MTB and Road SPD difference
Comments
-
I had used spd's since coming to road bikes from mtb. I use some stiff, half decent touring shoes rather than mtb specific shoes.
I had no problems what so ever, but fancied a bit of a change so bought Speedplay Light action pedals, and some tasty Giro shoes. The shoes were extremely comfortable, and the pedals were very easy to get in and out of, and had a nice comfortable platform. However, and absolutely honestly, I personally didn't feel any extra benefit to pedaling efficiency or comfort over the spd's. Maybe I'm just not good enough to notice the difference (that's not sarcasm aimed at anyone else by the way!)
Unfortunately for me, the Light action pedals have too much float for my liking and seemed to bring an old niggle from my mtb days back in one of my knees. (No fault of the pedals, something to do with my own shoddy technique when switching from sitting to standing which meant I was twisting my knee! :roll: ) I put the spd's back on, and the lack of movement solved the issue.
I imagine if I had bought the standard Speedplays I would have remained perfectly happy with them (and especially the shoes) but the fact is, when I went back to the spd's I didn't suddenly think "well these are not as good". They just felt the same.
Have I mentioned the shoes were good though! No better for pedaling, but like slippers! Gutted. :oops:0 -
Pituophis wrote:I had used spd's since coming to road bikes from mtb. I use some stiff, half decent touring shoes rather than mtb specific shoes.
I had no problems what so ever, but fancied a bit of a change so bought Speedplay Light action pedals, and some tasty Giro shoes. The shoes were extremely comfortable, and the pedals were very easy to get in and out of, and had a nice comfortable platform. However, and absolutely honestly, I personally didn't feel any extra benefit to pedaling efficiency or comfort over the spd's. Maybe I'm just not good enough to notice the difference (that's not sarcasm aimed at anyone else by the way!)
Unfortunately for me, the Light action pedals have too much float for my liking and seemed to bring an old niggle from my mtb days back in one of my knees. (No fault of the pedals, something to do with my own shoddy technique when switching from sitting to standing which meant I was twisting my knee! :roll: ) I put the spd's back on, and the lack of movement solved the issue.
I imagine if I had bought the standard Speedplays I would have remained perfectly happy with them (and especially the shoes) but the fact is, when I went back to the spd's I didn't suddenly think "well these are not as good". They just felt the same.
Have I mentioned the shoes were good though! No better for pedaling, but like slippers! Gutted. :oops:
Why be gutted? Surely you just sell the light action Speedplays and get some SPD SL's (if shoes are 3 bolt), or non light action Speedplays if you feel its the light action bit thats the problem.
Personally I would have tried SL's if you did not get on with Speedplays.
Do light action Speedplays have more float than non light action ones then? I thought the light action bit was purely to do with clipping in and out?
Light action SPD SL's have (afaik) no effect on float as the float is in the cleat.
I thought float was customisable on Speedplays?
Surely SPD'S have more float than Speedplays don't they?
Sounds like the rubbery sole of your touring shoes are just gripping the pedal a bit.
What has excessive float and movement got to do with knee problems anyway?
I thought that the whole point of float was that it allowed your knee to move. Speedplays are normally recommended for people with knee problems aren't they?
Surely if your pedal action wants your foot to move then restricting that movement would be unadvisable?
I appreciate that one pedal works for you and one does not, but am not sure that your reasoning for that will apply to other people.
You feel that the pedals you tried are no better for pedalling, but as they are no worse, why don't you just get some cheap SL's and see how that goes? You seem to love the shoes that would fit them.0 -
iPete wrote:Carbonator wrote:I hope all you guys saying there is no difference have tried both lol
Seems to me that a lot of people just want there to be no difference :roll:
Yup, Bont A2 and Ultegra pedals haven't seen the light of day for a long while.
Been racing through winter in MO77 shoes and M520 pedals. Not sure I can be bothered with putting the SPD-SL back on the road bike. But maybe I'll fit them and be amazed with all the extra wattzz they'll give
As a caveat, I run a two bikes, one fixed and commute a lot, XT SPD on my fixed are lurvely to use.
