Arch cleats??

velobob said:

I read the article by Steve and Joe Friel's blog last week and decided to do a computrainer test with an old pair of shoes. With the cleat under the arch I did a 20min interval at 245W which I do fairly often and my avg HR was 119bpm vs 127bpm with my normal cleat position. I also did a 5min interval at 325W and my HR was 144bpm with the cleat under arch vs 155bpm normal position.

I switched from far forward to closer to center last year and found there to be zero change in wattage for my intervals, didn't measure heart rate. But I did find my calves cramp less often on long, hard rides, so I have kept the cleats farther back.

velobob said:

I read the article by Steve and Joe Friel's blog last week and decided to do a computrainer test with an old pair of shoes. With the cleat under the arch I did a 20min interval at 245W which I do fairly often and my avg HR was 119bpm vs 127bpm with my normal cleat position. I also did a 5min interval at 325W and my HR was 144bpm with the cleat under arch vs 155bpm normal position. Thinking this was very promising I decided to do my next ride outdoors with the arch cleat shoes but after about 2 mins riding I almost killed myself with overlap on my front wheel (slow turns are not good) and climbing felt truly bizarre. I've since abandoned further experimentation - not much point I figure if I don't have any balance and am endangering my life!! As a side note I also posted a question on Joe's blog asking for % increase in power and he replied 5% across the board.

Does this Power to HR equation really mean anything, is there any advantage to goig at a given power at a lower HR unless you are able to produce a higher ftp?
Have you tried shorter 1 or 5 min intervals?

Nicolai Foss said:

Does this Power to HR equation really mean anything, is there any advantage to goig at a given power at a lower HR unless you are able to produce a higher ftp?
Have you tried shorter 1 or 5 min intervals?

I wondered that myself which was why I wanted to ride outdoors with the arch cleat setup - all of my max CP values have been set outdoors. As I said though I was a bit uncomfortable riding on the street so I gave up on the research. I wonder if anyone else can comment on this point - namely does a lower heart rate at sub max effort imply a higher power output at max effort for any or all critical power durations.

Nicolai Foss said:

Does this Power to HR equation really mean anything, is there any advantage to goig at a given power at a lower HR unless you are able to produce a higher ftp?

Racermate Computrainer software derives a PulsePower(TM) [(Watts-sec/Heartbeat)/(Pound)*1000], which has not been made much of anywhere. No scientific literature that I've unearthed.

It 'seems' like it should mean something though, eh? Watts/pound is accepted as a measure of power-generation capability. The addition of the heartbeat would seem to address the perceived physiological exertion to acheive the (energy/weight). The less costly in perceived exertion for a given Watts/Kg, the better.

The fly in the ointment would appear to be the correlation between heart rate and perceived exertion, or lack (questionable correlation) thereof.

acoggan said:

In and of itself, an increase in the power:heart rate ratio doesn't tell you very much, as you'd need to know more details about the testing conditions in order to be able to draw any conclusions as to the mechanism. That's especially true considering the n=1 nature of Friel's experiment. In contrast, when professional scientists have directly tested whether a mid-foot cleat position improves efficiency (which is one explanation for an increase the power:heart rate ratio) using multiple subjects under carefully controlled conditions, no effect has been found. I'll leave it up to you to decide whose data I think is more trustworthy. 😉

