nickw

I race on clips and wouldn't go back, they make a difference (I think) at that level. For touring, I could take or leave them, usually I leave them, doesn't make a lick of difference. I've done 90 mile, 11000' days fully loaded with and without them, I'm just as tired at the end of the day either way...at about the same speed.

I'm not going to defend the position, but just keep an open mind and do some research, there are many many articles out there....

nickw

Regular shoes are just fine, I've used everything from Vans, to flip flops to running shoes...all work about the same. I do like the thinner soles of shoes like Vans, they feel a bit more stable.

cyccommute 

Maybe not absolutely necessary but it does make it a whole lot easier, especially when you have a loaded bike.

cyccommute 

Like I said above, have you ever watched a bunny hop? They don't get very far off the ground. That's all you need with a loaded touring bike and it's something that comes in handy from time to time. Just getting the rear wheel to clear a pothole, ledge or curb will go a long way towards not messing up wheels.

"Bicycle touring" also covers a very wide range of activities. Bunny hopping on a road has limited utility...but is still a skill that comes in handy. Bunny hopping off-road is something that is much more useful and common.

You don't have to get the wheel a foot and a half over the obstacle. All you need is a few molecules of air and that qualifies as a "bunny hop".

Tourist in MSN

I use clipless 90 percent of the time. But usually like to wear other footwear in the evenings in the campsite.

Times that I use regular shoes instead of clipless are:

• As noted above, if on difficult terrain I wear regular shoes. By difficult terrain I mean; steep hills where my rear wheel could lose traction and I come to a halt in a split second, occasional soft sand like beach sand, cobble road (like the photos above), ice and snow, or pretty much any other situation where I could lose the ability to stay upright in an exceptionaly short period of time.
• When camping, a quick run to the; grocery store, liquor store, tavern, restaurant, shower building, more photogenic spot for a photo, etc.
• On my errand bike around home for short trips.
• Or other quick rides measured in minutes, not hours.
• My foldup bike has pedals that have a quick release, I can remove the complete pedal from the crank in seconds with no tools. SPD pedals that worked with my cleats that were quick release were unavailable at the time I bought them, so I bought platform and installed toe clips. I used toe clips for decades before clipless, so I am quite comfortable using both kinds of pedals on my bikes.

When I wear regular shoes on a bike for a significant distance or amount of time, they usually are my hiking shoes or trail running shoes.

Carbonfiberboy 

Clipless. The way to not have your feet bother you on a long day is to pedal all the way around the circle, i.e. hardly push down at all. MTB shoes on SPD pedals. Plus a pair of trail runners for off-bike fun. I especially like Shimano PD-A600 pedals for their large support platform.

Efficiency is a red-herring because the definition is maleable. The big reason for clipless, and toe-clips before them, is that you use more of the muscles in your legs, hence each individual muscle takes longer to get tired. I.e. your legs last a lot longer and you'll feel better the next day.

cyccommute 

While I agree with you, this is the very definition of "efficiency", i.e. using less energy to achieve the same result.

Carbonfiberboy 

Here's the problem with that:
The definition of efficiency is In the case of a cyclist, it's food energy in vs. kilojoules output at the pedals. It should be obvious that pedaling style doesn't change this ratio (much). However, it should be noted that it's possible due to internal friction of our muscles that using more muscles might very slightly reduce this measure of efficiency. This is what fuels the ridiculous flats vs. clips debate as to efficiency.

In another way of looking at efficiency, we could say that mph is the output and watts at the pedals in the input. Again it should be obvious that pedaling style doesn't influence how fast we go compared to what our watt meter says. However bike position and touring load certainly does.

cyccommute 

You are trying to separate that which can't be separated. If, at the end of the day, you have used less muscle energy as measured by muscle fatigue, then your energy efficiency...i.e. your energy output to energy input...is greater. The extra internal friction of the muscles from not using clipless is still part of that energy balance.

Energy lost as friction is still energy that is input into the system without getting energy output. In other words, wasted energy and decrease efficiency.

Carbonfiberboy 

Uh, no. As you pointed out in your previous post, arriving at the finish with muscles less tired is one advantage of using clipless, regardless of one (but only one) definition of efficiency. Which latter small effect, while measurable in some subjects in the lab, may not be at all true out on the road on a long ride.

This is all silliness and I'm not discussing it further.

u235

It can be separated. The additional power you apply pulling up still burns energy. You are not getting that additional power for nothing. If you are reducing your downstroke an equal amount it all evens out in terms of efficiency. You may be able to go longer and further in any given day because you are spreading the load but that is not an efficiency metric, that is a usage metric. That is pedaling effectiveness, your limit is not amount of energy available or burned, breathing, HR etc.. it is muscle fatigue. There are some studies that show although pulling up creates more power capability, there was no improvement and even a decrease in overall mechanical efficiency.

Not my study, I am just the messenger. I'm sure there are studies that may suggest otherwise.
https://www.radlabor.de/fileadmin/PDF...aefte_2008.pdf
that concept of efficiency and effectiveness clipped, unclipped, and pedal technique is littered thought the PDF and in the conclusion.

