Given that Specialized are claiming big time savings for the new S Works shoe, and that comparisons between pedals in a French magazine showed substantial power differences, what would you spend money on? $500 on pedals and shoes or ten times that on wheels or a frame?

Specialized claim a 28 sec saving over just 10km with the new shoe. Anyone have first hand experience? I do know that my best performances have come with Speedplays - but sadly they screw my IB so I can't ride them.

Can you provide a link for the French mag's test?

_________________
Exp001

Sadly not - it's only in print and came out in an issue last year.

The test is in Top Velo April 2011. It re enacts a test they first did in 2004. A rider did intervals of four minutes. Cadence was fixed at 100rpm and HR at 160bpm. There was an 8 minute rest between intervals followed by a two minute warm up. The order of the pedals was random on changed throughout. The height of the saddle was adjusted and the alignment of the cleat to the pedal axle was also corrected. All data was recorded using a SRAM S975 Quarq.

The tester uses Time RXS on his bike day to day. It was therefore interesting that the RXS came bottom in the power test. The results were as follows.

Speedplay Zero 275 w
BBB, Miche MT7, 268 w
Shimano Dura Ac 266 w
Ritchey Echelon 266 w
Time i Clic 262 w
Mavic Race SL 261 w
Look Keo Classic 261 w
Look Keo Blade 259 w
Time RXS 258 w

Now I'm sure we can pick holes in the test until the cows come home but it does make me pause for thought

I rather have seen a test with fixed power and seen the development ind heartrate. Your power can jump very much without you can see this in your heartrate. Even though you can always say this is absolutely no valid test. If I was to do such a test I would most likely have lower heartrate in the first interval compared to power...

_________________
Technical editor at Cykelmagasinet Denmark

My Simplon Pavo II

Over a 4 minute interval? Not in my experience unless you factor in drift from fatigue - in which case the multiple intervals and random nature of them would even things out surely?

Can someone explain the power in watts differance in pedals, very interesting.

_________________
Curt Brown
2012 Cannondale Supersix EVO SRAM Red 10.8#'s
2012 Cannondale Super X 14.1#'s and dropping....
2011 Cannondale Carbon Flash 1 17.2#'s
1999 Cannondale F2000, SRAM XO 18.9#'s
http://cbevo.com/2012_cd_supersix_evo_31.html

I sure don't see the comparison between shoes/pedals and frame and wheels. Well maybe the wheels and frame can be compared, an either or choice. But pedals/shoes are completely separate. Its mostly about comfort for shoes/pedals. If what you have is comfortable, don't change. Weight or power is meaningless if your feet are not comfortable. If you need/want new shoes/pedals, get them. Then decide if you also want a new frame or wheels.

The similarity is in the claimed time/watt savings.

For instance the wattage savings of the Zipp 404 is allegedly comparable to that of switching from Look Keo to Speedplay and buying the new S Works shoes.

Except that (I presume), the Shoe/Pedal's claimed savings were on a bike and not in a wind tunnel.

It makes me wonder why we would dismiss one whilst embracing the other.

Repeated how many times?

I don't have the publication to hand but if I recall correctly each pedal was subjected to four intervals in a random order. Like I say, I'm sure we can pick holes in the findings but it's food for thought.

Wouldn't these differences come from different cleat positioning? Due to the different pedals the cleats would have to be placed in different places.
There's a whole barrage of literature on what cleat position is best, but a big factor is adjustment time and 'riding in to' the new cleat position.

Position with relation to pedal axle was the same in all cases.

In that case, new shoes & pedals would be more worthwhile than aero frame & wheels, no?
Thinking off hand, the watts difference is effective per pedal stroke... which will have a cumulative gain or defecit greater than that of an aero quality which is more subject to greater external factors beyond the rider's control, such as wind yaw, drafting, etc:.

Aero wattage claims (gains or losses) are highly dependent upon external factors beyond the rider's control, and they are variable.
Pedal wattage gains or losses are consistant, regardless of external factors or how tired the rider may be, or where the rider is riding (uphill, downhill, tailwind, headwind) so long as they are pedaling.

INB4 the inevitable "I'll take all the gains I can, everything counts" - well, duh, no sh*t. But the thread is "vs" not "both"

_________________
Exp001

Is there any published comparison of shoes? Which shoes save you the most wattage?
Is a too stiff shoe ever detrimental to a rider over long distances?

_________________
Exp001

There's your rub...

If this wasn't repeated in alternating order (the list forward, backward and alternating from the middle out) several times where the watt diffs were repeated regardless of the pedals place in the order, the test just doesn't hold water... The bike would have needed to be refitted for stack height each time as well as making sure the cleat placement and alignment were perfect each time. I've seen larger wattage difs with no changes in equipment but slight aero tweaks, for same heart rate in pro athletes doing fewer runs...

The difs are also, for the most part, inside most power meters margin of error during same calibration.

If they did repeat the tests and fitting and the watt difs from one pedal to the next (which would be more important than producing the same total peak wattage) were the same each time, its a fair job of holding up.

If they didn't shuffle and repeat and fit properly, there's virtually no usable info.

_________________
charles@pezcyclingnews.com