I use both too and also feel that SPD's (well SPD of sorts (compatable), Candys, as they are light and double sided without having an unused/unnecessary second mechanism hanging underneath the pedal the whole time, so one spring, one tension) are great for certain circumstances. I just also feel that SL's are great for others.
Why do you anti SL guys always bring up and make sarcastic comments about efficiency? Its not the only reason people use them.
Personally I feel they are more efficient. I really do not care how much though as its not the reason I have/like them.0 -
Carbonator wrote:
Why be gutted? Surely you just sell the light action Speedplays and get some SPD SL's (if shoes are 3 bolt), or non light action Speedplays if you feel its the light action bit thats the problem.
Personally I would have tried SL's if you did not get on with Speedplays.
Do light action Speedplays have more float than non light action ones then? I thought the light action bit was purely to do with clipping in and out?
Light action SPD SL's have (afaik) no effect on float as the float is in the cleat.
I thought float was customisable on Speedplays?
Surely SPD'S have more float than Speedplays don't they?
Sounds like the rubbery sole of your touring shoes are just gripping the pedal a bit.
What has excessive float and movement got to do with knee problems anyway?
I thought that the whole point of float was that it allowed your knee to move. Speedplays are normally recommended for people with knee problems aren't they?
Surely if your pedal action wants your foot to move then restricting that movement would be unadvisable?
I appreciate that one pedal works for you and one does not, but am not sure that your reasoning for that will apply to other people.
You feel that the pedals you tried are no better for pedalling, but as they are no worse, why don't you just get some cheap SL's and see how that goes? You seem to love the shoes that would fit them.
The Light action pedals have 15 degrees of float which (unless I am numb, which is possible) is not adjustable. This was allowing my foot to twist as I stood up. I made a point of saying that this was a personal thing and may not be something others would experience.
My foot does not twist with the spd's, which may be down the the sole of the shoe in some way, as you say. We are in complete agreement about that.
The point of my post was that I have tried Speedplay pedals and good quality shoes, and my conclusion was that they made virtually no difference to my cycling enjoyment/capability when compared directly with Spd's. The fact that I have switched back to spd's has not had a negative effect on my performance.
I imagine that if I tried SL's I would come to the same conclusion whilst having wasted another £100+ on pedals. I could be wrong, but as I have learned there is nothing wrong with my standard spd's, why bother?0 -
Carbonator wrote:Personally I feel they are more efficient. I really do not care how much though as its not the reason I have/like them.
My 8 speed Campag is better than your 11 speed Shimano (not to mention much prettier). I am sorry if that reality offends you.
But I feel that white bikes are faster. I feel that because my low profile frame was owned by Chris Boardman, it must have special go faster mojo. I'm happy with the benefits of the 'road' systems (though they are not without their drawbacks), hence I own some, but being nice to use doesn't equate to genuine performance enhancement. The reason why nonsense (which it remains until someone brings along some actual evidence) like this gets around is by being repeated and not questioned (which marketing departments love). What you find nice to use is useful information, but 'it just is' needs to go back to primary school where it belongs.
By the way, the reason why I went for Looks on that bike? It was Boardman's pedal sponsor at the time, and the frame therefore has a sticker on the chainstay. 0 -
Simon Masterson wrote:Carbonator wrote:Personally I feel they are more efficient. I really do not care how much though as its not the reason I have/like them.
My 8 speed Campag is better than your 11 speed Shimano (not to mention much prettier). I am sorry if that reality offends you.
But I feel that white bikes are faster. I feel that because my low profile frame was owned by Chris Boardman, it must have special go faster mojo. I'm happy with the benefits of the 'road' systems (though they are not without their drawbacks), hence I own some, but being nice to use doesn't equate to genuine performance enhancement. The reason why nonsense (which it remains until someone brings along some actual evidence) like this gets around is by being repeated and not questioned (which marketing departments love). What you find nice to use is useful information, but 'it just is' needs to go back to primary school where it belongs.
By the way, the reason why I went for Looks on that bike? It was Boardman's pedal sponsor at the time, and the frame therefore has a sticker on the chainstay.
Not sure how 8 speed is better than 11, but I only mentioned '11 speed' to differentiate the new Shimano groupsets from the old ones. I was not really talking about the number of sprockets but I can see how it sounds now.
