Pren, the only watt production difs I've seen in shoes during ergo fittings and or tunnel time is mostly down to cleat tilt / position and foot beds.

Because we all have different foot tilt and arches, a shoe that works well out of the box for one person will not have the repeated advantage for several other people...


Drag might be better from one shoe to the next but saying a shoe will help produce power for everyone is less likely than finding a single saddle that the entire cycling population finds "perfect"

_________________
charles@pezcyclingnews.com

Charles

If you read the post you will see that they did shuffle and repeat, they did adjust for cleat position and stack height every time.

So there is something there. The variability of the Quarq is unlikely to be that much of an issue over such a long period of riding indoors I would have thought, given constant temperature.

It's interesting, just as claimed aero gains are interesting. If as claimed by Specialized for instance, it's certainly an area that's worth investigating and considerably less costly that swoopy carbon.

Oh, internet, you're so useful.

Charles (and everyone, really) - Here's the issue:
http://www.monde-du-velo.com/actualite- ... 1-238.html

and, apparently, someone wrote up a little on it, trying to compare the iclic vs. the RXS (which tested the best of all the pedals out there)
http://srmtraining.blogspot.com/2011/11 ... ut_22.html
... you do read French, don't you?
I do.

In the end, the rider/blogger finds less of a difference between the iclic and the RXS than claimed by the magazine.

_________________
Exp001

Can't read French, but if they shuffled and repeated and the results kept repeating, that's sure enough to think about it...

_________________
charles@pezcyclingnews.com

It is interesting results, although can't quite find how many repeats they did on the SRMtraining link. which makes me suspicious (unless my french really has degraded that much and i've missed it!).

8% or 20w is huge difference, however if the best and worst are seen as outliers thats only a ±4% change which is close to PM inaccuracies especially if badly calibrated.

Assuming all the above factors about relative saddle height/pedal position/foreaft/stack are all maintained on each run, a lot of work. and that fatigue is ignored somehow. Then I can only think of one factor that might affect the results, namely float. Were they all setup with comparable float? and how the spring resists float (or not), which "might" affect fatigue/power drop.

any how just a hypothesis that i though of, might well be trash though!

This is the problem alot of these tests are done by magazines and the methodolgy can sometimes be a bit suspect. How do you fix someones heart rate for insatance also they have just tested one rider. Surely you would need to try the same shoes of many different riders to see if there is any repeatability.

It is good these things are tested but I think it needs to be a bit more rigerous from the description given. Also results do not need to expressed in power outputs. If different riders are used then a reference shoe could be used and each % power change for each different shoe present when tested by the different riders. Thi8s would allow stats to be performed on each data set if it ius big enough. That would show if the changes are statisically significant or not.

Expressing the power change as time saved over a distance is meaningless without knowing the assumptions made to calculate that figure. Sound like marketing b******* to me.

_________________
www.thecycleclinic.co.uk

I vote for wearing a skin suit and a teardrop helmet with no holes.