Firstly, shoe-pedal
interface did not influence the pedalling pattern during submaximal
cycling. Secondly, cyclists could change their technique by
actively pulling up during the recovery phase. However, doing
so impaired their mechanical efficiency.
Concerning the influence of the shoe-pedal interface, the lack of
difference between the pedals without toe-clips and clipless
pedals is somehow surprising. Indeed none of the kinetic quantities,
V˙ O2, NE and iEMG parameters showed any differences between
PED and CLIP, even for elite cyclists who are used to cycling
with clipless shoe-pedal systems.

Don't let someones study dictate what you feel. My pedal stroke and method is what it is and I'll ride on any given day until I don't feel like riding, maybe its my right leg, left knee, my nose running, I just felt like stopping, bored, I rode by a backyard BBQ and got a wiff of a steak and got hungry, my mind is elsewhere, I got a flat, who knows. It's never because I am pulling up or not that is impairing or helping.

RobSN

Going back to the OP's question, I like using Shimano SPD sandals with A530 pedals. The sandals have a recessed cleat so that I can use them off the bike without clicking around. The sandals work in all weather and one can change the thickness of the socks &/or put on waterproof socks as weather conditions dictate. The pedals clip in one side and can be used as platforms the other. Why, if I'm wearing SPD sandals, would I want to use the platform? An example was in Cornwall, England going up a 30%+ monster on a loaded touring bike, where the pedal rotation was so slow even in the granniest of gears that I would not have been able to unclip fast enough to not fall over if I didn't have one unclipped foot. Anyway, YMMV, but I find this a great combination.

u235

Totally agree on all counts. I recently started using SPD sandals. Nashbar version on sale for $30 to give it a whirl. I'm hooked and I don't see myself using my regular SPD shoes any time soon. They mate up to both sides of my Nashbar Rodeos and both sides of my PD-T8000 and easy to walk around in with some minor clicking. As a bonus, the tread design is good in the slop.

jefnvk

On my touring bikes, I use Giro Rumbles. Still feel like I benefit from a stiff sole.

Fat bike I just use my Red Wing or Timberland boots, the boot soles are already fairly stiff.

cyccommute 

I'm not sure why you are leaving in such a huff. You are the one who

I agree. All I was pointing out was that if you use an individual muscle less, tire it less, arrive at your destination with less overall muscle fatigue, you are being more energy efficient. Why all the kerfufflage?

cyccommute 

I'm not saying that you are getting power for nothing. Only that you are using the power you do develop more efficiently. Without clipless, you only put power to the pedal on the downstroke which means you a lot of other muscles more than you do some others. Look at table 3 in your link. Normalized to clipless, flat pedals make the rider work more muscle groups harder than with clipless. I'm not sure what the CLIPFBACK system is but looking at the noncyclists results, I wonder if the results, especially for the noncyclists is more influenced by fighting the system rather than any actual result. This statement

This statement, along with the data for the noncyclists, says to me that the people had trouble learning how to use the system. That likely had more to influence on the results than the test did. Given time and training, the results may be vastly different.

You missed this bit

We touring cyclists run do more than just cruise along on flat roads. Yes, we tend to wool gather (does that have an influence on the results in the paper?), get tired (ditto) and forget about form. But when we start to climb, we get closer to those maximal efforts where clipless helps.

Happy Feet

Actually, using more muscle groups to do the job leads to more fatigue, not less. The most efficient strategy is to use the least amount of muscles possible most efficiently. These are usually large muscle groups with slow twitch fibers. The muscles you would use to "pull up" do not have an abundance of slow twitch fibers and would fatigue quickly. To understand, look at long distance runners:

They learn to move most efficiently using fewer muscles. In fact long distance running is an exercise in finding efficiency. The upper body stays basically immobile with only a hinge like swing of the shoulder and the legs are primarily using slow twitch quads and calf muscles. The glutes and hams are not actively activated to pull the leg back. Compare to the sprinter who uses both extension and contraction muscle groups. Faster but fatiguing quicker.

I like clipless because they allow me to lift my foot off the pedal occasionally to encourage blood flow. I can flex and wiggle my toes but still move forward. If I tour with platforms it is usually more leisurely and I achieve the same effect by stopping to take pictures walk a bit etc...

Carbonfiberboy 

The "kerfufflage" is because you are muddying the discussion. Back in freshman dorm, every discussion started with, "Please define your terms." You don't know, or refuse to acknowledge what "efficiency" means. Thus no reason to continue the conversation. You are correct about the pedals, but the effect has little or nothing to do with your reasoning.

dannwilliams

Thanks! I checked these out and look to truly be the best of both worlds. I placed my order on REI, with the 20% off and my dividend, they are downright affordable. Can't wait for them to arrive and get installed and used. I'll post my thoughts after a few rides.

noglider 

The new Click'R design is easier to clip into than the previous ones. A friend of mine uses it. And Shimano pedals are very high quality.