Mid Foot Cleat.

For Roadies

Postby biomac » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:16 am

[/quote] No, off the shelf road shoes, Shimano and Pearl Izumi models. So certainly not "midfoot" as in middle of the foot extreme case here. The axle of the pedal lies behind the ball however not that far. That would not be ideal for me, I've experienced this position often for years on non-cleat pedals/shoes. It would cause too much hamstring use and off balance the muscle workings. [/quote]

The hamstrings are the muscles which propel your pedals, everything else is just bridging their action. Like a chain where it's weakest part decides on whether or not the chain will lasts, traditional setup forces you to rely on minor muscle groups - and a poor 45% of spining zone which leads to high torque peaks and long upstroke losses, so tire your hamstrings quickly. That's why we offer the shoes with both possibilities, midfoot(bio-mxc²) and/and-or traditional cleat setup, four-, three- or two-hole(hidden under the forefoot pad).
The pair of Y³ you were looking at in this thread weighs 240gramm - the pair! Stack height is 4mm (including insert) and ventilation is extreme due to the three meshes in the front. Also, they can be ordered custom-taylored, of course.
biomac
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:07 am

by BNA » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:49 am

BNA
 

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:49 am

biomac wrote: measurable beyond scientific doubt.

Care to enlighten us?

Can you please post the references to published peer reviewed studies that enable one to to draw such a conclusion. i.e. they are 10% better.

Can you comment on this published study, for instance?


1: J Biomech. 2007;40(6):1262-7. Epub 2006 Aug 9.

Is economy of competitive cyclists affected by the anterior-posterior foot
position on the pedal?

Van Sickle JR Jr, Hull ML.

Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group, One Shields Avenue, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

The primary purpose of this investigation was to test the hypothesis that cycling economy, as measured by rate of oxygen consumption (VO(2)) in healthy, young, competitive cyclists pedaling at a constant workrate, increases (i.e. VO(2) decreases) when the attachment point of the foot to the pedal is moved posteriorly on the foot.

The VO(2) of 11 competitive cyclists (age 26.8+/-8.9 years) was evaluated on three separate days with three anterior-posterior attachment points of the foot to the pedal (forward=traditional; rear=cleat halfway between the head of the first metatarsal and the posterior end of the calcaneous; and mid=halfway between the rear and forward positions) on each day.

With a randomly selected foot position, VO(2) was measured as each cyclist pedaled at steady state with a cadence of 90 rpm and with a power output corresponding to approximately 90% of their ventilatory threshold (VT) (mean power output 203.3+/-20.8 W). After heart rate returned to baseline, VO(2) was measured again as the subject pedaled with a different anterior-posterior foot position, followed by another rest period and then VO(2) was measured at the final foot position.

The key finding of this investigation was that VO(2) was not affected by the anterior-posterior foot position either for the group (p=0.311) or for any individual subject (p>or=0.156). The VO(2) for the group was 2705+/-324, 2696+/-337, and 2747+/-297 ml/min for the forward, mid, and rear foot positions, respectively.

The practical implication of these findings is that adjusting the anterior-posterior foot position on the pedal does not affect cycling economy in competitive cyclists pedaling at a steady-state power output eliciting approximately 90% of VT.


PMID: 16901493 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:54 am

biomac wrote:The hamstrings are the muscles which propel your pedals, everything else is just bridging their action.
What?
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby toolonglegs » Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:20 am

Jeez!!!....now I am impressed... Götz Heine answering my original post...thank you for you time...my achillies does seemed to have healed a bit but I still have a desire to try a true midfoot cleat.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14372
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby biomac » Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:00 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
biomac wrote:The hamstrings are the muscles which propel your pedals, everything else is just bridging their action.
What?

