related), I would have the cyclist (or cyclists) pedalling with the same intensity and "effort" (as measured in VO2, LT etc.) for a fixed period of time and measure how far they travelled on the two different pedal systems. Speed=distance/time

cougie

thecryof wrote:

Yes, they are faster, using them you will gain at least 30% more power because they allow you to complete a smooth, seamless revolution without having to let up due to your foot sliding from the pedal (basically).

I must be doing something wrong because I don't remember a huge increase in power when i went clipless...

philbar72

its not about power, its about efficiency. got myself some shimano R133's recently, and some 105 spd sl pedals. i now climb more efficiently and can use nearly the full pedalstroke whereas in trainers or other shoes i was constantly having to adjust my foot position and not pedalling at all efficiently.

I can't back it up with numbers as i'm not very scientific at all, but it feels that much better. the only downside is clipping in and out, which can be a complete ball ache sometimes!

sub55

Trev The Rev wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

For the final time Dr Coggan says,

Quote;Many years ago, we measured VO2max, LT, and efficiency in cyclists pedaling w/ and w/o toe clips, and found no difference. Other studies have also failed to show any benefits.

BMX riders produce enormous power at very high pedaling rates w/o having their feet attached to the pedals.End Quote

It is time for others to back up their argument with evidence.
t

Are you saying that Dr Andrew Coggan is wrong here?

Yes Dr Coggan is wrong with this statement .
VO2 max, LT threshold and bio mechanical efficiency are rider specific . The riders figures wont change in relation to pedals used ( LT threshold is your LT threshold , end of ).
However, thats not to say a rider wont produce more power at say VO2 max if he`s using clipless pedals.

gezebo

Whilst I'm sure Dr Coggan has valid points isn't the research all a little dated?

Also I'm still a little unsure as to what is being actually asked here. Is clipless faster in terms of pure speed of revolutions over a minute or over a longer period of time and does power play a part? As this is a road cycling forum I'd have to assume that you are talking about a period of at least a few minutes... In which case I'd have to say that the question is slightly flawed and should be '... efficient' rather than simply 'faster'.

Anyway whilst you argue the points of research of one person from many years ago I'd like to point you all to an interesting chapter in 'Cutting Edge Cycling (2012)' http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cutting-Edge-Cy ... 0736091092

It's not been out long so you are are unlikely to see much of it copied and pasted onto the web yet but chapter 8 - Pedaling for peak Efficiency is worth a look (as well as the rest of it) and it's all properly referenced ;-)

Pigtail

I ride with both - and there's very little difference.

I had a mountain bike, a carrera vulcan sitting in the shed rarely used when I started cycling. Within 6 weeks I bought a road bike and another 6 weeks later I got shimano 105s and specialized elite shoes. After a few months of leisure riding I started commuting, on my mountain bike. Now I had read about front suspension absorbing energy and I put a lot of effort into pedalling as smoothly as possible. The aim was to ride with as little fork compression as possible. I think that helped my technique with flats. I'm certainly not aware of having to adjust my feet regularly, and reckon my cadence is just as high as on my roadbike.

Move on about 18 months and the mountain bike is in bits in my shed, and I now have a 14.5 kg tourer from Edinburgh bikes for commuting, with rack, mudguards and flats. It also has cheap stock tyres.

Road bike is less than 10 kilos, with aero spokes, fancy rubber and the 105s. The roadbike was off the road for about 3 weeks late summer and I did several hundred miles on the tourer.

I've been pursuing a strava segment doggedly over the summer, on a route I ride a lot. I've done it 30 times, almost all on my roadbike. It's quite demanding, 2.9 km which goes up and then down. 0.1% average gradient. My best time is on my tourer with flats.

I would actually like there to be more difference. That would help to justify a new carbon bike and new shoes with carbon soles, but unfortunately there isn't.

gezebo

Pigtail wrote:

I think you'd have to do the ride on the same bike a number of times but change pedals to get a fair result.

Also there is research which suggests having a lighter bike does improve your time when climbing hills, with generally bigger gains to be had the less fit you are. New bike time?!

ddraver

I read a Kindle preview of that book, but it's a bit too nerdy for bedtime reading, I need a holiday to go on to read it!

You raise an interesting point gezebo. Devising an experiment to quantify that clipless pedals which is applicable to real world use is actually difficult, as you say, just formulating the question is difficult. 10min - 30min lab tests at a specific effort is not at all an equivalent of normal cycling where people ride easily, ride hard, sprint out of corners, ride over bumps etc etc...

Looking at the problem qualitatively, Cyclists have ridden with their feet attached to the pedals since the dawn or the racing bike, if there should be a benefit or people would nt do it (unless you believe it's a global conspiracy organised by the man). Today, almost every racer, in every form of cycling attaches the feet to the pedals, even in BMX, DH and 4X. I think they re banned in trials for obvious reasons.

While clipless pedals may not be better than clips and straps in terms of power transfer or whatever, most people would agree that clipless pedals are a vast improvement in terms of comfort and safety (especially in mountain biking!) and that being comfortable means that you can concentrate on the riding...

Pigtail

gezebo wrote:

Pigtail wrote:

I think you'd have to do the ride on the same bike a number of times but change pedals to get a fair result.

