In this week's comic, a Q&A correspondent asks a seemingly simple question; what is the lightest SPD pedal? In classic CW style, the answer goes wandering off into a dissertation on various clipless systems and recommends the Titanium/Carbon versions of the companies with the biggest promotional budgets - Time, Look, Speedplay.

Q1: What is the correct answer to the question?
A1: Shimano XTR, as only Shimano can use the registered trade mark SPD. The old single sided Dura Ace PD7810 was a bit lighter, but they have been out of production for a decade, or the current Dura Ace SPD-SL if suffixes are acceptable. None of these mentioned by CW

Q2: What is the correct answer if the questioner meant "SPD compatible"?
A2: Ritchey Pro Micro Road, not mentioned by CW

Q3: What are the correct caveats to warn the questioner about?
A3a: Pedal weights mean nothing if you don't include the cleat and cleat fixing screws too
A3b: Light weight means nothing if you can't get clipped in after dismounting and running through some mud, neither mentioned by CW

I know Cycling Weakly's incompetence will be news to nobody, but this seemed uniquely striking as I scanned through it in the shop before returning it to the shelf, just like every other proper cyclist does after reading Hutch's column.

too true

Ha!!!

Cycling Weekly reviewed two bikes last year. Each had a Shimano 105 groupset (might have been Ultegra,.) One group was in silver, the other anodised grey.
In the summing up at the end of the artical, One bike scored 4 for its groupset and the other 5!!!

I've not bought the tin pot rag since!

_________________
Arms of a sprinter, legs of a climber, lungs of a smoker!
I cycle, therefore I am.
http://www.dukinfieldcc.org/ http://photobucket.com/albums/b32/clpowellbikes/

why would anyone write to a magazine to ask a simple question that can be answered by looking on the web?

I guess it caters to people who ask dumb questions like that. the Q&A panel are hardly a bunch of experts though are they so I guess it's not a bad effort!

Its been 6 years since I cancelled my subscription to CW. The day they started printing it on shiny paper halved its usefulness.

Cycle sport will get cancelled soon if they dont stop going on about drugs and the UCI. Its about time our own publications started focussing about whats good about the sport

Yes, a magazine which one of the "journalists" has a real problem writing a decent article.

_________________
J EURO

They each are different I suppose, cycle sport has the edge over pro-cycling. columns written by tom danielson and bike tests by people like chris boardman riding bikes too big for him make pro-cycling a waste of space. It's funny how many ex-amateur riders have a problem with cyclign weekly simply because they are jealous of the coverage given to sportives and bike testers.

Procycling lost me when the railed on and on about running the dopers out, banning them for life yadda yadda, then hired a former doper to review bikes for them. They even got called on it, and kind of blew it off giving a bs answer on their incredible hypocrisy.

_________________
This forum would be a better place if you had to know what you were talking about prior to posting. And if you took yourself less seriously.

As opposed to what? Every cycling magazine just cheerleads for whoever their sponsors are, or who they want to be. At least Cycling weakly has info on training, nutrition and medical issues, with the theme that the rider determines the bike's speed. They also do nice reviews of cycling routes and make me want to get on a plane to the UK. Most other rags: pay more money, go more faster. Few even talk about actually riding a bike.

Cycling Weekly has its pros and cons, but I loved the coverage before sites like Cyclingnews.com came to dominate cycling coverage(and before I had a home computer!!!).

Now its' cycling coverage is, inevitably, a day late and a penny short.

But I really enjoyed the way they covered training and nutrition. The reason I stopped purchasing the mag is because the price kept going up to the point where I felt it just wasn't worth it. Here in New York City I believe the price is now over 7 dollars.

If it wasn't for that I would still buy it, because CycleSport is totally useless.

Ever since its' publisher changed from whatever it was before to World Cycling Productions that magazine is the most reviled in my household.

All it is is a tome to Lance Armstrong and US Postal/Discovery and a secondary catalogue appendage for WCP. Total, complete and absolute garbage. I hate this magazine with a passion that borders on obsession.

World Cycling Productions have been dropped for 08 so Cyclesport US is being produced solely in the UK so should be an improvement.

Ah, thanks for the information. Would you happen to know why WCP is dropping the magazine? Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy about this-just wondering if you knew the reasons behind this move.

I believe Cyclesport dropped WCP so total control over content now comes out of the UK.