Arch cleats??

decrono

Hi Andy could you please point me in the direction of these studies as I'm sure Steve would like to read them

cheers peter

acoggan

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_DocSum

Also see recent abstracts in MSSE by Martin et al. and Edwards et al...

(And while you're at it, you should draw his attention to my point about the importance of gravitational and inertial forces in influencing the torque curve...)

Animator

I'm all for innovations if they're proven to work, but Hogg basically admitted today that he doesn't have all the data yet to back up his claims. Seems like it's premature to be pushing the idea...

Quote from Hogg on today's cyclingnews:

"I have only five or six weeks of experience with midfoot cleat position in the sense of being able to use torque analysis software to confirm the effect of positional changes with hard data. So far, and I accept that it is early days yet, every single rider who has gone this route has a minimum efficiency improvement of 5 - 10 %. "

Entire article at http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/.../letters05-15#1

decrono

If we all waited for the data to arrive before acting I suspect our species wouldn't have existed for long.
Please keep up the considered responses to the mid foot position.

cheers peter

velobob

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.

Woofer

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.

Nicolai Foss

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?

velobob

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.

cbjesseeNH

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.

biomac

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 Dick 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.

Animator

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.

biomac

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.

velobob

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?

biomac

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.