Originally Posted by
DanBell
For me it's not the weight of carrying a second pair of shoes, it's the space they take up. I'm planning a long trip now and have decided to switch to clips and straps instead of clipless pedals, which I've been riding for about six years now. If you only want a spare pair of shoes for walking to the restaurant from your motel, then probably any pair of light, compact camp shoes will work. I plan on doing some hiking and camping on this trip as well as cycling though, so I wanted shoes that could handle that, like some trail runners or light hikers. Once I began considering shoes like that, it didn't make sense to bring them in addition to cycling shoes.
All I can say is try it out close to home first. I can't stand wearing soft shoes with cage pedals. Running shoes are the worst. Even Vans are better. Traditional leather dress shoes work surprisingly well for pedaling, but you might not want to hike with them. Anyway, IMO you lose quite a bit of efficiency without cycling shoes, feels to me kind of like adding 15 lb to your gear. Is it really worth it?
My preference is to wear cycling shoes for riding, and bring along a pair of lightweight running shoes for any hiking. They basically weigh nothing, and for me they are an essential item.
Another compromise would be one of the more flexible MTB shoes. Some are pretty walkable for a short hike anyway.