Ok, "supporting their action" is definitely a more suitable expression, thanks for the correction.
Now in a setup where muscles so far from the center of our bodies and so tiny as calf muscles are not needed any more simply due to the fact that there is no need to stabilise the feet any more, their oxygen consumption will diminish substantially, right?
This oxygen is now free to be used by buttocks and hamstrings which are in fact the biggest muscles of the sceleton. By the end of the action, O2 consumption of course remains equal, right?
Now please explain to me: what's the point at all investigating on this matter? Do we want to find out about VO2, let alone maximum leg force? Every cyclist eccept sprinters wants to know about how long he can succesfully use a certain setup in order to benefit from a certain modification. No doubt Van Sickle's study is valid when it comes to maintain equal oxygen consumption. No doubt a rider will not go faster with any of the examined setups as none of the setups will actually add legforce (besides, this would immediately get banned by the UCI). But tell me Alex, does this result of Van Sickle's brave study bear any significance on every rider's basic question: "What will decisively improve my stamina and performance in accordance with the rulebooks?"?
To answer this question, a study must focus on the rider's capability to persevere at similar VO2 with different setups - and likewise adjusted seatposts, of course :wink:
Please name the enterprise interested in proving this when it comes to verify a patent nobody can legally commercialise but us.
The only one is the rider himself for he's the one who takes up tough training, spends thousands on his bikes and dedicates his entire lifestyle to what he feels is the most fantastic sport in the world: Cycling.
Now here's the good news because also he's the very one who can simply take out some old shoes, follow the instructions Steve Hogg from your golden country has published already years ago and then: test it!
Rather than anxiously waiting for some independent institute t h i s puts fundamental evidence underneath your feet. Then argue about whether or not it is worthwhile to buy "expensive" biomac shoes (in fact they are not, compared to other carbon stuff on your bike) which apart from more essential improvements such as weight, fit, stack-height and ventilation were especially designed to also host your cleats midfoot (bio-mxc²). Thanks,
biomac
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:07 am

Postby biomac » Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:32 pm

toolonglegs wrote:Jeez!!!....now I am impressed... Götz Heine answering my original post...thank you for you time...my achillies does seemed to have healed a bit but I still have a desire to try a true midfoot cleat.


One of the reasons why biomac builds shoes with a stack height as low as our's is to minimise any possible achilles tendon trouble.
Also, by closely examining our shoes you will discover why and how they help to reduce unnecessary stress wherever possible.
You see, before I became a cobbler, I learned and practised the profession of a naturopath. In addition, I spent some years working
as a dir. sports and ride my bikes for more than 35 years. What can I say - when it comes to shoes, this helps. :wink:
biomac
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:07 am

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:27 pm

biomac wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
biomac wrote:The hamstrings are the muscles which propel your pedals, everything else is just bridging their action.
What?

Ok, "supporting their action" is definitely a more suitable expression, thanks for the correction.
Now in a setup where muscles so far from the center of our bodies and so tiny as calf muscles are not needed any more simply due to the fact that there is no need to stabilise the feet any more, their oxygen consumption will diminish substantially, right?
This oxygen is now free to be used by buttocks and hamstrings which are in fact the biggest muscles of the sceleton. By the end of the action, O2 consumption of course remains equal, right?
Now please explain to me: what's the point at all investigating on this matter? Do we want to find out about VO2, let alone maximum leg force? Every cyclist eccept sprinters wants to know about how long he can succesfully use a certain setup in order to benefit from a certain modification. No doubt Van Sickle's study is valid when it comes to maintain equal oxygen consumption. No doubt a rider will not go faster with any of the examined setups as none of the setups will actually add legforce (besides, this would immediately get banned by the UCI). But tell me Alex, does this result of Van Sickle's brave study bear any significance on every rider's basic question: "What will decisively improve my stamina and performance in accordance with the rulebooks?"?
To answer this question, a study must focus on the rider's capability to persevere at similar VO2 with different setups - and likewise adjusted seatposts, of course :wink:
Please name the enterprise interested in proving this when it comes to verify a patent nobody can legally commercialise but us.
The only one is the rider himself for he's the one who takes up tough training, spends thousands on his bikes and dedicates his entire lifestyle to what he feels is the most fantastic sport in the world: Cycling.
Now here's the good news because also he's the very one who can simply take out some old shoes, follow the instructions Steve Hogg from your golden country has published already years ago and then: test it!
Rather than anxiously waiting for some independent institute t h i s puts fundamental evidence underneath your feet. Then argue about whether or not it is worthwhile to buy "expensive" biomac shoes (in fact they are not, compared to other carbon stuff on your bike) which apart from more essential improvements such as weight, fit, stack-height and ventilation were especially designed to also host your cleats midfoot (bio-mxc²). Thanks,

OK, so you don't have any evidence to support your claims.

We have met I believe, briefly. At Steve's shop a few years ago. But I may have you confused with someone else. Where you the one running the online torque analysis with the SRM (must have been a PCIV to do that)?

Steve is a good friend of mine and I am familiar with the shoe. He has for some time promoted the benefits of using mid foot and uses it himself at times. I am not against their use. I'm equivocal since there is no evidence of a benefit.

I also coach a rider who uses mid-foot occasionally. After he failed at an attempt on a world age group hour record using mid-foot position, we are going back to a regular cleat position for another attempt in a couple of month's time. The hassle involved in having to change bike set up each time you want to move from one to the other, depending on the riding you are doing, is a PITA.