Andy, I remember we had the pleasure once before, so no need to introduce myself once again. I do remember and respect you as an expert on something I contributed to bring underway some 20 years ago, i.e. the SRM Power Measuring System. In the course of my personal studies lateron, I discovered and invented the bio-mxc²cycling shoe sole which facilitates arch pedaling for those who want maximum efficiency from their effort on the bike.
What does not encourage my respect though is, when someone writes about things he hasn't got down to examine himself, let alone even t r i e d himself. Remember, in the light of ancient science, the World was a disk and Newton's Law of Gravitation a landmark. bio-mxc², to most in your part of the world simply known as arch-pedaling, is by far not such a landmark but what it is, it is a turning-point, as it goes to show that equal work-load can be delivered by using different muscle groups or -slopes - in a more efficient way, i.e., delivering the same or an even advanced power-output/result. Remember the butterfly? Remember [censored] Fosbury jumping with his back first? Remember the latest revolution in ice-skating, just to name a few of them?
Torque measuring, although it is the mother of Power mesuring is a considerably young discipline especially in the US, however it's worthwhile the effort to dig into it when it comes to put a light to the fundamentals of different muscle recruitment for the same result, here caused by a simple 'shift' of a rider's cleats from the forefoot under the arch. Why? Because for the first time the foot covers a positive circumference ratio around the bottom bracket(remember, before that it was always negative, leaving more dead zone than pushing to the rider's legs). While with the traditional ball-above-axle setup the foot had a relatively limited range of action, now more than 50% of the entire stroke is spent in the downward, energy-transferring action. If work is a product of force and distance, its obvious that a longer circumference/lever will automatically require less peak power to propel the pedals around the bottom bracket maintaining identical speed/workload. Also the calves, which are a comparatively small muscle section with quite some distance from the heart and lungs when it comes to nutrition, don't have to contribute to stabilise the foot any more in order to transfer the huge power generated by the much stronger thighs and buttocks. 'Giocco di caviglia', 'ankle play' former generations of biomechanists called it and it meant nothing but the exhaustive attempt of the calves to ease the unbearable power-peaks which would deteriorate a cyclist's legs during downstroke when travelling around the forward horizontal crank position. Due to bio-mxc²'s (virtually) increased circumference during downstroke and the improved angels when shifting the cleats to the arch, it is no longer necessary any more as a rider can comfortably maintain his foot position and apply his leg force in a much smoother rhythm with less peak power and bottom troughs.
We trust you as an experimental scientist who devotes his work and intelligence to unveil truth rather than contribute to shoe maker's politics who want to supress a radical change in the making of cycling shoes, so we invite you to execute a test both, with the 'traditional' and the patented bio-mxc² position (I put 'traditional' in quotation-marks because back in the old days, where there was no toe-clips or automatic pedals known, there is no doubt that the inventors of the bicycle had nothing in mind but the arch-, not the toe-position as a physio-logical means of transferring a cyclist's energy, documented by the old-fashinoned shape of the pedal which would allow its user to position the heel of his shoe in that way, the arch of the foot would automatically be positioned above the axle. Mind you, had they had other setups in mind, it would have been easy to produce say, a curved device which could host the ball, wouldn't they?). If you are in need of propper software to follow-up the striking results bio-mxc² pedaling will force upon your body, for example an SRM-device, it will be our distinct pleasure to borrow you one.
While well-known experts like Australia's Steve Hogg or Phoenix-based Joe Friel undertook their brave attempts to share and discuss personal experience with an interested audience after they had thoroughly tested the shoes, it seems your time-demanding work simply didn't allow you to follow up what they continuously try to explain.
All that remains is invite you to explore a radically new approach to cycling, to sports in general, rather than publishing ironical comments to what these brave men have experienced.

The muscle recruitment arguments seem to make some sense for seated pedaling, but what happens you stand up? I've never seen this addressed. It sure seems to me like it would feel rather awkward to try to sprint with this cleat setup.

Animator said:

The muscle recruitment arguments seem to make some sense for seated pedaling, but what happens you stand up? I've never seen this addressed. It sure seems to me like it would feel rather awkward to try to sprint with this cleat setup.

Good you mention this Animator as riding in bio-mxc² while standing is even easier as the heavy loads from the torso require only little stabilisation from the calves. Its merely like 'plunging' onto your pedals and riders like Austria's pro Thomas Rohregger(TEAM ELK-Haus) always gets told off by his team-mates he reports when getting out of the saddle. They suspect him to make a jump forward on purpose what is of course not the case.
Remember that Sweden's Susanne Ljungskog, two times World Champion on the road won both races in the final sprint, standing up. Sure, she had saved so much during the whole race with every stroke she made, she was superior to her opponents anyway, but despite the opinion of all experts, amongst them Eddy Merckx, sprinting on the road presents no problem whereas kicking or quick accellerations certainly need some special technique. A track sprint is of course better done with the assistance of the calves' muscles, although they are the first to tire quickly due to the increasing lack of oxygen.

biomac - I am curious how you advise your customers to deal with the issue of front wheel overlap - in my experiment it was truly frightening! Perhaps you recommend forks with larger rake angles?

velobob said:

biomac - I am curious how you advise your customers to deal with the issue of front wheel overlap - in my experiment it was truly frightening! Perhaps you recommend forks with larger rake angles?

Velobob, back in the 90s we used to design Titanium frames that would foresee a longer rake for those who ordered it. However lots insisted it wouldn't really bother them and wasn't worth the effort as it only affected them when cruising on the parking, not in the race. KLEIN-users usually experienced no problems whatsoever and track riders are used to toe-overlap anyway. I ride a Merlin with a 99cm C-C of hubs and a bio-mxc²frame from biomac with 105cm length. The Merlin (what a bike it was!) feels more lively but is more demanding in terms of concentration.

velobob said:

I wondered that myself which was why I wanted to ride outdoors with the arch cleat setup - all of my max CP values have been set outdoors. As I said though I was a bit uncomfortable riding on the street so I gave up on the research. I wonder if anyone else can comment on this point - namely does a lower heart rate at sub max effort imply a higher power output at max effort for any or all critical power durations.

Sorry I forgot: It varies. We experienced riders like Paula Newby-Fraser, Joe Friel or Steve Hogg with a significantly lower heart rate./.power output and others where it was higher! Still, all of them could sustain longer efforts. At MAPEI Instutute of Sports we would measure lactate as well as VO2max, again quite some differences from rider to rider. What was similar though was that efforts could be sustained longer or more often when executed as intervalls. Here is of course more grass-root research wanted to explain why even higher amounts of lactate wouldn't hinder riders from benefitting from bio-mxc². We suspect its because this lactate gets produced in bigger muscles rather than the calves and perigenual muscles - but what do we know? However, during the last decade, none of the institutes or universities we contacted could ever be bothered to launch a research and believe me, we contacted many as we wanted to make sure we wouldn't come forward with a fake. What remains though is that until today, hundreds of amateurs, leisure riders or pros experienced no problem with the position, provided they were well positioned and in hard cases, some time given. Some had only as little benefit as 5%, others more than 15(!). And they could name it, not only on the graph, also by their feeling.
In order to survive the "That's-new?!Never-heard-about it!"-phase, we started focussing on making the most advanced cycling shoes in terms of weight, stack-height and fit. What else could we do?😉

biomac said:

Because for the first time the foot covers a positive circumference ratio around the bottom bracket(remember, before that it was always negative, leaving more dead zone than pushing to the rider's legs). While with the traditional ball-above-axle setup the foot had a relatively limited range of action, now more than 50% of the entire stroke is spent in the downward, energy-transferring action. If work is a product of force and distance, its obvious that a longer circumference/lever will automatically require less peak power to propel the pedals around the bottom bracket maintaining identical speed/workload.

This appears more like the Powercrank sales talk. If the boundaries of the longest possible downward power stroke are 12 and 6 o'c, where is that extra power input taking place. Are you confusing conscious power application with momentum.

n crowley said:

This appears more like the Powercrank sales talk. If the boundaries of the longest possible downward power stroke are 12 and 6 o'c, where is that extra power input taking place. Are you confusing conscious power application with momentum.

A fond hello to Dublin and the Green Island!
bio-mxc² has got nothing to do with PowerCrank, in fact it even has some opposite aspects as it does n o t emphasize on m.iliopsoas-action at all. I do not want to condemm extra training of the psoas and the lower spine, as for some sports way apart from cycling, this specific addition to a muscle chain may have a few positive aspects, we decided it does not so for a road cyclist, so cut it out almost completely.
Please note that only because we try to simplify comparing the cyclist's spinning action with a watch - biomechanists, please forgive - does by no means imply that we had anything similar in mind when designing our patented bicycle shoe sole for automatic pedals. In the opposite, 'goat-scraping', pulling or whatever you may call it, gets almost extincted as with bio-mxc² the foot remains much closer to the bottom bracket between '10to6' 'til '5past 12' than with any other setup. Therefore, dead zone, or 'pulling' gets almost abolished when using bio-mxc². Apart from the more direct power transfer of the hip flexors and the diminished contribution of the knee
flexors, arch pedaling dramatically reduces these, in comparison to buttocks and thighs much weaker muscles' activity. Unlike a longer crank, where apart from the undenieable benefits during downstroke, the increasing 'dead' zone, i.e. the 'pulling zone', gets intollereably dominant, thus deleting what you have just gained unproportionally, bio-mxc² tremendously favours downstroke. Think of a crank almost 210mm in length during downstroke but just 135mm when pulling and you come close to the different circle, bio-mxc² puts on any rider, no matter whether skilled or unskilled, trained or untrained.
The result: notably less pain in calves and peri-genual zone, more endurance at threshold and almost crazy leverage uphill. This is why Lennard Zinn once reported, that while in China, he had wittnessed some locals carrying refrigerators uphill on their bikes. Mind you, this has got nothing to do with the mythic Power of the Yellow Dragon, this is instinctively applied laws of geometry and mechanics, gentlemen!
And here is a simple exercise which may create an understanding how a different use of the same muscles can make a huge change to endurance, no matter what laboratory parameters, powermeters or heart rate monitors report:
Screen your performance while doing push-ups on your finger- tips and then, for a joke, execute them on your palms. You wouldn't push a fridge with your fingertips if you had the chance to do it with the palms of your hands, would you? Now who on earth made us propel our cranks with our toes instead of our arches?! A pair of biomac's Y² for him who can name this Bean.

biomac said:

Screen your performance while doing push-ups on your finger- tips and then, for a joke, execute them on your palms. You wouldn't push a fridge with your fingertips if you had the chance to do it with the palms of your hands, would you? Now who on earth made us propel our cranks with our toes instead of our arches?! A pair of biomac's Y² for him who can name this Bean.

Clearly, fingers were always meant for eating, grabbing, maybe flipping the bird 🙂, not pushing refrigerators. Feet on the other hand are for walking, running, jumping... Then, why not cycling? There's got to be a reason why those calf muscles are so dense. This arch pedalling style may be useful in a triathlon or a TT, but in a bike race where jumps and accellerations are frequent de-emphasizing the calf muscles will be a detriment.

Let's also clarify, that cyclists are not ballerinas and they don't pedal with their toes, but the ball of the foot. Just FYI 🙂

Why mid foot? Why not go all the way and place the cleat under the ankle? (don't bother with the obvious such as front wheel overlap)That's effectively what I'll be doing when I ultimately get my prosthetic cycling limb, it will connect directly to the end of the crank arm so all the upper leg force will go directly into the crank, no calf to speak of required to stabilise a foot.

Alex Simmons said:

Why mid foot? Why not go all the way and place the cleat under the ankle? (don't bother with the obvious such as front wheel overlap)That's effectively what I'll be doing when I ultimately get my prosthetic cycling limb, it will connect directly to the end of the crank arm so all the upper leg force will go directly into the crank, no calf to speak of required to stabilise a foot.

Ok Alex, as this discussion is beginning to pick up momentum on a rather high niveau where Watts and angles remain in the drawers, let's get down to reality and move your limb at say, 70rpm with the cleat right under your stick (which "obvious toe overlap" are you possibly referring to?).
You may, no, you will discover, that there is a big improvement in terms of w h e r e your thigh and hip muscles have to contract, i.e. way further proximal than with the traditional setup. So in the area where they have huge diameters, so considerably less pressure on the perigenual aerea and buttocks, which for their first time ever, will be happy to join in the concerto of huge and forceful muscle groups.