I don't actually have an 11 speed groupset yet (apart from brakes which are great), but have ridden 105 and Ultegra 11 speed and was very impressed.
Have never ridden Campag so cannot comment, but I expect it to be fantastic and that would not 'offend' me at all. Quite the contrary!
The thing you are missing in your rant is just that. That I would love things being better and would accept that they were even if i did not/could not have them. Whilst other people seem to slag them off at all opportunities when in the same position.
I dont understand a lot of your rant but I think you are over analysing things a bit.
The OP just asked about the differences, of which there are quite a few. He has now (after having his question answered) decided to stick with what he has. Which is perfectly reasonable.
People who choose road shoes/pedals, or just highlight the differences/benifits, or give their opinion (if genuine/realistic) are doing nothing wrong, but you seem to think they are.
No one has to 'prove' anything, and the only thing that is 'nonsense' is this perceived marketing pressure that is conning people to buy road shoes over MTB.
Speaking for myself, there are various products on offer and I have chosen to buy road for my road bike (whilst still having and using MTB). Having now used them, I prefer them (so justifying the purchase).
Its that simple! Maybe there were subliminal messages hidden in the music being played in the shop, but I doubt it.
MTB shoes pedals have features designed specifically for off road/mountain bike use, and its as reasonable not to want them on a road bike as it is to want them on a road bike (as I do also), its just a choice, not marketing brainwashing lol.
I don't want big unnecessary tread on the bottom of my shoe.
I prefer three (or four) bolt attachment of the cleat at a decent distance apart from each other.
I prefer the bigger/further forward engagement point.
I prefer the more definitive engagement.
I don't want an unnecessary duplicate mechanism hanging under the pedal.
I prefer the weighted pedal that orientates itself correctly for me to clip into.
I prefer it being much easier to fit/wear overshoes.
Maybe other people will prefer these things (and the reasons behind some of them/other things not mentioned) too, but maybe they will be put off trying them by the sad little campaign to badmouth them that exists lol.0 -
t4tomo wrote:echo the above, get a set of A520 pedals for your road bike and M520 for your MTB and same shoes and cleats for both.
This is a good suggestion, in my view. I know Carbonator says he thinks single-sided pedals like the A520 look as if they might be difficult to clip into and are more suited to soft touring shoes, but that isn't the case.
I use A520 pedals on my touring bike and similar A600 pedals on my road bikes. I switched from double-sided because the wider platform of the single-sided pedals supports my foot slightly better on long multi-day tours. This was after I got under-foot pain towards the end of a French coast-to-coast ride with double-sided SPDs. This was not due to bendy shoes. I use virtually rigid carbon-soled racing MTB shoes (S Works and Sidi). I do still happily use double-sided SPDs on my tandem and folding bike.
Clipping in is not an issue for me, only a bit harder than double-sided SPDs. The pedals hang in such a way that it is straightforward to catch the front with your toe and press down to clip in. I have never had any problem with fitting of overshoes or wearing them out. There is only a tiny amount of tread on my shoes - a heel pad and two ridges either side of the cleat - which don't add much weight but do enable me to walk like a human rather than a duck.
The A600, in particular, don't look out of place on a high end road bike. They are Ultegra quality, marketed by Shimano as suitable for racing and gran fondos and are apparently lighter than Dura Ace road pedals, according to a road.cc review.0 -
Mercia Man wrote:t4tomo wrote:echo the above, get a set of A520 pedals for your road bike and M520 for your MTB and same shoes and cleats for both.
This is a good suggestion, in my view. I know Carbonator says he thinks single-sided pedals like the A520 look as if they might be difficult to clip into and are more suited to soft touring shoes, but that isn't the case.
I use A520 pedals on my touring bike and similar A600 pedals on my road bikes. I switched from double-sided because the wider platform of the single-sided pedals supports my foot slightly better on long multi-day tours. This was after I got under-foot pain towards the end of a French coast-to-coast ride with double-sided SPDs. This was not due to bendy shoes. I use virtually rigid carbon-soled racing MTB shoes (S Works and Sidi). I do still happily use double-sided SPDs on my tandem and folding bike.
Clipping in is not an issue for me, only a bit harder than double-sided SPDs. The pedals hang in such a way that it is straightforward to catch the front with your toe and press down to clip in. I have never had any problem with fitting of overshoes or wearing them out. There is only a tiny amount of tread on my shoes - a heel pad and two ridges either side of the cleat - which don't add much weight but do enable me to walk like a human rather than a duck.
The A600, in particular, don't look out of place on a high end road bike. They are Ultegra quality, marketed by Shimano as suitable for racing and gran fondos and are apparently lighter than Dura Ace road pedals, according to a road.cc review.
Well they are not lighter according to wiggle lol.
Before you all go on about weight, remember it was not me that mentioned it
Can you take a photo of your shoe attached to the pedal that shows both front and rear of the pedal touching the shoe at the same time.
Unless they do then you may as well cut them off!
They will be lighter than Dura Ace then too (but nowhere near as good an axle) 0 -
What type of support do the A520 pedals offer that makes a difference over the M520 type given that you reckon the shoes are very rigid? I haven't tried SPD so I don't know how much movement you can feel when using them. Since the pedal rotates around the pedal spindle anyway, I can't imagine you mean the A520 provides any advantage on that axis? Does the SPD type cleat allow the shoe to rock left and right on the M520s and this is prevented by the A520? As I say, I haven't used SPDs and if the sole is stiff enough to insulate you from the point load at the cleat I don't understand what the platform type pedals offer unless it's limitations on movement still available between the cleat and the pedal when engaged. i.e. lateral rock or slide, and float.Mercia Man wrote:....I use A520 pedals on my touring bike and similar A600 pedals on my road bikes. I switched from double-sided because the wider platform of the single-sided pedals supports my foot slightly better on long multi-day tours. This was after I got under-foot pain towards the end of a French coast-to-coast ride with double-sided SPDs. This was not due to bendy shoes. I use virtually rigid carbon-soled racing MTB shoes (S Works and Sidi)....0 -
Sorry, Carbonator, I was wrong about the weight. Just looked again at road.cc review and they are 10g heavier than Dura Ace. On the platform size issue, I wasn't talking about whether the shoe touches the pedal fore and aft. What I said was that the wider platform supports my foot slightly better than a double-sided SPD. This is true. There is more pedal in contact with my shoe side-to-side.0
-
Ai_1 wrote:
What type of support do the A520 pedals offer that makes a difference over the M520 type given that you reckon the shoes are very rigid? I haven't tried SPD so I don't know how much movement you can feel when using them. Since the pedal rotates around the pedal spindle anyway, I can't imagine you mean the A520 provides any advantage on that axis? Does the SPD type cleat allow the shoe to rock left and right on the M520s and this is prevented by the A520? As I say, I haven't used SPDs and if the sole is stiff enough to insulate you from the point load at the cleat I don't understand what the platform type pedals offer unless it's limitations on movement still available between the cleat and the pedal when engaged. i.e. lateral rock or slide, and float.Mercia Man wrote:....I use A520 pedals on my touring bike and similar A600 pedals on my road bikes. I switched from double-sided because the wider platform of the single-sided pedals supports my foot slightly better on long multi-day tours. This was after I got under-foot pain towards the end of a French coast-to-coast ride with double-sided SPDs. This was not due to bendy shoes. I use virtually rigid carbon-soled racing MTB shoes (S Works and Sidi)....
I'm afraid I don't have the technical answer, Ai. All I can report is my personal experience of long multi-day rides with the two types of SPD.
I used to be perfectly happy with double-sided SPDs until I did a coast-to-coast ride across France, loaded with camping gear a few years ago. When I am riding for around six hours a day every day for two or three weeks, small issues with contact points such as hands, feet and backside become exaggerated, making choice of mitts, pedals, shoes and shorts more critical than when I go for a day ride. My feet, in particular, get a hard time when I am pushing hard on the pedals to get that weight up a French mountain pass - the pressure on my feet is considerably more than when I ride similar roads on my unladen road bike.