Reality is he produces no more power for the duration with either position. And power for the duration is all that matters. That and his aerodynamics. Efficiency is irrelevant. It's effectiveness that matters.

By the way, there is nothing in UCI rules that prevents a rider using such a cleat position. The only rule that applies is:

1.3.008 The rider shall normally assume a sitting position on the bicycle. This position requires that he be supported solely by the pedals, the saddle and the handlebars.


There is nothing in there about cleat positioning.

If there was, I'd be in trouble, since I ride with a prosthetic leg on the left and a cleat positioned under my "ankle". My other cleat is in the traditional location, nearer ball of foot.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby Ant. » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:38 pm

Now in a setup where muscles so far from the center of our bodies and so tiny as calf muscles are not needed any more simply due to the fact that there is no need to stabilise the feet any more, their oxygen consumption will diminish substantially, right?
This oxygen is now free to be used by buttocks and hamstrings which are in fact the biggest muscles of the sceleton. By the end of the action, O2 consumption of course remains equal, right?

But if they were working at their maximum oxygen uptake before, it won't increase afterwards?

You breathe, and you pump that oxygenated blood around your body, and the muscles take up that oxygen. From my limited understanding, the rate limiting (vo2 max) step is #3? Breathing anymore won't up your performance, nor will increasing your cardiac output, if the muscles can't utilise it any quicker.
So what I'm suggesting, your blood is already virtually totally saturated with oxygen, so just because your calf muscles aren't using any oxygen, doesn't really mean it's available or usable by your powerhouse muscles.

In fact, wouldnt ones calf muscles' arterioles constrict due to less usage, slightly increasing your systemic vascular resistance -> increasing diastolic pressure, and thus decreasing your cardiac stroke volume? (ie. you heart won't go pumping any blood than your body needs)

Okay, this is way too textbook nerdy for me :shock:
*apologises, unticks the 'notify me of replies box' and slowly backs away from the thread*
Cervélo R3
Cervélo P3C
BT Blade
Ant.
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:34 am
Location: Perth

Postby biomac » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:29 pm

We have met I believe, briefly. At Steve's shop a few years ago. But I may have you confused with someone else. Where you the one running the online torque analysis with the SRM (must have been a PCIV to do that)?
I also coach a rider who uses mid-foot occasionally. After he failed at an attempt on a world age group hour record using mid-foot position, we are going back to a regular cleat position for another attempt in a couple of month's time. The hassle involved in having to change bike set up each time you want to move from one to the other, depending on the riding you are doing, is a PITA.

Reality is he produces no more power for the duration with either position. And power for the duration is all that matters. That and his aerodynamics. Efficiency is irrelevant. It's effectiveness that matters.


Sorry, I don't know whom you are referring to Alex. While in Sydney at Steve Hogg's bike shop in 2007 I met a stupendous athlete by the name of Jayson Austin who intended to tackle the Senior Hour Record later in the year. He was very positive about bio-mxc² because he and his staff reported a noteable effect on his performance. To my knowledge the attempt failed due to a virus infection Jayson had suffered shortly prior to the event.
Reality is that that no rider produces more power (Watts) than he has force (Torque).
Reality also knows that it makes a lot of difference in which foot position a rider with two feet does his workout in terms of perseverance. It would be OT to bore the visitors of this thread with Newton's Laws of Physics still, to experience this simple statement mount a rider's cleats in the foremost position(close to his toes), raise his saddle respectively and let him do say, a hill climb. He will soon return completely exhausted, claiming that his calves were aching and his thighs burning.
Now repeat the same ride, equal Wattage maintained, with a rider in bio-mxc²/midfoot position and you will witness him return happily, reporting that yes, he had mastered the climb effortless and what is even better, he could do it again and again, same gear ratio, same speed (=same Wattage). He will state:"I feel I have more power now." This statement in terms of formal Physics is of course not correct as what he had was better leverage during downstroke.
So what caused the striking difference? The maximum force (Torque) he needed to master the hill using midfoot cleats is noteably lower, therefore his leg muscles did not suffer as much as with the toe-setup. A simple wattmeter like the one you mention and others would not display the difference though while every athlete woll note immediately. Alex, I do not talk about Power (Watts), it's all about how to apply Force (Torque) when it comes to endurance and effectiveness.
To visualise this "enormous plus in 'power' " every athlete reports immediately when putting on biomac shoes, se the graph I added to my site which explains in simple steps how this 'phenomenon' works. Please let's continue with theory after this as my time to spend on basics of biomechanics is limited due to the fact that I am a shoemaker :wink: :
biomac
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:07 am

Postby Dahondude » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:31 pm

You guys should check out Steve Hogg's comments on the Form and Fitness pages of Cyclingnews.com. He has a lot of sensible (and backed up) things to say about cleat position (ball of foot in front of pedal axle) and mid-cleat foot position. He has written a whole raft of things on saddle height, foot position, saddle fore-aft position. I have followed his guidance and can honestly say it has made a huge difference to my cycling and recovery after long rides. I dont have mid-foot cleat position but wish I could without having to fork out for custom made shoes.
User avatar
Dahondude
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:13 am

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:50 pm

End of the day, power is what determines how fast you go. It matters not what the force curve is. That is a red herring. Just like cadence.

