Shoes

gazgareth

Just wondering about thoughts on cycle shoes and if expensive types such as carbon soles really make any difference.

Was looking at my pics from the staffs 70.3 ironman and my £30 shoes clearly look as cheap as they are.

I view expensive shoes as any over £100. Do these actually make any power transfer difference (or other benefits) or are you just paying for much better looking shoes.

aberdeenal

I have a pair of Specialized Road Pro's from a few years back and didn't think they could be bettered for comfort until I picked up a pair of Boot Vaypor + shoes........like wearing a pair of slippers albeit with a very stiff sole.

It's all subjective I suppose - what one finds comfortable another won't

zest28

Yes, carbon shoes make a huge difference. The stiffness is alot better and this can be important when putting down alot of power. My previous non-carbon shoes flexed a bit under sprinting which was enough to give me knee issues on my right leg. Ever since I upgraded to carbon shoes, all problems dissappeared

I suppose if you don’t produce enough power to make non-carbon shoes flex and causing knee problems, then it might not be worth it.

pblakeney

1. Carbon soles (or any stiff construction) do make a difference.
2. Fit is the most important aspect.
3. Diminishing returns on investment.
4. Appearance is the least important aspect, but usually the decider.

alan_sherman

Foot fit is the most important thing - need to be comfortable without slop. Sadly most cycing shoes are built with pointy toes and for narrow feet.
Then the cleat position - some people struggle with cleat position - too close to crank arm, or too far forward.
Then ventilation - some shoes are really boil in the bag on hot days.
Stiffness is over-rated, but still important after the above. Most shoes are stiff enough. I often wonder just how much bend people think they are putting through their cycling shoes. A pair on running trainers you can feel it, but any reasonable nylon or carbon sole is fine.
Stack height is another thing - can vary quite a bit and affect saddle height.

keef66

If looks are really important to you then you'll definitely go faster if you have a flashy pair of carbon soled beauties. About the same effect as having a red bike.

I'm old and slow and put function ahead of appearance, so I'm happy in my bland, budget Specialized jobbies.

(Mind you, my wife said yesterday she thinks they are ugly, so I may buy a nicer summer pair just to keep her happy )

amrushton

PBlakeney wrote:

1. Carbon soles (or any stiff construction) do make a difference.
2. Fit is the most important aspect.
3. Diminishing returns on investment.
4. Appearance is the least important aspect, but usually the decider.

If you go on Y-tube there is a vlog by lawrence carpenter where he goes to a shop in Richmond. The shop owner explains about different shoes and why the £300 shoes the vlogger has brought in are not right. Quite interesting and makes you think why you shouldnt buy shoes on the basis of a pretty picture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MPny_EgoxY

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Bought a pair of https://www.wiggle.co.uk/dhb-dorica-carbon-road-shoe/ and Time Xpro 10 pedals a month ago, to replace my Time ATAC 2-bolt pedals and an old pair of Shimano SH-M121G shoes (which are now on the Voodoo)...

The laces take a few seconds longer to tie up, but they allow more tweaking of where to have the shoes grip my foot more. Plus the 43 size is more generous than the old Shimano shoes, bit more wiggle room for the toes without the shoe feeling loose plus there's plenty of room for winter socks.

Can't say I've really noticed increased power efficiency, but the newer setup seems to be upsetting my knees a bit, maybe I just need to tweak the cleat position more but it feels like there is far less float. Not to mention that the ATAC cleats are the original metal ones from 2006, the new plastic cleats look awful in comparison for ~4 weeks use!