In the last week of my long ride, I was getting a pressure point on the ball of my right foot. I got temporary relief by moving the cleat position slightly. I decided to try A520 pedals when I got home to see if that improved things. I could feel there was more support from the wider platform when, for example, I honked uphill. I later did another cross-France trip, this time with the A520 pedals. I had no pressure point on my right foot. It may be, as you suggest, that the wider platform prevents micro-rocking of shoe on pedal, but it's not something you can see with the naked eye.0 -
So to sum this all up if you like SPD then use it, ditto SPD-SL, Look, Speedplay whatever. Some people still swear by toe clips/straps.
If people prefer SPD-SL that's great, even if it's just down the the look of the shoes or pedals. If people look down on you and your road bike for having SPD's then that's their problem, not yours.0 -
Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:If people look down on you and your road bike for having SPD's then that's their problem, not yours.
Other than you, who on this thread said or hinted at that? :roll:0 -
Carbonator wrote:Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:If people look down on you and your road bike for having SPD's then that's their problem, not yours.
Other than you, who on this thread said or hinted at that? :roll:
Hope I haven't touched a nerve? My comment was based on some experiences I've had and certainly seen on these forums. If I could be bothered I'd provide you the links but then I'm sure you've seen it too? Is there some rule I've missed about not expanding the discussion into areas not already covered?0 -
I am not sure I have seen it actually tbh.
Same way I have never heard people on budget bikes being abused by other cyclists which is something else that apparently happens regularly.
Provide links if you like, but if no one on this thread has done it then I can still only see your comments as trouble making and thereby unwanted 'expansion'.0 -
cyd190468 wrote:
I use a520s with shimano spd compatible road shoes which takes care of four out of your seven concerns. And for number two the soles are so stiff you can't tell how big the cleat is once clipped in. I'll give you 3 & 4 as they can be fiddley to clip into but having the ability to use mtb shoes if I'm riding with a group that has coffee stops more than makes up for it,Carbonator wrote:
I don't want big unnecessary tread on the bottom of my shoe.
I prefer three (or four) bolt attachment of the cleat at a decent distance apart from each other.
I prefer the bigger/further forward engagement point.
I prefer the more definitive engagement.
I don't want an unnecessary duplicate mechanism hanging under the pedal.
I prefer the weighted pedal that orientates itself correctly for me to clip into.
I prefer it being much easier to fit/wear overshoes.
.
I count 3 so you have something wrong.
Have you ever used road pedals/cleats? I use both and trust me, they feel different despite all off my shoes having very stiff carbon soles.
There is also the possibility of two bolt cleats moving if bolts are not tight/secure. Not a problem if you keep them tightened, but just another difference worth pointing out (as that was the original question/point of the thread ) perhaps.
Using a touring pedal whilst wearing stiff road shoes (that therefore renders the platform unnecessary) and putting up with 'fiddley' engagement during a ride (the reason you went out) just to make a coffee stop (the majority of which you are standing still in a Que or sitting down drinking coffee) marginally more walkable seems odd to me.
MTFU some (not me) would say :shock:
Top tip for anyone that does insist on doing things this way though.
You can get little platforms that fit into the three triangular bolt holes (you may as well use them for something lol). They have a small amount of tread each side of the cleat to make walking easier and protect the cleat from damage.
I think the Shimano ones may no longer be available in the UK, but Rose had them a while back.
Crank brothers do a similar thing for anyone avant-garde enough to not use Shimano lol
Sorry if I appear anti MTB on road bike because I am not.
Its just that people that are very pro it seem oddly anti road pedals.0 -
I agree with much of what you say, Carbonator, but I do believe you are mistaken about A520 /A600 pedals - I assume you have not used them. The rounded bars to the front and rear of the pedal are definitely not a "platform" to support the foot. I think their purpose is to protect the mechanism and to allow you to locate pedal with your toe. The upper surface of these bars is not flat for support, it's rounded. When a shoe is inserted into the cleat, it is supported by the wide pedal platform on the rubber buffers on either side of the sole. The rounded bars to front and rear of pedal are more than 1cm from the sole. You would need something as flexible as flip-flops for any chance of the sole touching them.
EDIT: I have just tested them with my wife's flexible soled touring shoes with more tread than my Sidis and the front and rear gap is still 1cm. The sole would have to curve downwards considerably for it even to touch those front and rear bars.0 -
Carbonator wrote:I am not sure I have seen it actually tbh.
Same way I have never heard people on budget bikes being abused by other cyclists which is something else that apparently happens regularly.
Provide links if you like, but if no one on this thread has done it then I can still only see your comments as trouble making and thereby unwanted 'expansion'.
Not exactly sure how it is trouble making, my comments were clearly supportive of the op using whatever they preferred, it seems only you took offence.0 -
Because you are suggesting that people with road shoes/pedals look down and verbally abuse those that do not.0
-
Mercia Man wrote:I agree with much of what you say, Carbonator, but I do believe you are mistaken about A520 /A600 pedals - I assume you have not used them. The rounded bars to the front and rear of the pedal are definitely not a "platform" to support the foot. I think their purpose is to protect the mechanism and to allow you to locate pedal with your toe. The upper surface of these bars is not flat for support, it's rounded. When a shoe is inserted into the cleat, it is supported by the wide pedal platform on the rubber buffers on either side of the sole. The rounded bars to front and rear of pedal are more than 1cm from the sole. You would need something as flexible as flip-flops for any chance of the sole touching them.
EDIT: I have just tested them with my wife's flexible soled touring shoes with more tread than my Sidis and the front and rear gap is still 1cm. The sole would have to curve downwards considerably for it even to touch those front and rear bars.
Cheers MM ;-)
Be careful associating yourself with me on this thread though. Don't drink any strange tasting tea after waddling into a cafe stop
I did not actually think they were there for a touring shoe to rest on. It was just a guess.
Cannot see any reason for the cage. It's certainly not to protect the mech.
The only point would seem to be appearance.
That said I have Candy 1's rather than eggbeater's for appearence and the slightly more supportive sides.0 -
Carbonator wrote:Mercia Man wrote:I agree with much of what you say, Carbonator, but I do believe you are mistaken about A520 /A600 pedals - I assume you have not used them. The rounded bars to the front and rear of the pedal are definitely not a "platform" to support the foot. I think their purpose is to protect the mechanism and to allow you to locate pedal with your toe. The upper surface of these bars is not flat for support, it's rounded. When a shoe is inserted into the cleat, it is supported by the wide pedal platform on the rubber buffers on either side of the sole. The rounded bars to front and rear of pedal are more than 1cm from the sole. You would need something as flexible as flip-flops for any chance of the sole touching them.
EDIT: I have just tested them with my wife's flexible soled touring shoes with more tread than my Sidis and the front and rear gap is still 1cm. The sole would have to curve downwards considerably for it even to touch those front and rear bars.
Cheers MM ;-)
Be careful associating yourself with me on this thread though. Don't drink any strange tasting tea after waddling into a cafe stop
Cheers to you too! Always happy to have constructive debate although I confess it is fun to watch others falling out.
It is the wider supportive sides on A520 and 600 that makes me prefer them to double-sided SPD. My feeling is that no matter how stiff your soles are, the greater the contact area between pedal and shoe, the greater the stability. Which would make traditional road style Look, SPD-SL type pedals the best of all in that respect.
Having said that, the differences are small if you have stiff-soled shoes. Look at all those audax riders who cover far more mileages than me who are perfectly happy with MTB type double-sided SPDs. I can remember seeing a GCN youtube video in which they lab tested a rider (Simon Richardson?) using flat unclipped MTB pedals and traditional road clip-in pedals. I'm pretty sure there was no difference in power delivery between the two although he liked the feeling better of being clipped in.
It's all personal choice. And of course it's wrong to judge people on their choice of bike and equipment (although we all do it!). But I personally use SPD, single and double-sided, because much of my cycling involves walking round campsites, shopping for provisions when touring, visiting open gardens or stately homes on leisurely afternoons with my wife, or simply walking in and out of cafes when I'm out with the lads.0 -
Carbonator wrote:Because you are suggesting that people with road shoes/pedals look down and verbally abuse those that do not.
I think you're exaggerating what I wrote. Re read my post, I didn't mention verbal abuse or even imply it.0 -
OK, always happy to admit when I am wrong ;-)
Sorry, you did not say anyone actually spoke.
