Originally Posted by Steelrider
Thanks for the reply! The point though wasn't Sidis, that's just what my experience is with as a contrast to what I was using before. The real point was that stiffness in soles of road shoes can make a huge difference in cases like this, especially in conjunction with the things he already addressed - like pedaling style and efficiency. Have never really had any luck with orthotics, although my feet are so flat I have a "negative" arch. Had a pair made for me once, but they took up too much of the shoe to be comfortable and the added heel thickness made shoes slip at the heel too much. This was years ago though. Do the current orthotic systems eliminate that problem?
edit: anecdotally and biomechanically, a stiffer sole is going to distribute the downward pedaling force more equally over the sole. Granted, this is minimized if you have a good, round, efficient pedaling motion, but the average recreational rider applies more downward force on the downstroke. Over hours of pedaling, that pressure is going to cause pain and "hot spots" among those who are so inclined - especially if your shoe allows that pressure to be more localized than distributed. Still am not sure why it would be dubious.
I agree that a stiffer sole is gonna be better for performance and for comfort as well. The less the foot's muscles have to support the foot's deflection on the down stroke the more comfort you'll have. Your point of spreading the pressure over the sole more evenly is also a very good point, IMO. So another reason for improved comfort. Performance is an obvious benefit.
Current 'thodic systems are much better in terms of not taking up too much space. Infact they are thinner (where it counts) than a cheesy stock foot bed. Eg. The AmFit system uses a computer generated "print" of the foot's sole. So you get a contoured image by way of hundreds of pins that rise up on a mechanical platform. The pin's height corresponds to the digital image that can be captured as many times as you want. The tech that assists in making the image will also align the talus and navicular bones to eliminate pronation. The image can be made with weighted foot or unweighted. There are reasons for each methodology. A flat footed person would get a weighted image in all likelyhood.
Then the image is send to a mill. The mill grinds the foots shape out based on the digi image and there you have it. Another nice feature is that the image can be stored and redone many times over. This is especially cool if you tweak the image and find that one in particular nailed it. Then you have the "perfect" file for repeat production. Kinda cool, huh?
I should stop saying dubious. It makes me sound like a condescending baztard. I am condescending sometimes, but I'm harmless and generally a nice, caring person. Just a little edgy at times. My mother says I'm not a baztard. I'm taking her word for it.
I think your anecdotal info is right on. I retract the dubious comment. 