New S-Phyres - rc902

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.

Moderator: robbosmans

Post Reply
tommyboyo
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:49 am

by tommyboyo

Anyone had a pre full release go with these yet?

Very interested to hear how they size up, feel etc...

Liked the 901, but the toe box was a bit narrow and this seems to have been changed.

The shoes are still probably on the narrow side though I imagine?

by Weenie


User avatar
itsacarr
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:55 am
Contact:

by itsacarr

From their softgoods manager which might be helpful:

The RC902 toe box profile has changed slightly, a little less pointy than the RC900/RC901. We made this change to accommodate a broader range of foot shapes, specifically feet where the middle toe is the longest. The overall Volume fit did not change, but note that the RC902 features a more elastic mesh material to improve comfort for feet that are borderline of standard and wide sizing.

tommyboyo
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:49 am

by tommyboyo

itsacarr wrote:
Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:53 pm
From their softgoods manager which might be helpful:

The RC902 toe box profile has changed slightly, a little less pointy than the RC900/RC901. We made this change to accommodate a broader range of foot shapes, specifically feet where the middle toe is the longest. The overall Volume fit did not change, but note that the RC902 features a more elastic mesh material to improve comfort for feet that are borderline of standard and wide sizing.
Helpful, thanks.

I am in the 'second toe longer than big toe' camp myself!

User avatar
itsacarr
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:55 am
Contact:

by itsacarr

Happy to help - I am curious as I run the wide version of the previous model but do not really have wide feet. So I am curious.

pmprego
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

How hard would it be for them to put a table out regarding foot length and width and the mapping to the shoe sizing?? Do they have it?

tommyboyo
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:49 am

by tommyboyo

pmprego wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:47 am
How hard would it be for them to put a table out regarding foot length and width and the mapping to the shoe sizing?? Do they have it?
Vague table for the length.

Width info is rubbish for almost all companies, bont and lake being the notable exceptions.

pmprego
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:16 pm

by pmprego

tommyboyo wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:13 am
pmprego wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:47 am
How hard would it be for them to put a table out regarding foot length and width and the mapping to the shoe sizing?? Do they have it?
Vague table for the length.

Width info is rubbish for almost all companies, bont and lake being the notable exceptions.
That's what I think. But it's not that hard, is it? Grab a tape, measure it, put it on an excel table and that's it. I guess one person can do that in 1 hour of work. It does not seem that hard really.

otnemem
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:55 am

by otnemem

Pointy toeboxes are pointless in cycling shoes, yet many companies still keep doing it. Only adds to discomfort and potential for injuries. The parts that cyclists want to be more or less tight are on the MTTJ and proximally. Toeboxes can be designed anatomically with no loss.

tommyboyo
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:49 am

by tommyboyo

otnemem wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:47 am
Pointy toeboxes are pointless in cycling shoes, yet many companies still keep doing it. Only adds to discomfort and potential for injuries. The parts that cyclists want to be more or less tight are on the MTTJ and proximally. Toeboxes can be designed anatomically with no loss.
Could not agree more.

Can destroy your toes as well.

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 2611
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

I am in the second toe camp too and hearing about the change in the 902 sounds promising.

jlok
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:30 am

by jlok

I have tried size 44.5 wide and it should be considered regular width when comparing to S-Works 7 44.5 wide and Lake CX241 44.5 wide and CX1C 44.5 wide.

The toe box volume is also quite limited. The shop says that the wide version is only 2mm wider than regular size.
Rikulau V9 DB Custom < BMC TM02 < Litespeed T1sl Disc < Giant Propel Advanced SL Disc 1 < Propel Adv < TCR Adv SL Disc < KTM Revelator Sky < CAAD 12 Disc < Domane S Disc < Alize < CAAD 10

akaspin
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:36 pm

by akaspin

jlok wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:30 pm
I have tried size 44.5 wide and it should be considered regular width when comparing to S-Works 7 44.5 wide and Lake CX241 44.5 wide and CX1C 44.5 wide.

The toe box volume is also quite limited. The shop says that the wide version is only 2mm wider than regular size.
Did you measure length? In comparison with Spesh Shimano may be sized up by half or one size.

jlok
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:30 am

by jlok

akaspin wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:27 pm
jlok wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:30 pm
I have tried size 44.5 wide and it should be considered regular width when comparing to S-Works 7 44.5 wide and Lake CX241 44.5 wide and CX1C 44.5 wide.

The toe box volume is also quite limited. The shop says that the wide version is only 2mm wider than regular size.
Did you measure length? In comparison with Spesh Shimano may be sized up by half or one size.
They are similar length wise.

I have double e wide feet and I have almost tried all wide shoes on the market... the unrelated sad thing about my wide feet is that the widest points don't match any shoe on the market. The S-Works 7 is close but still a bit too forward. Im going to buy full custom now.
Rikulau V9 DB Custom < BMC TM02 < Litespeed T1sl Disc < Giant Propel Advanced SL Disc 1 < Propel Adv < TCR Adv SL Disc < KTM Revelator Sky < CAAD 12 Disc < Domane S Disc < Alize < CAAD 10

akaspin
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:36 pm

by akaspin

jlok wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:35 pm
akaspin wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:27 pm
jlok wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:30 pm
I have tried size 44.5 wide and it should be considered regular width when comparing to S-Works 7 44.5 wide and Lake CX241 44.5 wide and CX1C 44.5 wide.

The toe box volume is also quite limited. The shop says that the wide version is only 2mm wider than regular size.
Did you measure length? In comparison with Spesh Shimano may be sized up by half or one size.
They are similar length wise.

I have double e wide feet and I have almost tried all wide shoes on the market... the unrelated sad thing about my wide feet is that the widest points don't match any shoe on the market. The S-Works 7 is close but still a bit too forward. Im going to buy full custom now.
My feet is 280x102 mm (box) with longest big toe. I'm also using latest Spesh last (S-Works Vent 44.5). This shoes works but I want to try something new. Custom is nice. But I can't found anything in Europe.

Alexandrumarian
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Romania

by Alexandrumarian

jlok wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:30 pm
I have tried size 44.5 wide and it should be considered regular width when comparing to S-Works 7 44.5 wide and Lake CX241 44.5 wide and CX1C 44.5 wide.

The toe box volume is also quite limited. The shop says that the wide version is only 2mm wider than regular size.
Did you try the new one? I recently had the 901 in 45 wide and it was a disappointment. It seemed tighter than the old sh321 in regular....

by Weenie


Post Reply