If you cannot produce more power for a given duration, then you won't go faster. It's pretty simple.

The forces involved in aerobic power production (such as climbing a longish hill) are pretty low anyway, and very much lower than our peak force capabilities. It is definitely not a limiter to performance.

No one in their right mind would put cleats out under their toes.

I coach Jayson now days (that is public knowledge) and Jays likes riding his mid foot position but he doesn't produce more power with it. So he doesn't go any faster. And going faster (improved performance) is what we are after.

You are right, I didn't mean to infer he failed because of cleat position. He actually failed because of poor pacing. Previous ill health didn't help but with better pacing he would have had the record.

Like I've said, there's no evidence that it improves performance. There's no evidence it harms performance either. Hence I'm equivocal. Try 'em. If you like 'em, great.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:56 pm

Dahondude wrote:You guys should check out Steve Hogg's comments on the Form and Fitness pages of Cyclingnews.com. He has a lot of sensible (and backed up) things to say about cleat position (ball of foot in front of pedal axle) and mid-cleat foot position. He has written a whole raft of things on saddle height, foot position, saddle fore-aft position. I have followed his guidance and can honestly say it has made a huge difference to my cycling and recovery after long rides. I dont have mid-foot cleat position but wish I could without having to fork out for custom made shoes.
I am very familiar with Steve's writings and thoughts on the subject and we discuss it quite regularly. Steve has been my professional bike fitter for over a decade (12 years I think since my first custom fit) and he has supplied most of my bikes through that period. I am a better bike rider because of the positioning experitise Steve has provided me.

In particular the support he has given me in helping to get my prosthetic cycling leg set up has been wonderful. And the next phase in that project is to come before long (fingers crossed).
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby biomac » Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:30 am

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:End of the day, power is what determines how fast you go. It matters not what the force curve is. That is a red herring. Just like cadence.

Sorry Alex, it's been a hard day and also I find it extremely hard to make myself understood as:
1st I do not really know what a "red herring" has got to do with our topic, i.e. whether or not bio-mxc² could be helpful to reduce toolongleg's tendon problems...
2nd Everything in cycling 's just a question of sheer P.O.W.E.R.?! Come on, you didn't mean to state that track sprinters are the better cyclists because of their enormous 'power', do you? To my understanding cadence, gear ratio, crank length and position play an indispensable role, because all these 'little' aspects help to express the performance of a cyclist in the most convenient setup for exactly his physique.
3rd Alex, maybe you got it mixed up. The more inclination an athlete's torque curve has, the sooner he will tire due to excess stress in the related muscle zones.

Alex Simmons wrote:
If you cannot produce more power for a given duration, then you won't go faster. It's pretty simple.
4th So rather than consulting experts on positioning, nutrition, aerodynamics, physiology, biomechanics a.s.f. we should better listen to weight lifting coaches' advice?? :?
Alex Simmons wrote:
The forces involved in aerobic power production (such as climbing a longish hill) are pretty low anyway, and very much lower than our peak force capabilities. It is definitely not a limiter to performance.
5th Everyone skilled in the art of physiology knows that the anaerobic capacity of well trained athletes/pros is a lot smaller thanof a say, untrained beginner. This is why usually beginners improve their capabilities comparatively quick from poor to reasonable whereas a pro might need years of (legal) training to improve his average performance by as 'little' as 3-5 Watts.
Alex Simmons wrote:
No one in their right mind would put cleats out under their toes.
6th. Alex, if as you claim and quote scientists like Van Sickle, cleat placement doesn't make a difference w h y on earth "no one with a right mind put cleats out under their toes"?!
Alex Simmons wrote:
I coach Jayson now days (that is public knowledge)
Sorry for my ignorance as I wasn't familiar with that. Please pass on my best wishes to him.
Alex Simmons wrote:
...and Jays likes riding his mid foot position
You mean the position Steve Hogg has worked out for Jayson and put him up on the bike with? To my knowledge Steve monitored Jayson's force curve using our torque analysis software, fine tuned the setup according to his vast expertise working around Jayson's cleat position I named bio-mxc² or midfoot, right?
Alex Simmons wrote:
...but he doesn't produce more power with it.
Gee, I hope not! Otherwise any of his Record attempts would be nil and void.
Alex Simmons wrote:
So he doesn't go any faster.
Of course not, Alex. What bio-mxc² does though, believe it or not, it allows him to keep up a certain speed l o n g e r, which is perfectly within the rules.
Alex Simmons wrote:
And going faster (improved performance) is what we are after.
From what I heard, saw and read about Mr. Jayson Austin it's my firm belief that beating this Record to him is merely a question of getting his natural abilities on the boards and finding decent sponsorship to pay the fee for his attempt. All we from biomac could contribute to this is give him the lightest shoe on the current market with our patented bicycle shoe sole that allows him to mount his cleats midfoot/bio-mxc². Pitty we won't see the shoes as like so often the case, they will remain well disguised under the athlete's shoe covers. :wink:
biomac
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:07 am

