more on arch cleats

acoggan said:

Two quotes from the Form and Fitness Q & A at www.cyclingnews.com:

Dave Fleckenstein:

"Max Testa (one of the world's top exercise physiologists who at one point was working with 35 of the top 50 UCI ranked cyclists) recently completed a study at his lab on cleat position and efficiency and clearly found (p<.001) that as the cleat moves posteriorly cyclists are more efficient. I am not sure as to the publication date for the study but know that it is pending."

My comment: I'll believe it when I see it, since 1) contrary to what is asserted, Dr. Testa is not recognized as one of the world's top exercise physiologists because he has never published in a scientific journal before, and 2) I am aware of at least four other studies (one theoretical, three experimental) which found no impact of cleat position on efficiency.

Steve Hogg:

"I have torque analysis data on nearly 100 people. All show a broader, flatter torque curve with arch cleats. I have simple apparatus. SRMs with torque analysis..."

and

"I am interested in Dave's reference to the Testa test and if I could trouble you Dave to send me a link when it is available. I know a well qualified exercise physiologist and a biomechanics professor who are trying to get funding now to do a study on arch cleat position. This is uncertain at this stage but what is motivating them is that the exercise physiologist is an ex elite rider who I convinced to try arch cleats and his experience with it has been positive. I will know more in several months."

My comment: apparently Mr. Hogg remains unaware of the fact that you can't tell what the muscles are actually doing simply by looking at the net torque applied to the crank, and is also unaware of the studies I mentioned above.

This whole arch-cleat thing falls into the same discussion category as (gasp) power cranks, Q-rings, drop-axis pedals, etc. Theories abound and, in general, are useless except to provide fodder for arguments here.

I want to see documented results of real perfomances. Show me someone using these things to win real races or to go faster in a TT. Otherwise, and until then, it's all marketing hype.

Ergoman said:

Show me someone using these things to win real races

http://www.teamflexpoint.nl/www/components/rensters.asp?action=renster&id=6&folder_id=30

acoggan said:

http://www.teamflexpoint.nl/www/components/rensters.asp?action=renster&id=6&folder_id=30

Please translate and/or summarize. Thanks.

Ergoman said:

Please translate and/or summarize. Thanks.

2x World Champion Susanne Ljungskog is, I believe, the most prominent user of Biomac shoes.

acoggan said:

2x World Champion Susanne Ljungskog is, I believe, the most prominent user of Biomac shoes.

What's that old saying about not knowing if champions are champions because of, or in spite of, what they do?? 😄

acoggan said:

2x World Champion Susanne Ljungskog is, I believe, the most prominent user of Biomac shoes.

She may "use" them, but has she actually used them sucessfully in a race? Does she always use them or did she just use them once or twice and endorse them? I don't know the answers, but I do know that Biomac has not been forthcoming when asked similar questions.

Ergoman said:

She may "use" them, but has she actually used them sucessfully in a race? Does she always use them or did she just use them once or twice and endorse them?

I believe that she always uses them, i.e., both training and racing. What I don't know is how long she's been using them (a few years...but maybe not back when she won Worlds).

There's also the issue of cause and effect. The effect might be that she's winning races but how do we know that the cause is that she uses biomac shoes? Maybe she would be even better with "traditional" shoes. I would expect that if the shoes were really the cause of her winning ways that every other athlete on her team would be using them as well.

velobob said:

There's also the issue of cause and effect. The effect might be that she's winning races but how do we know that the cause is that she uses biomac shoes? Maybe she would be even better with "traditional" shoes. I would expect that if the shoes were really the cause of her winning ways that every other athlete on her team would be using them as well.

As I pointed out in another thread, if someone won a World Championship or a major race using arch cleats, it would be MAJOR cycling news. The mere fact that a World Champion has tried them is not.

I haven't seen arch cleats lighting up the cycling headlines recently. When that happens, I'll get out my drill and start modifying my shoes.

Ergoman said:

As I pointed out in another thread, if someone won a World Championship or a major race using arch cleats, it would be MAJOR cycling news. The mere fact that a World Champion has tried them is not.

I haven't seen arch cleats lighting up the cycling headlines recently. When that happens, I'll get out my drill and start modifying my shoes.

Well, Susanne Ljunskog started using them before her world's. Her bikes even has differents angles (it's said that she turned one contract down 'cause the biksupplier refused to make the frames as she wanted them) to fully use the different footposition. She talked about it in the beginning, but now she don't care anymore. Also Marcus Ljungquist, CSC, (4th place worlds RR 2005) use the arch cleats position.