But, what will happen to your accelleration speed, to jumping, kicking, to your sprinting abilities, altogether techniques which do require a rather wide torque-range in order to remain competitive in a bunch, on an ondulated terrain or in the corners? While with bio-mxc² a rider who still has his calve muscles under control can produce a fluent movement which keeps up a continuous drag on his chain and backwheel(remember, although he has a virtually longer crank during downstroke but a much shorter one during pulling?see previous postings), hammering the cranks at say, 50rpm to maintain his speed against gravitation on a hillclimb or against the wind will eventually become a drag on the muscles involved due to the enormous torque peaks he'll have to produce every single stroke.

Get what we are aiming at? While for a crippeled rider, your suggested setup is indeed the best way to propel his bike and right now, we are involved in the process of building lightweight prothesis for people who are fate-stricken with this problem, an athlete who is blessed to call two healthy legs his own indeed starts 'walking his bike', thus taking advantage of the most endurable muscle slope man has inherited. In super-lightweight balley shoes of course, PIOTR, as like with the rest of the bike, only the best is good enough for us 😉 .

Since the UCI has accepted bio-mxc² as a legitimate technique to propel your cranks in any race on the UCI calendar, question is not whether this is right or wrong, question is whether this improves (not boosts) an athlete's performance without the well-known side-effects of some other mechanical set-ups.
Believe it or not, or better: experience it yourself - it does!

biomac said:

Ok Alex, as this discussion is beginning to pick up momentum on a rather high niveau where Watts and angles remain in the drawers, let's get down to reality and move your limb at say, 70rpm with the cleat right under your stick (which "obvious toe overlap" are you possibly referring to?).
You may, no, you will discover, that there is a big improvement in terms of w h e r e your thigh and hip muscles have to contract, i.e. way further proximal than with the traditional setup. So in the area where they have huge diameters, so considerably less pressure on the perigenual aerea and buttocks, which for their first time ever, will be happy to join in the concerto of huge and forceful muscle groups.

But, what will happen to your accelleration speed, to jumping, kicking, to your sprinting abilities, altogether techniques which do require a rather wide torque-range in order to remain competitive in a bunch, on an ondulated terrain or in the corners? While with bio-mxc² a rider who still has his calve muscles under control can produce a fluent movement which keeps up a continuous drag on his chain and backwheel(remember, although he has a virtually longer crank during downstroke but a much shorter one during pulling?see previous postings), hammering the cranks at say, 50rpm to maintain his speed against gravitation on a hillclimb or against the wind will eventually become a drag on the muscles involved due to the enormous torque peaks he'll have to produce every single stroke.

Get what we are aiming at? While for a crippeled rider, your suggested setup is indeed the best way to propel his bike and right now, we are involved in the process of building lightweight prothesis for people who are fate-stricken with this problem, an athlete who is blessed to call two healthy legs his own indeed starts 'walking his bike', thus taking advantage of the most endurable muscle slope man has inherited. In super-lightweight balley shoes of course, PIOTR, as like with the rest of the bike, only the best is good enough for us 😉 .

Since the UCI has accepted bio-mxc² as a legitimate technique to propel your cranks in any race on the UCI calendar, question is not whether this is right or wrong, question is whether this improves (not boosts) an athlete's performance without the well-known side-effects of some other mechanical set-ups.
Believe it or not, or better: experience it yourself - it does!

I think I get the idea, I joined discussion late. Whether or not it results in sustainable gains in performance is the key.

Indeed I have a club mate using mid foot cleat position right now and he is a world class masters rider. No firm conclusions yet on his part but he is giving it a serious crack.

I was just curious as to the logic not extending to the scenario I am about to face for the first time, i.e. directly connected prosthesis or should one choose to mount cleat under the heel of the foot (the toe overlap was reference to this latter impractical scenario - I was just playing thought games).

Of course I will have an interesting imbalance as the other leg is fine and will pedal normally (maybe not any more). I have seen the shoes, I reckon I'd break 'em! I'm notorious for doing that with normal shoes.

Presumably with a suitable cleat type you can have both arch and forward cleat positions available on the same shoe giving the rider some choice depending on the race situation.

I am interested in learning more about your cycling prosthesis solutions. I am a recent below the knee amputee. Steve Hogg is my LBS and fitter and we are investigating the options to get me back on a bike at some stage in my rehab.

Alex Simmons said:

I think I get the idea, I joined discussion late. Whether or not it results in sustainable gains in performance is the key.

Indeed I have a club mate using mid foot cleat position right now and he is a world class masters rider. No firm conclusions yet on his part but he is giving it a serious crack.

I was just curious as to the logic not extending to the scenario I am about to face for the first time, i.e. directly connected prosthesis or should one choose to mount cleat under the heel of the foot (the toe overlap was reference to this latter impractical scenario - I was just playing thought games).

Of course I will have an interesting imbalance as the other leg is fine and will pedal normally (maybe not any more). I have seen the shoes, I reckon I'd break 'em! I'm notorious for doing that with normal shoes.

Presumably with a suitable cleat type you can have both arch and forward cleat positions available on the same shoe giving the rider some choice depending on the race situation.

I am interested in learning more about your cycling prosthesis solutions. I am a recent below the knee amputee. Steve Hogg is my LBS and fitter and we are investigating the options to get me back on a bike at some stage in my rehab.

Alex, now the penny has dropped, as although I heard of your accident recently, I didn't know whom to relate to it and so couldn't figure out why someone who would cycle with a prosthesis could be aware of toe overlap, sorry.
As you indicated, I trust that Steve Hogg from www.Cyclefitcentre.com in Sydney is definitely the person to see, as
1st Steve is familiar with bio-mxc² and
2nd he is one of the few positioning experts on this planet who call a reasonable torque analysis tool their own which runs on the latest powermeter hardware of today.
Apart from some naturally gifted people, the majority of self-elected experts are just some sort of moles who make their clients believe they could tell what happens when a rider distributes his various forces onto a bike.
Because keep in mind, you cannot just hop on the bike and ride with one leg in the traditional, the other in arch-position or even further back as different reach will require that either you vary your crank length according to the different points of attachment or, and this is what seems to make more sense in your case, adapt the cleat position of the existant foot to such a degree that both legs end up with similar reach. From my (limited) experience on cases like yours, I trust that the arch cleat may work better than a cleat in direct extension of the prosthesis for the reasons mentioned in my previous posting.
I'll be always available to answer any occuring questions on this subject at [email hidden] and wish you a quick and thorough recovery.

biomac said:

Now who on earth made us propel our cranks with our toes instead of our arches?! A pair of biomac's Y² for him who can name this Bean.

Eugene Meyer? He invented the ordinary, where it was advantageousto pedal with one's toes.

biomac said:

A fond hello to Dublin and the Green Island!
bio-mxc² has got nothing to do with PowerCrank, in fact it even has some opposite aspects as it does n o t emphasize on m.iliopsoas-action at all. I do not want to condemm extra training of the psoas and the lower spine, as for some sports way apart from cycling, this specific addition to a muscle chain may have a few positive aspects, we decided it does not so for a road cyclist, so cut it out almost completely.
Please note that only because we try to simplify comparing the cyclist's spinning action with a watch - biomechanists, please forgive - does by no means imply that we had anything similar in mind when designing our patented bicycle shoe sole for automatic pedals. In the opposite, 'goat-scraping', pulling or whatever you may call it, gets almost extincted as with bio-mxc² the foot remains much closer to the bottom bracket between '10to6' 'til '5past 12' than with any other setup. Therefore, dead zone, or 'pulling' gets almost abolished when using bio-mxc². Apart from the more direct power transfer of the hip flexors and the diminished contribution of the knee
flexors, arch pedaling dramatically reduces these, in comparison to buttocks and thighs much weaker muscles' activity. Unlike a longer crank, where apart from the undenieable benefits during downstroke, the increasing 'dead' zone, i.e. the 'pulling zone', gets intollereably dominant, thus deleting what you have just gained unproportionally, bio-mxc² tremendously favours downstroke. Think of a crank almost 210mm in length during downstroke but just 135mm when pulling and you come close to the different circle, bio-mxc² puts on any rider, no matter whether skilled or unskilled, trained or untrained.
The result: notably less pain in calves and peri-genual zone, more endurance at threshold and almost crazy leverage uphill. This is why Lennard Zinn once reported, that while in China, he had wittnessed some locals carrying refrigerators uphill on their bikes. Mind you, this has got nothing to do with the mythic Power of the Yellow Dragon, this is instinctively applied laws of geometry and mechanics, gentlemen!
And here is a simple exercise which may create an understanding how a different use of the same muscles can make a huge change to endurance, no matter what laboratory parameters, powermeters or heart rate monitors report:
Screen your performance while doing push-ups on your finger- tips and then, for a joke, execute them on your palms. You wouldn't push a fridge with your fingertips if you had the chance to do it with the palms of your hands, would you? Now who on earth made us propel our cranks with our toes instead of our arches?! A pair of biomac's Y² for him who can name this Bean.

What pedalling style (circular or mashing) is used with these shoes and what is responsible for the power increase (cleat position or shoes), if both how is the percentage of their contribution divided.

n crowley said:

What pedalling style (circular or mashing) is used with these shoes and what is responsible for the power increase (cleat position or shoes), if both how is the percentage of their contribution divided.

re cleat position or shoes
Crowley, its definitly the position. First we applied for Patent's Grant on a (modified) cycling shoe sole, then, when none of the big shoe companies wanted to take the risk of introducing the position, we started the making of a shoe ourselves. Being former competitive bike-riders, we never liked heavy boots which would strangle the feet, bend them to some shape and make them sweat. Instead, our feet were longing for a snuggly sock, each with a stiff sole.
re percentage
Wanna bet😎? To be honest, we couldn't tell beforehand as everyone is different, isn't he? That's why we resort to torque-analysis. Not that our program is perfect, but it gives you a good idea of how much force each leg transmits to the crank with the traditional and with the bio-mxc² setup. We all have different proportions, leverage and moving patterns. What is the difference between a 170mm and a 210mm crank during downstroke and a 170mm vs. 135mm crank during pulling everyone skilled to the art of simple geometry will calculate easily. Still, not every athlete can re-distribute his forces imediately, so will perform up to his natural abilities from scratch when put on bio-mxc². As a rule of thumb, professional cyclists learn very fast, leisure riders have more blocked hip-flexors, so some do require a good introduction by a skilled expert to wake up their hips and thighs. As you want figures: During the last 10 years of torque-analysis we experienced everything inbetween 3 and 20% of i m p r o v e d efficiency from scratch, i.e. 30ks. Acceptance was 99% at first contact. Only two guys claimed to get no benefit of it at all, one of them didn't want his girl-friend who was a pro triathlete to make the change although his curves showed significant improvements. Compared to their male compatriots, women have a better adaptation which enables them to tell within 20ks what and where the changes take place. Also they tend to understand faster the nature of the improvement, this is l e s s peak power for the same effort which eventually leads to some kind of p r o l o n g e d endurance.
re circular vs. mashing
For people brought up with the German language this is indeed a new comparison - no, not circular, just mighty. Huge leverage, no dead zone. No puffing and panting, just going flat out while still being fully orientated. Before this becomes poetry, let's resort to the members of the famous Swiss Army Cycling Division. When we first hit the market, we would receive plenty of messages from them, telling us yes, although traditionally used to their ball-above-axle position on their racing bikes, on the heavy army bikes with their ordinary pedals, no toe-clips or cleats, most of them would instinctively switch to the arch-above-axle technique when the going got tough...