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:38 am

I think a little is getting lost in translation. Don't get me wrong, you make great shoes. And for some people use of your shoes may well be beneficial. I wish you good luck with them.


Just to clarify: You are saying that a rider can go further, faster using your shoes than they could using regular shoes. Then that means they are actually producing more power for the duration of their ride (provided the other factors resisting their forward motion remain the same).

If a rider doesn't produce more power, they won't go faster.

I think you are confusing the terms "power" and "strength".

Power is the rate of doing work.
Strength is the maximal force a muscle or group of muscles can generate.

We can perform at very high work rates (high power) but for very short periods of time, such as in sprinting. For instance, my maximal power output over 5-seconds can be 1100-1200 watts. Top track sprinters do well over 2000 watts for this duration.

We can also perform work at much more modest rates (moderate power) but can do so for much longer. For instance, my maximal power output for an hour is about 275 watts. Top pro riders do more like 400+ watts.

In both scenarios we are producing power. In both scenarios (all else being equal) the rider who produces more power will go faster (and arrive at their destination earlier).

You can play with cleat placement, crank length, cadences, gearing, saddle height etc to your heart's content - and getting those thing right is important and great for feeling good and comfortable and effective on a bike.

But once you have a sensible and reasonable set up, then if you make a change and don't produce more power as a result, you don't go any faster.

I will pass on your regards to Jays. You are right about him, we just need to get him to the line in good health and good mental state and to follow his pacing instructions!

Mid foot cleat placement is not banned under UCI rules. So I don't understand your comment about that.

As for the study I quoted, it showed there was no significant difference in riders' ability to generate power between the cleat positions tested. Extrapolating that out to draw the same conclusion for a cleat placed well outside of the position range tested is a spurious argument.

No-one, not the authors of the study, nor me, is suggesting that putting cleats under your toes would help.

Anyway, it's been a good chat. Hope all is well :D
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby woodpecker » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:54 pm

I remember seeing a Cyclingnews photo of this CSC rider using a mid sole cleat.
It was pretty recent as well.
woodpecker
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:58 pm
Location: Ivanhoe. Victoria.

Postby biomac » Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:37 pm

[quote="Alex Simmons/RST"]
"I think a little is getting lost in translation. Don't get me wrong, you make great shoes. And for some people use of your shoes may well be beneficial."
So they say Alex, thanks.
"Just to clarify: You are saying that a rider can go further, faster using your shoes than they could using regular shoes."
I would never state that for obvious reasons, Alex. Apart from the fact that a rider does climb faster(sorry: longer faster) with 200Gramms less on his feet and apart from the fact that 4mm stack height enable him to ride a smaller frame and apart from the fact that a well-ventilated shoe definitely helps to keep body temperature low(er) on a hot climb, all I claim is (and customers agree) that when they also take advantage of this bio-mxc² position of mine, which means: mounting-their-cleats-midfoot, they can keep up a higher workload than with any traditional setup for a prolonged period of time. That's a fact, that's entirely legal and the results of an increasing number of athletes all over the globe makes it worthwhile to ponder about whether or not others shouldn't also give it a try.
"Then that means they are actually producing more power for the duration of their ride (provided the other factors resisting their forward motion remain the same). If a rider doesn't produce more power, they won't go faster."
I agree 100% with this one.
"I think you are confusing the terms "power" and "strength"."
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia knows that "in (Newton's) physics, a force is that which can cause an object with mass to change its velocity. Force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. Newton's second law states that an object with a constant mass will accelerate in proportion to the net force acting upon and in inverse proportion to its mass. Equivalently, the net force on an object equals the rate at which its momentum changes "
and also that:
"The tendency of a force to cause changes in rotational speed about an axis is called torque.(my special thanks to: Wikipedia, the free Encyclopaedia)

