|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/13/2020 12:09 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/13/2020 10:49 AM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 10:36:32 PM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank, what you are missing is that you don’t always need to waste energy in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it would hurt to ride barefoot. ?? I haven't said anything in favor of riding barefoot. - Frank Krygowski Of course you didn’t, and probably for the same reason as the example I put out. Even though there would be no greater energy (or power, take your pick) losses riding barefoot, the localized areas of increased pressure on the sole of your foot would result in a tendency to apply less force because it would be uncomfortable to apply more. If you’ve ever run barefoot and landed on a pebble, you notice it. So stiff soles shoes can allow greater power transfer simply by making it more comfortable to do so for sustained periods. OK, that's more understandable. I don't doubt that if a person used to have pain, hot foot, numb toes etc. from older style equipment, that person could produce more power with comfortable shoes. But I and several of my friends use "touring" cycling shoes with toe clips. I've never had any discomfort, and I've never heard those friends complain. I don't believe we'd see any power increase by changing to special clipless shoes. In fact, I suspect the formerly uncomfortable guy I described above could do just as well if he found a _comfortable_ pair of shoes like I use. Incidentally, we know a couple that are extremely avid tourists and utility cyclists - the most dedicated in our area. They routinely spend months at a time touring Europe or the U.S., camping all the way. They love SPD sandals. That makes me wonder about the "efficiency" and "pulling up" on a sandal that's firmly clipped to the pedal, but compared to a shoe, only loosely attached to one's foot. Of course, I think it makes negligible difference. But do clipless shoe fans disparage clipless sandals? Hey, I think we may be slowly converging on a statement we can both agree on. Is that allowed here?? Probably not, but I’m willing to give it a shot. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:22:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/12/2020 9:22 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:12:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 8/12/2020 8:57 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 8:52:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: On 8/12/2020 6:22 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:01:07 +0700, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:54:14 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/11/2020 11:28 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 6:03:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/11/2020 6:05 PM, jbeattie wrote: I certainly pulled up or across the pedal when track racing, and if I pulled out, it could be catastrophic -- and thus double straps and later clipless (some racers used clipless and straps). Foot retention is important when sprinting and climbing out of the saddle. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2020.1769201 It's a shame they didn't test stiff soled cycling shoes with toe clips. For a long time those were the default choice for avid cyclists. They're still my choice for long rides. But I'll point out, that paper (apparently) did not measure efficiency. The power improvements were huge (9.7???8.7% power gain by adding toe clips to soft shoes, and 16.6???10.2% gain with rigid shoes and clipless). On a five percent grade, that corresponds to a very noticeable increase in speed. If those gains were due to lack of efficiency of soft soles, those soles must have been soaking up a hell of a lot of power. That means they should get very hot. We can discuss this, but I suspect a lot of the gains measured were due to the "red bikes are faster" effect. Testers were probably preconditioned to think toe clips help a lot, and REAL cycling shoes and clipless are what professionals use. That's a recipe for a powerful placebo. If not that, then what made the power difference? Where would the power have been previously lost? We should be able to talk about that in detail. And shoes can make a big difference. I remember going from Detto, Vittoria or Italia (they all blended together) bicycling/bowling shoes of yore with little steel stiffeners and nail on cleats to Duegis with wood soles and bolt-on plastic cleats. https://www.classicsteelbikes.com/wp...-1-600x400.jpg That was huge -- like going from Michelin 50s to Vittoria CGs (I never rode silks). That was probably the single biggest component improvement I ever had. Again, we should be able to analyze the exact source of the improvement. The shoes are not a source of power; they are a simple device for transmitting power from your foot to the pedal. I don't doubt that some changes allow better biomechanics and thus better power output. But it's hard for me to see how shoes do that. A couple of things: (1) your ankle is not a spring, dropping as the sole flexes. Old cycling shoes were really like bowling shoes and not very stiff. (2) Deeper, more secure cleats -- for better or worse. It was not a subtle change for me at all. Others agree: http://stevetilford.com/2016/05/26/cycling-shoes-2/ YMMV. I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to _technical_ discussion about power transfer: Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe clips. Unfortunately it didn't. And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff. Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on the pedal? Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's the force on that pedal? The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds. It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint? Rather than trying thought experiments, go and try a pair of stiff shoes in a clipless pedal system. Actually experience the modern world before making grand pronouncement about how nothing makes a difference. And BTW, "pulling up" is not a myth -- as anyone who has pulled out in track sprint can tell you. I almost pulled out of my left shoe last night humping up a hill and had to reach down and cinch up the ratchet -- or if I were you, stop and retie my shoe. -- Jay Beattie. If there is a substantial loss of power through "flexing the sole" why aren't runners wearing hard soled shoes? My guess is that an Olympic class sprinter is applying at least as much, and possibly more, force against the ground than a cyclist applies against the pedals. Abebe Bikila of Ethiopia won an Olympic gold medal in a world-record 2:15:16.2 running barefooted in 1960. Further to the above, Usain Bolt in breaking the world 100m record developed a maximum of 2619.5 watts after only 0.89 seconds of the race. Not wearing hard soled shoes :-) -- Cheers, John B. Then again Roger Bannister and runners of his era and before ran in 'running flats', thin very light leather shoes with leather soles. And there's been the recent trend of barefoot running. It may well be that, just like flat or engaged pedals, humans adapt well to many variants. Crank length seems to be similar as there aren't objective performance differences despite rider perception. Indeed, we're probably the most adaptable animal species ever. - Frank Krygowski Perhaps because we aren't "specialized". A lion can run incredibly fast, about 50 MPH,for a short distance. Because that is how he gets supper, (actually she gets supper) but can't climb trees. A Monkey isn't very fast on the flat but scurries up trees quickly. A human is slower then a lion in a sprint and can't climb trees as well as the monkey but can do both. meh. 'We have the Maxim and they have not.' By "maxim" I assume that you mean Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim's invention rather than the synonym for "axiom". -- Cheers, John B. It's a quotation and yes it's capitalized. :-) Ah yes, the complete quotation is, "Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not. " And did apparently apply to Sir Hiram's invention. I suppose in modern terms it would read something like "And, we got more atom bombs then they do" :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: IJohn B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to _technical_ discussion about power transfer: Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe clips. Unfortunately it didn't. And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff. Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on the pedal? Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's the force on that pedal? The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds. It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint? "It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg saying that about a legal issue. To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and "energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are related but not identical; all are used colloquially.) So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office shoes never seemed to get hot! Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it would hurt to ride barefoot. I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still... -- Cheers, John B. I’m sure we’ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or another. The question is “Were you at the head of the peloton while doing so?” Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton. -- Cheers, John B. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
On 8/13/2020 5:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:22:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 8/12/2020 9:22 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:12:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 8/12/2020 8:57 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 8:52:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: On 8/12/2020 6:22 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:01:07 +0700, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:54:14 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/11/2020 11:28 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 6:03:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/11/2020 6:05 PM, jbeattie wrote: I certainly pulled up or across the pedal when track racing, and if I pulled out, it could be catastrophic -- and thus double straps and later clipless (some racers used clipless and straps). Foot retention is important when sprinting and climbing out of the saddle. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2020.1769201 It's a shame they didn't test stiff soled cycling shoes with toe clips. For a long time those were the default choice for avid cyclists. They're still my choice for long rides. But I'll point out, that paper (apparently) did not measure efficiency. The power improvements were huge (9.7???8.7% power gain by adding toe clips to soft shoes, and 16.6???10.2% gain with rigid shoes and clipless). On a five percent grade, that corresponds to a very noticeable increase in speed. If those gains were due to lack of efficiency of soft soles, those soles must have been soaking up a hell of a lot of power. That means they should get very hot. We can discuss this, but I suspect a lot of the gains measured were due to the "red bikes are faster" effect. Testers were probably preconditioned to think toe clips help a lot, and REAL cycling shoes and clipless are what professionals use. That's a recipe for a powerful placebo. If not that, then what made the power difference? Where would the power have been previously lost? We should be able to talk about that in detail. And shoes can make a big difference. I remember going from Detto, Vittoria or Italia (they all blended together) bicycling/bowling shoes of yore with little steel stiffeners and nail on cleats to Duegis with wood soles and bolt-on plastic cleats. https://www.classicsteelbikes.com/wp...-1-600x400.jpg That was huge -- like going from Michelin 50s to Vittoria CGs (I never rode silks). That was probably the single biggest component improvement I ever had. Again, we should be able to analyze the exact source of the improvement. The shoes are not a source of power; they are a simple device for transmitting power from your foot to the pedal. I don't doubt that some changes allow better biomechanics and thus better power output. But it's hard for me to see how shoes do that. A couple of things: (1) your ankle is not a spring, dropping as the sole flexes. Old cycling shoes were really like bowling shoes and not very stiff. (2) Deeper, more secure cleats -- for better or worse. It was not a subtle change for me at all. Others agree: http://stevetilford.com/2016/05/26/cycling-shoes-2/ YMMV. I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to _technical_ discussion about power transfer: Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe clips. Unfortunately it didn't. And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff. Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on the pedal? Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's the force on that pedal? The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds. It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint? Rather than trying thought experiments, go and try a pair of stiff shoes in a clipless pedal system. Actually experience the modern world before making grand pronouncement about how nothing makes a difference. And BTW, "pulling up" is not a myth -- as anyone who has pulled out in track sprint can tell you. I almost pulled out of my left shoe last night humping up a hill and had to reach down and cinch up the ratchet -- or if I were you, stop and retie my shoe. -- Jay Beattie. If there is a substantial loss of power through "flexing the sole" why aren't runners wearing hard soled shoes? My guess is that an Olympic class sprinter is applying at least as much, and possibly more, force against the ground than a cyclist applies against the pedals. Abebe Bikila of Ethiopia won an Olympic gold medal in a world-record 2:15:16.2 running barefooted in 1960. Further to the above, Usain Bolt in breaking the world 100m record developed a maximum of 2619.5 watts after only 0.89 seconds of the race. Not wearing hard soled shoes :-) -- Cheers, John B. Then again Roger Bannister and runners of his era and before ran in 'running flats', thin very light leather shoes with leather soles. And there's been the recent trend of barefoot running. It may well be that, just like flat or engaged pedals, humans adapt well to many variants. Crank length seems to be similar as there aren't objective performance differences despite rider perception. Indeed, we're probably the most adaptable animal species ever. - Frank Krygowski Perhaps because we aren't "specialized". A lion can run incredibly fast, about 50 MPH,for a short distance. Because that is how he gets supper, (actually she gets supper) but can't climb trees. A Monkey isn't very fast on the flat but scurries up trees quickly. A human is slower then a lion in a sprint and can't climb trees as well as the monkey but can do both. meh. 'We have the Maxim and they have not.' By "maxim" I assume that you mean Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim's invention rather than the synonym for "axiom". -- Cheers, John B. It's a quotation and yes it's capitalized. :-) Ah yes, the complete quotation is, "Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not. " And did apparently apply to Sir Hiram's invention. I suppose in modern terms it would read something like "And, we got more atom bombs then they do" :-) -- Cheers, John B. Back to your point, yes monkeys climb trees better and a lion's sprint is formidable, but we became the dominant species for a different set of features and adaptability is high among them. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
OT. Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 19:16:34 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
Back to your point, yes monkeys climb trees better and a lion's sprint is formidable, but we became the dominant species for a different set of features and adaptability is high among them. Hmm, sounds perfectly plausible until you have to deal with 'the monkeys' working on an 'IT Hhelp Desk'. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 19:16:34 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/13/2020 5:52 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:22:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 8/12/2020 9:22 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:12:35 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 8/12/2020 8:57 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 8:52:35 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: On 8/12/2020 6:22 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:01:07 +0700, John B. wrote: On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:54:14 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/11/2020 11:28 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 6:03:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/11/2020 6:05 PM, jbeattie wrote: I certainly pulled up or across the pedal when track racing, and if I pulled out, it could be catastrophic -- and thus double straps and later clipless (some racers used clipless and straps). Foot retention is important when sprinting and climbing out of the saddle. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2020.1769201 It's a shame they didn't test stiff soled cycling shoes with toe clips. For a long time those were the default choice for avid cyclists. They're still my choice for long rides. But I'll point out, that paper (apparently) did not measure efficiency. The power improvements were huge (9.7???8.7% power gain by adding toe clips to soft shoes, and 16.6???10.2% gain with rigid shoes and clipless). On a five percent grade, that corresponds to a very noticeable increase in speed. If those gains were due to lack of efficiency of soft soles, those soles must have been soaking up a hell of a lot of power. That means they should get very hot. We can discuss this, but I suspect a lot of the gains measured were due to the "red bikes are faster" effect. Testers were probably preconditioned to think toe clips help a lot, and REAL cycling shoes and clipless are what professionals use. That's a recipe for a powerful placebo. If not that, then what made the power difference? Where would the power have been previously lost? We should be able to talk about that in detail. And shoes can make a big difference. I remember going from Detto, Vittoria or Italia (they all blended together) bicycling/bowling shoes of yore with little steel stiffeners and nail on cleats to Duegis with wood soles and bolt-on plastic cleats. https://www.classicsteelbikes.com/wp...-1-600x400.jpg That was huge -- like going from Michelin 50s to Vittoria CGs (I never rode silks). That was probably the single biggest component improvement I ever had. Again, we should be able to analyze the exact source of the improvement. The shoes are not a source of power; they are a simple device for transmitting power from your foot to the pedal. I don't doubt that some changes allow better biomechanics and thus better power output. But it's hard for me to see how shoes do that. A couple of things: (1) your ankle is not a spring, dropping as the sole flexes. Old cycling shoes were really like bowling shoes and not very stiff. (2) Deeper, more secure cleats -- for better or worse. It was not a subtle change for me at all. Others agree: http://stevetilford.com/2016/05/26/cycling-shoes-2/ YMMV. I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to _technical_ discussion about power transfer: Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe clips. Unfortunately it didn't. And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff. Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on the pedal? Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's the force on that pedal? The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds. It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint? Rather than trying thought experiments, go and try a pair of stiff shoes in a clipless pedal system. Actually experience the modern world before making grand pronouncement about how nothing makes a difference. And BTW, "pulling up" is not a myth -- as anyone who has pulled out in track sprint can tell you. I almost pulled out of my left shoe last night humping up a hill and had to reach down and cinch up the ratchet -- or if I were you, stop and retie my shoe. -- Jay Beattie. If there is a substantial loss of power through "flexing the sole" why aren't runners wearing hard soled shoes? My guess is that an Olympic class sprinter is applying at least as much, and possibly more, force against the ground than a cyclist applies against the pedals. Abebe Bikila of Ethiopia won an Olympic gold medal in a world-record 2:15:16.2 running barefooted in 1960. Further to the above, Usain Bolt in breaking the world 100m record developed a maximum of 2619.5 watts after only 0.89 seconds of the race. Not wearing hard soled shoes :-) -- Cheers, John B. Then again Roger Bannister and runners of his era and before ran in 'running flats', thin very light leather shoes with leather soles. And there's been the recent trend of barefoot running. It may well be that, just like flat or engaged pedals, humans adapt well to many variants. Crank length seems to be similar as there aren't objective performance differences despite rider perception. Indeed, we're probably the most adaptable animal species ever. - Frank Krygowski Perhaps because we aren't "specialized". A lion can run incredibly fast, about 50 MPH,for a short distance. Because that is how he gets supper, (actually she gets supper) but can't climb trees. A Monkey isn't very fast on the flat but scurries up trees quickly. A human is slower then a lion in a sprint and can't climb trees as well as the monkey but can do both. meh. 'We have the Maxim and they have not.' By "maxim" I assume that you mean Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim's invention rather than the synonym for "axiom". -- Cheers, John B. It's a quotation and yes it's capitalized. :-) Ah yes, the complete quotation is, "Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not. " And did apparently apply to Sir Hiram's invention. I suppose in modern terms it would read something like "And, we got more atom bombs then they do" :-) -- Cheers, John B. Back to your point, yes monkeys climb trees better and a lion's sprint is formidable, but we became the dominant species for a different set of features and adaptability is high among them. Adaptability? In what manner? Mankind doesn't adapt, in any real sense, to outside events, they simply learn to live in those circumstances. ..... or perhaps I'm wrong. A day or so ago I researched the *average* weight of the USian female and discovered that the average weight is 170.6 pounds and the average height is 5'4". Apparently the average USian IS adapting to McDonalds :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
