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"
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.
- Posts: 8609
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
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?
In the end, the rider/blogger finds less of a difference between the iclic and the RXS than claimed by the magazine.
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!
- in the industry
- Posts: 3553
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
- Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
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.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 0 Replies
- 475 Views
Last post by geng94
Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:40 pm
- 1 Replies
- 884 Views
Last post by bilwit
Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:41 pm
- 9 Replies
- 905 Views
Last post by Calnago
Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:40 pm
- 17 Replies
- 1663 Views
Last post by TonyM
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:36 am
- 1 Replies
- 688 Views
Last post by Pokerface07
Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:22 am