"Power is the rate of doing work."
Nope: "POWER is the amount of work done or energy transferred to a mass per unit of time"
"Strength is the maximal force a muscle or group of muscles can generate."
Strength? Maybe it's due to my lack of English, maybe this term is used in your country as a synonym for force, I do not know what strength has got to do with our topic as it's neither a unit in physics, nor in sports
"We can perform at very high work rates (high power) but for very short periods of time, such as in sprinting. For instance, my maximal power output over 5-seconds can be 1100-1200 watts. Top track sprinters do well over 2000 watts for this duration.
We can also perform work at much more modest rates (moderate power) but can do so for much longer. For instance, my maximal power output for an hour is about 275 watts. Top pro riders do more like 400+ watts.
In both scenarios we are producing power. In both scenarios (all else being equal) the rider who produces more power will go faster (and arrive at their destination earlier)."

If you think just of the net velocity as the single (net) result of a cyclist's effort, I agree (hesitantly though).
"You can play with cleat placement, crank length, cadences, gearing, saddle height etc to your heart's content - and getting those thing right is important and great for feeling good and comfortable and effective on a bike. But once you have a sensible and reasonable set up, then if you make a change and don't produce more power as a result, you don't go any faster."
Alex, I wrote and re-wrote answers to this statement of yours only to finally resort to this one:
When in October 1968 a nobody by the name of Robert Douglas Fosbury crossed the bars at the incredible mark of 2.24m at the 19th Summer Olympics, local spectators would yell: 'Olé!'. The 21-year-old 'gringo' from Portland had burned off the 'red herrings' at the Mexico City Olympic Stadium using a technique which lateron would enter the record books under his name: the Fosbury-flop. Only history revealed that in Montana 1963 an athlete by the name of Bruce Quande had already been using the flop technique to cross the bars. Coaches witnessing the event would only shake their heads nevertheless, since then the 'Californian Western Roll' everyone had been using before was a thing of the past.
Wish you and Jay that this time his attempt will be an equally successful one. Best of luck, Götz.
biomac
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:07 am

Postby biomac » Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:59 pm

woodpecker wrote:I remember seeing a Cyclingnews photo of this CSC rider using a mid sole cleat.
It was pretty recent as well.

Really?
Would you bother giving us a hint who that rider is and where we could find this picture?
Thanks, G.
biomac
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:07 am

Postby toolonglegs » Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:37 pm

Quick questen while we have your attention Götz...from what I under stand with your shoes.
A-they have normal cleat positions and the mid foot position available on every shoe?...or do we have to specify 3 hole/4 hole/mid foot?.
B-On the mid foot is it only possible to run spd (or other two hole) cleats?...if so what is the common pedal used?.

They are not cheap shoes as even you say...but I agree that to save 300-400 grams on a bike people will spend 3 or 4 times that on a set of wheels.I will seriously consider them in the future...just kicking myself that I threw out my trusty old pair of time shoes or I could of had the drill out for a trial run!.
Cheers Ian.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14372
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby biomac » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:35 am

toolonglegs wrote:Quick questen while we have your attention Götz...from what I under stand with your shoes.
A-they have normal cleat positions and the mid foot position available on every shoe?...or do we have to specify 3 hole/4 hole/mid foot?.
B-On the mid foot is it only possible to run spd (or other two hole) cleats?...if so what is the common pedal used?.

When it comes to weight, quality, prize and longevity some two-bolt systems like for instance Ritchey, Eggbeater or Mavic have improved dramatically. Therefore we recommend to all our customers to have their biomac shoes set up for two-bolt systems. This also offers those the opportunity to mount two cleats on each sole who are game to test the striking difference between bio-mxc² and forefoot pedaling themselves.
biomac will of course continue to make shoes for three- and four-bolt systems in both positions also.

They are not cheap shoes as even you say...but I agree that to save 300-400 grams on a bike people will spend 3 or 4 times that on a set of wheels.

Ok, when did I say biomac shoes weren't cheap? ;-) They are not cheaply made, that's right. Just convert into money how much a 50% cut in weight of your current bike would be and you'll discover that 'Maccies' are a secret bargain, right?
I will seriously consider them in the future...

Ian, future (as well as the European season) starts - now.
..just kicking myself that I threw out my trusty old pair of time shoes or I could of had the drill out for a trial run!.
Cheers Ian.