John B. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: IJohn B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to _technical_ discussion about power transfer: Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe clips. Unfortunately it didn't. And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff. Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on the pedal? Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's the force on that pedal? The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds. It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint? "It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg saying that about a legal issue. To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and "energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are related but not identical; all are used colloquially.) So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office shoes never seemed to get hot! Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it would hurt to ride barefoot. I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still... -- Cheers, John B. I’m sure we’ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or another. The question is “Were you at the head of the peloton while doing so?” Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton. -- Cheers, John B. John, I’m not sure how you manage to find the time to purposely misunderstand everything that other people say. Retirement must be nice. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 01:02:54 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: John B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: IJohn B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to _technical_ discussion about power transfer: Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe clips. Unfortunately it didn't. And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff. Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on the pedal? Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's the force on that pedal? The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds. It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint? "It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg saying that about a legal issue. To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and "energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are related but not identical; all are used colloquially.) So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office shoes never seemed to get hot! Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it would hurt to ride barefoot. I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still... -- Cheers, John B. I?m sure we?ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or another. The question is ?Were you at the head of the peloton while doing so?? Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton. -- Cheers, John B. John, I’m not sure how you manage to find the time to purposely misunderstand everything that other people say. Retirement must be nice. How so? You ask "Were you at the head of the peloton while doing so?" apparently referring to my comment about riding barefooted as a youth. I reply that I hadn't realized that were talking about those few capable of riding at the head of the peloton. And I misunderstood? I might add that I grew up in a small village in New Hampshire where, probably, half the population spoke, or at least understood, French and I never heard of a "peloton" while growing up. -- Cheers, John B. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: IJohn B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to _technical_ discussion about power transfer: Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe clips. Unfortunately it didn't. And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff. Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on the pedal? Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's the force on that pedal? The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds. It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint? "It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg saying that about a legal issue. To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and "energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are related but not identical; all are used colloquially.) So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office shoes never seemed to get hot! Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it would hurt to ride barefoot. I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still... -- Cheers, John B. I’m sure we’ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or another. The question is “Were you at the head of the peloton while doing so?” Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton. -- Cheers, John B. John, I’m not sure how you manage to find the time to purposely misunderstand everything that other people say. Retirement must be nice. +1 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Clipless pedals no more efficient than flat?
John B. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 01:02:54 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:49:36 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: IJohn B. wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 02:36:27 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not surprised that there are people who rhapsodize about shoes. And I know that certain shoes are more or less comfortable for certain riders, some shoes have better closure systems, etc. But to return to _technical_ discussion about power transfer: Again, the paper you linked could have tested stiff soled shoes with toe clips. Unfortunately it didn't. And it's true that "stiff" isn't a binary condition. But aside from commuting or utility riding, all the cycling shoes I've used (since Bata Bikers came on the scene) have seemed pretty stiff to me. Not as stiff as wooden soles, but then, nobody here has identified a mechanism for power loss through a sole that's a little less stiff. Thought experiment (since you mention springs): Place a spring with a high stiffness (say, 100 pounds per inch) on a bike pedal. Place a ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 1/10 inch. What's the force on the pedal? Repeat with a spring that's less stiff (say, 50 pounds per inch). Place the same ten pound weight on that spring. It will sag 2/10 inch. What's the force on that pedal? The answer is the same in both cases: Pedal force is ten pounds. It seems pretty simple to me. The power used flexing the sole is not transmitted into the pedal. It is wasted energy. A sloppy shoe-pedal interface is lossy. No? Did you not cinch up your toe-straps before a climb or a sprint? "It seems pretty simple to me" should be a warning. Imagine Joerg saying that about a legal issue. To give you a hint of the complexity, you've conflated "power" and "energy." ("Force" and "work" are other such quantities. All are related but not identical; all are used colloquially.) So, how would an engineer calculate - at least roughly - the energy lost due to sole flex? It would be the product of the force applied and the (extra) distance it moves. Seems to me we're talking a distance of a tiny fraction of an inch, and probably a microscopic loss. As I hinted earlier, if that energy were lost by soaking into the shoe structure, it would be converted to heat energy. It would be detectable by an increase in temperature. But when I commuted to work, my office shoes never seemed to get hot! Frank, what you are missing is that you don?t always need to waste energy in order to not put out as much power. I dare you to put out as much power riding barefoot as you would with shoes. Most riders with most pedals would find their power dropping, not due to energy wastage, but just because it would hurt to ride barefoot. I really wonder. Back when I was a young lad I rode a bicycle barefooted for much of the summer. Granted that "Summer" in upstate New Hampshire doesn't last that long but still... -- Cheers, John B. I?m sure we?ve all rode barefoot or with minimal footwear at one time or another. The question is ?Were you at the head of the peloton while doing so?? Oh! I hadn't realized that the discussion pertained only to those few who were capable of riding at the head of the peloton. -- Cheers, John B. John, I’m not sure how you manage to find the time to purposely misunderstand everything that other people say. Retirement must be nice. How so? You ask "Were you at the head of the peloton while doing so?" apparently referring to my comment about riding barefooted as a youth. I reply that I hadn't realized that were talking about those few capable of riding at the head of the peloton. And I misunderstood? I might add that I grew up in a small village in New Hampshire where, probably, half the population spoke, or at least understood, French and I never heard of a "peloton" while growing up. -- Cheers, John B. I’m fairly certain that you understood my original comment perfectly well and are just yanking my chain because there’s nothing better for you to do today, but what the hell, let me explain. The discussion was on the topic of whether stiffer shoes and clips translated into higher power at the cranks. Remember that, because the rest of the conversation depends on that context. Frank was saying that he didn’t believe it and I was arguing that a stiffer sole meant that you could put more pressure on the pedal without discomfort, and to make the point easier to visualize, I made the extreme example of riding barefoot. You then chimed in about riding barefoot in the halcyon days of your youth. At that point, I replied, still within the context of whether a stiffer shoe could result in higher power at the crank, that essentially anybody could pootle along barefoot on a bike, but the effect I was hypothesizing would only be noticeable at extreme efforts, therefore unless you were at the head of the peloton, your barefoot bicycling experience was of no significance to the conversation. PS: you may not have known the word peloton when you were a shoeless youth, but you damn well know it now, so whether or not you ever heard the word peloton in your youth is again, immaterial to the discussion. This cantankerous man will now do something other than argue with random people on the internet. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Clipless Pedals? | landotter | Techniques | 2 | August 26th 09 07:43 PM |
Clipless pedals | Antonio | General | 28 | September 23rd 05 01:07 PM |
Clipless pedals | Mikefule | Unicycling | 27 | September 10th 05 07:00 AM |
FS: Clipless Pedals | Frankie | Marketplace | 0 | December 21st 04 06:09 PM |
Clipless Pedals - Anything I should know.. | ebola | UK | 4 | August 11th 03 09:14 PM |