Not sure how else you would know what they thought though, and its not great suggesting that people are thinking it. You could become very paranoid.
I don't think other peoples opinions on someones choice matters at all.
Their opinions before the choice is made are hopefully quite useful though.0 -
No worries
0 -
cyd190468 wrote:1,5,6&7 are taken care of by using Shimano SPD compat road shoes with 520s. ie no tread on shoes, no duplicate mechanism, m520s are weighted the same as other road pedals, standard road shoes so covers fit normally.
A520 or M520?
M520s are symmetrical so how can they be weighted? They also have a duplicate mechanism.
A520s are not weighted anyway. weighted means that they orientate themselves to a set position ready to clip into.
Its not a big point. Its just one of many that I listed as being favourable.0 -
Carbonator wrote:cyd190468 wrote:1,5,6&7 are taken care of by using Shimano SPD compat road shoes with 520s. ie no tread on shoes, no duplicate mechanism, m520s are weighted the same as other road pedals, standard road shoes so covers fit normally.
A520 or M520?
M520s are symmetrical so how can they be weighted? They also have a duplicate mechanism.
A520s are not weighted anyway. weighted means that they orientate themselves to a set position ready to clip into.
Its not a big point. Its just one of many that I listed as being favourable.
In fact, A520/600 do appear to be weighted. I think that's part of the function of those bars to front and rear that look like a "platform". Just checked the A600 on my best road bike where it lives in the dining room. Looking sideways on from the crank side, the pedals hang at 11 o'clock (top) and 5 (bottom) - like a regular road pedal. To insert foot, you push front bar with toe and back flips up to clip in. Spin the pedal and it goes back to that position. When the pedals are new, they don't fall naturally like that. But after a couple of rides, the bearings and grease loosen up allowing this to happen.0 -
Mercia Man wrote:Carbonator wrote:cyd190468 wrote:1,5,6&7 are taken care of by using Shimano SPD compat road shoes with 520s. ie no tread on shoes, no duplicate mechanism, m520s are weighted the same as other road pedals, standard road shoes so covers fit normally.
A520 or M520?
M520s are symmetrical so how can they be weighted? They also have a duplicate mechanism.
A520s are not weighted anyway. weighted means that they orientate themselves to a set position ready to clip into.
Its not a big point. Its just one of many that I listed as being favourable.
In fact, A520/600 do appear to be weighted. I think that's part of the function of those bars to front and rear that look like a "platform". Just checked the A600 on my best road bike where it lives in the dining room. Looking sideways on from the crank side, the pedals hang at 11 o'clock (top) and 5 (bottom) - like a regular road pedal. To insert foot, you push front bar with toe and back flips up to clip in. Spin the pedal and it goes back to that position. When the pedals are new, they don't fall naturally like that. But after a couple of rides, the bearings and grease loosen up allowing this to happen.
That would be pretty good if they did.
I wondered if the A600's would as they have better bearings I, but cannot see that the A520's do.
They might though and it would explain the front and rear bars.
As I said, it was never a big point. Just something my road pedals definitely do and I quite like.
I am not about to buy a pair of touring pedals to find out if they are as good.
Everyone that has them knows exactly how they work and is probably happy with that.0 -
Just checked the A520 pedals on my tourer and they hang the same as the A600. So I'm sure they are weighted like that to make entry easier. Despite what some other posters have said, I find them quite easy to clip in, although a bit more tricky than double-sided SPDs.
I have also used Ritchey Micro Pro V4 on one of my road bikes, another single-sided road pedal similar to a Shimano SPD but using a different cleat with a recess enabling your sole to be closer to the pedal axle. These are really minimalist at just 210g but do not hang like the A520/600 and are tricky to get into with their tiny surface area. I junked those because the tiny non-adjustable bearings wore out.0 -
Maybe I will have to get a pair to test ride then
I have done that with a couple of things in the past and it usually just proves what I thought in the first place though.0 -
Thought you did, and sorry, you were right, they do seem to orientate themselves so it is 4 out of 7 ;-)
The A600's should be pretty good then.
Shimano should sell those adapters (that shield the cleat and make the shoes properly walkable) in the UK then.
Would make a nice little system for people who want to do things that way.0