Let me drop a few (calm) words about this story with the drill:
I will not talk about warranty or your insurance just that you may have noticed that in respect to the bio-mxc²-Patent most brands have modified their soles which hinders their customers from success or - spoil their shoes. While I am in a way kind of thankful for this, biomac introduced so many little extras apart from weight, fit, foot climate or position that a cyclist hampered with tendon or knee problems will soon discover that biomac shoes are the No1 choice to avoid this.
Take care, Götz
biomac
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:07 am

Postby MichaelB » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:41 am

Holy hell Batman - my head hurts :shock:
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6826
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:59 pm

biomac wrote:"Power is the rate of doing work."
Nope: "POWER is the amount of work done or energy transferred to a mass per unit of time"

Just to clarify. The word "rate" in this context has the same meaning as "per unit time", so these are the same definition.

OK to summarise:

The shoes are light, provide good ventilation (good for when it's hot, not so good when it's cold :) ), are probably pretty darn comfortable (custom moulded?), transfer power well as I imagine the soles are nice and stiff and provide for the opportunity to use different cleat positions.


As for 200 grams, it does all add up but it's not a big difference in time up a climb. Depends on how important that is to you.

e.g. on a 7% gradient for an 80 kg bike plus rider, riding at 300 watts, dropping 200 grams will mean you climb ~ 0.4 seconds per km faster (~0.2%).
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Mid Foot Cleat

Postby Steve Hogg » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:38 pm

G'day Alex, g'day Gotz and g'day to the rest that I don't know,
A midfoot user drew my attention to this thread which I find fascinating because I know, like and respect both Alex and Gotz. I have been using midfoot cleat position (easier to say than biomxc2) exclusively for 2 years this month and have positioned a number of riders with midfoot cleat position. This is my experience to date plus a little info that may not be common knowledge.

1. Jayson has changed from a forefoot cleat position (centre 1st mtp joint 9 mm in front of the pedal axle centre with shoe leveled) to midfoot and back again several times. Each change in either direction has been as a result of a drop in performance and in each case further exploration showed that there were medical reasons for the performance drop. No matter, Jayson is his own man and I don't push him in any direction, just answer his queries as best I can and offer advice when he requests it.

2. Jayson struggles on the hills at the Calga TT with midfootbecause at his request, I set up his road TT bike to be as similar as possible to his pursuit bike so that he can train in his 'hour' position,meaning he is sitting as far forward as he legally can on it. Not the best way to ride up a hill

3. I changed to midfoot because I wanted to explore the option and all things considered, I feel I am a better rider for it. This is my subjective feeling only and not a result of any test. The only 'testing' I have done is seeing who I can keep up with! And I'm happy with that 'test'.The one thing of note is that I recover from hard efforts on an indoor trainer a day earlier than I have historically from the same workout Sr that reason alone, it is unlikely that I will change back. With my fit clients, I make them aware that the option exists but don't twist arms. I'm a big believer in letting people make up their own minds

4. There have been two studies that I am aware of that did compare forefoot cleat position to a much more rearward cleat position.but neither has been published. One was conducted by Max Testa and I know a gent in the U.S. who was peripherally involved. He says that Testa found that 'efficiency' (and I don't know what meaning Testa attached to the word) improved with a much more rearward cleat position. My contact says that Testa did the testing for his own purposes only so it may never see the light of day and can't be counted as 'evidence' with no real details available.

5. A study was conducted last year by Carl Paton in N.Z. specifically to compare midfoot to forefoot cleat position and that study is in the process of peer review now and I can't speak of it in detailuntil that is finished. It is safe to say that the peer review process found some issues with the methodology of the study. At east one rider didn't want to change back to his 'normal' cleat position. Carl the researcher, is still interested because some of the results were surprising from certain perspectives

Lastly, some riders improve dramatically with midfoot. Noted TT rider Pete Milostic improved his PB on the Calga 43 km TT course by 40 seconds 5 days after changing to midfoot and improved a further 2 mins 20 seconds 4 weeks after that. a 3 minute improvement in PB from a guy who has won I forget how many State TT titles on the same course. His improvement is exceptional in my experience of midfoot and some people just don't like it when they try it but to date, in my experience at least, the great majority that try it stick with it. That's got to mean something I suppose. When there is no evidence that meets scientific standards about a matter, I'll settle for a majority opinion of the users and the great majority seem happy.

So I suppose what I saying is that if you are interested enough to try midfoot the chances are high that you will be happy enough not to change back. The only trap is that you won't find out until you try. When there is a lack of evidence that meets the standards of scientific proof, have a go yourself and for mine, your opinion will be valid with regard to you.