Also there is research which suggests having a lighter bike does improve your time when climbing hills, with generally bigger gains to be had the less fit you are. New bike time?!

It's almost impossible to standardise a bike ride. You'll always have variations with weather, fitness, where you change gears etc. I do notice a difference in the bikes, particularly on hills- but we're talking well over half a stone of difference in weight between the two.

Yet its interesting with that segment that I usually push it, depending on how I'm feeling, but often as hard as I can. I've done it 28 or 29 times on my roadbike and just once or twice on the tourer and one of those is my fastest time!

ddraver

probably had a tail wind or something, This is the problem unfortunately...

Out of interest, when you say flats do you mean clips and straps or "totally" flat?

Neale1978

This guy knows

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNpvASJD ... re=related

simon_masterson

ddraver wrote:

While clipless pedals may not be better than clips and straps in terms of power transfer or whatever, most people would agree that clipless pedals are a vast improvement in terms of comfort and safety (especially in mountain biking!) and that being comfortable means that you can concentrate on the riding...

[Just because I always stick up for clips and straps... ]

You're right, of course. Cornering clearance is another key gain [though if you're grounding even those on a regular basis you are doing something wrong!]. It's a load of old rubbish that 'clips and straps make you fall over when you stop!' and all that, but I think it's a simple matter of mechanical engagement trumping physical restraint; no tightening or loosening required. With that said though, I'm rather set in my ways, and I like the feeling of a strap holding my foot in place. I think I'll always have a bike with them on.

Having said all that though, I would be interested to know if stack height has any quantifiable benefits [beyond very small aerodynamic gain!], since some people rabbit on so passionately about it...

Pigtail

ddraver wrote:

probably had a tail wind or something, This is the problem unfortunately...

Out of interest, when you say flats do you mean clips and straps or "totally" flat?

Not clips or straps at all, but serrated metal rather than totally flat. Here's the bike http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/products/revolution-country-traveller-12?bct=browse%2fbicycles%2ftouring-bikes and its totally stock. I can't do a direct link to it, but at the bottom of that page there is a link to a high resolution image.

I bought it as a commuter for a short ride in work clothes in mid-July and have ended up with almost 800 miles on it. 45 miles is the longest ride to date. I ride it with trainers and rubber soles when not commuting.

My mountain bike had rubber flat pedals and did quite a few miles before I got this one, but I had one very scary moment where my foot slipped powering away from a junction and I became seriously unbalanced. I managed to stay on, but shot across the road - thankfully without a car coming.

Trev The Rev

sub55 wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

For the final time Dr Coggan says,

Quote;Many years ago, we measured VO2max, LT, and efficiency in cyclists pedaling w/ and w/o toe clips, and found no difference. Other studies have also failed to show any benefits.

BMX riders produce enormous power at very high pedaling rates w/o having their feet attached to the pedals.End Quote

It is time for others to back up their argument with evidence.
t

Are you saying that Dr Andrew Coggan is wrong here?

Yes Dr Coggan is wrong with this statement .
VO2 max, LT threshold and bio mechanical efficiency are rider specific . The riders figures wont change in relation to pedals used ( LT threshold is your LT threshold , end of ).
However, thats not to say a rider wont produce more power at say VO2 max if he`s using clipless pedals.

Do you know who Dr Andrew Coggan is? I am sure he would answer any questions you have if you were to ask him over on timetrialling forum.

If the clipless pedals made a difference there would have been a difference in efficiency which there was not. He was also having the riders hold constant powers. If the clipless pedals enabled the riders to produce more power for the same effort be it vo2max, threshold or a percentage of threshold or vo2max, Dr Coggan would have been aware and would have reported it.

ddraver

No Dr Andrew Coggan would nt, because Dr Andrew Coggan didnt measure the power

We, and Dr Andrew Coggan have done this already...

Dr Andrew Coggan's test also did not represent real Dr Andrew Coggan world cond-Dr Andrew Coggan-itions

Dr Andrew Coggan bye Dr Andrew Coggan bye

NewTTer

Do you know who Dr Andrew Coggan is? I am sure he would answer any questions you have if you were to ask him over on timetrialling forum.

.[/quote]
Bloody good idea Trev, who dont you do that and STAY THERE, seems you have already ruined that forum with your nonsense so you may aswell stay there instead of poisoning this one aswell.

cougie

Wasn't he banned from the tt forum already ?

Trev The Rev

ddraver wrote:

No Dr Andrew Coggan would nt, because Dr Andrew Coggan didnt measure the power

We, and Dr Andrew Coggan have done this already...

Dr Andrew Coggan's test also did not represent real Dr Andrew Coggan world cond-Dr Andrew Coggan-itions

Dr Andrew Coggan bye Dr Andrew Coggan bye

He used a Quinton Cycle ergometer 845 which gives a constant power output independent of pedaling frequency and it measures power in watts.

ddraver

Yep - constant - so no difference would have been noted regardless of pedal system used

Keep trying...

bompington

Can someone please summarise this for me - am I right in thinking this research shows that, when measured at a constant power output, there was no increase in power?

ddraver