Both are known to be fair sprinters.

Ergoman said:

I haven't seen arch cleats lighting up the cycling headlines recently. When that happens, I'll get out my drill and start modifying my shoes.

Yeah, let me know when power meters start lighting up the cycling headlines, too. 😉

Every time someone describes a pro riding or training a certain way, the comment "but does he really know that does what he thinks?" is always quick to follow. I'm not saying that the question isn't valid, but why are you beating the drum so hard for anecdotes or endorsemets from pro riders who use arch cleats?

Susanne Ljunskog has used the arch positioned cleats for some time including racing to two World Titles. Both were won in the Sprint. She is still winning races this year.

Believe the hype? Will wait and see. While I prefer a more rearward positon (up to 1cm behind pedal axle) I am reluctant (and unable unless I buy special shoes) to give it a go.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

frenchyge said:

Yeah, let me know when power meters start lighting up the cycling headlines, too. 😉

Every time someone describes a pro riding or training a certain way, the comment "but does he really know that does what he thinks?" is always quick to follow. I'm not saying that the question isn't valid, but why are you beating the drum so hard for anecdotes or endorsemets from pro riders who use arch cleats?

Anyone can make outrageous claims and hype them with theory and trumped up data. On the other hand, it's hard to dispute results of consistent performance among a broad range of competitors.

I'm a skeptic. When someone tells me that arch-cleats or Q-rings or Power Cranks or dimples on my butt are going to make me go faster, it should be obvious to all but the most naive that they have an agenda and/or something to sell. Before I believe the hype, I want to see real results from real-life competition.

OK?

P.S. Could it be that power meters haven't lit up the headlines because they're not really the critical training tool that their advocates claim? I like my power meter, and I worship the data daily, but I might do just as well without it. Certainly, the great masses of cyclists don't need and can't afford one. Pedaling with your arch is a lot cheaper and more universally applicable.

OT, but I thought power meters HAVE been lighting up the headlines since about 2001? No? Are there any good road coaches that don't train with power now?

kennf said:

OT, but I thought power meters HAVE been lighting up the headlines since about 2001? No?

Can you post some examples?

I don't think journalists care to write much about training devices or pedal interfaces.

Ergoman said:

Could it be that power meters haven't lit up the headlines because they're not really the critical training tool that their advocates claim? I like my power meter, and I worship the data daily, but I might do just as well without it.

As I believe I've mentioned before, what I think that intelligent use of a powermeter does is "speed up the learning curve". That is, while some people can eventually figure out how to go their fastest w/o ever using one, but more people can more quickly figure out how to go their fastest by properly using one. In the end, though, it is just a tool, not a motor that will pedal the bike for you.

Ergoman said:

This whole arch-cleat thing falls into the same discussion category as (gasp) power cranks, Q-rings, drop-axis pedals, etc. Theories abound and, in general, are useless except to provide fodder for arguments here.
I want to see documented results of real perfomances. Show me someone using these things to win real races or to go faster in a TT. Otherwise, and until then, it's all marketing hype.

Ergoman, have a look at this 62.75.177.102index.phpOpen ↗

acoggan said:

As I believe I've mentioned before, what I think that intelligent use of a powermeter does is "speed up the learning curve". That is, while some people can eventually figure out how to go their fastest w/o ever using one, but more people can more quickly figure out how to go their fastest by properly using one. In the end, though, it is just a tool, not a motor that will pedal the bike for you.

acoggan, agreed and for the sake of accuracy, let's add that the common versions of today's powermeters fail to tell its user which is
the most efficient way to apply his forces. All they do is tell us about quantity but nothing about quality.
Quality however matters for athletes, positioners and responsible coaches alike when it comes to judge on efficiency of a setup like
bio-mxc².
The incident that within more than 50 years little has been done about this does by no means proove those scientists right, who claim it simply wouldn't matter.

To highlight what is intended, the following simple setup may come in handy:
Switch on your powermeter, go up a hill at given speed, once in a big gear, then using the small chainring. Repeat effort until you are 'smoked'. This will always be in the big chainring, no matter with which one you started off. Even the most sophisticated powermeter couldn't tell you why, could it?
Now repeat the same setup on another day testing bio-mxc². Again, you will always fail in the traditional position first but still be able to do another turn using arch cleats. Result: Quality matters. Agree?
Now what about your powermeter? Any thoughts?[img]roadcycling.netwink.gifOpen ↗[/img]