Regards to all,
Steve Hogg
Steve Hogg
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:35 pm

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:52 pm

Hi Steve

Welcome!

Nice to have you about. It's always fun to discuss these things.

As you know, I have an enourmous respect for your insight into positioning matters, amongst other things. It sure has made me a better rider.

It's shame that some of the proponents of such studies don't get better advice up front on study design. Still, we live in a imperfect world, so we go with the best info we have.

Long live choice in cleat position!!

Cheers
Alex
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Postby toolonglegs » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:25 pm

Hi Steve,good to have you here.Yo do know me...Ian Jennings,I had a fitting quite a while back but since have talked to you about my achillies related problems.They are still occuring but they are bearable and I am living with them...but I am also interested in getting the problem resolved.After we talked I did put my cleats on all shoes back to there furtherest position and this did help...not mid foot but maybe up to 1cm back from the original placement...it took a noticeable amount of pressure off my heal.
Interesting you say you recover quicker from sessions when using mid foot...because since this thread started I have been paying much closer attention to a few things...and the one thing that really stands out for me is what takes the longest to recover.For me after a hard session it is always the calves...my butt and thighs can feel a good work out but they seem to recover within 24 hours...but my calves and more specifically my mid to lover calves are where I feel the most fatigue...they are stiff when I get up at night to pee and early in the morning till they "warm up".Which makes me think if I can greatly reduce the fatigue on my lower legs I will be able to train harder/longer/more often and probably feel a difference in races as well.
Plus what you have said about Pete's TT times is pretty impressive.
Quick questions thou...as you have been on them a long time now.
How do you think they have affected your sprint and your climbing?.
Cheers Ian.
Image
User avatar
toolonglegs
 
Posts: 14372
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Mid Foot Cleat

Postby Steve Hogg » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:19 am

G'day Alex,
Good to see you out and about in cyberland. You probably are anyway. It's me that isn't! Are you racing at Heffron Pk this week end?
If so, I'll see you there. Comeback time. Don't laugh too hard!

One thing to consider when talking to Gotz. English isn't his first language and he doesn't get day to day practice in it, so sometimes a few nuances don't come through. When he talks about a 10% improvement with midfoot; from past lengthy chats with him, he is talking about a 10% change in the rider's torque curve. That is the peak is typically 10% lower and the trough 10% higher in each pedal stroke than with forefoot cleat position. Everything he says has proved to be correct in my case as far as my subjective assessment goes. However you are absolutely correct that there is no published study to say midfoot is an advantage or disadvantage. This is a source of great frustration to Gotz because he has been trying to get independent testing done thoroughly and properly for years but no one is interested. Or they just refer to the Van Sickle and Hull paper which was about oxygen uptake, not performance per se as measured on the road. You're in a unique position though. One cleat with 1st mtp joint 10 mm in front of pedal axle and one cleat under your virtual heel. That certainly straddles a philosophical divide!

G'day Ian,
Re the achilles problem. If it is possible to get together, it shouldn't take more than 30 mins to work out what is going on and find a solution. It could be any number of things - change in equipment, changes in how you function etc. Even if it is low level, get it resolved. Tendons have next to no blood flow and because of that are hard to injure; the problem being that once injured, they take a long time to come good, again because of limited blood flow..

Has midfoot affected my sprinting and climbing?
Yes. I am not as explosive but in someways am better. Initially with midfoot, getting off the seat felt very awkward and jerky because there is lesser range of motion at the ankle. 2 weeks of regular riding solved that. Basically, it takes a bit of time to break down a motor pattern that one has used for years and to develop a new one. So I cannot jump as hard in a sprint but can seem to hang onto max speed for longer. So I have had to change tactics a bit but overall, in terms of where I finish up, i'm much the same.
With climbing, I cannot accelerate as hard but on longer climbs, the longer it is the better I go relative to those who I normally measure myself against. The lack of explosiveness can be compensated for by efforts off the seat up a climb. I seem to be able to ride off the seat at high heart rates for longer than I have been able to do in the past. In my own case, the benefits I have found are two fold. Better recovery post hard ride and better ability to gut it out at heart rates that should crack me. Don't get me wrong, a high enough HR does crack me but I seem to be able to hang at that level for longer than I believe I could before. One man's assessment only but I'm the only one that I have to keep happy.

I had a nasty crash in late '07 and spent most of last year recovering because of misdiagnoses and a whole lot of crap. I'm reasonably fit at the moment and will start racing this weekend and doing the Calga TT regularly. Give me a few months and I'll be able to give you a better idea but it is very unlikely that I will change back.

Regards,
Steve
Steve Hogg
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Road Biking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boss, jack11, Ross



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit