Old 03-02-19, 08:57 PM
  #1  
Super D
Senior Member
 
Super D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 122

Bikes: C'dale Road, Giant TT, Felt Track, DB MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Shoe sole comparison: Easton EC70 Vs EC90, any recognizable difference in flex?

I'm using Lake CX331's and they're getting pretty tattered. Thinking of trying the Giro Factor Techlace, but damn, are they narrow! Considering whether going to the Trans Boa HV (wider forefoot) is a good decision, or if its EC70 sole would be noticeably more flexible than the EC90 on the Factor shoe.

Someone once told me I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between cycling shoe sole materials, but that wasn't quite so. My Lakes are [MUCH] stiffer than my previous shoes. I'd like to stick with a stiff sole like I have now for best energy transfer, but am struggling with shoe width issues. Thinking maybe I should warm up the Factor Techlace uppers, stick shoe stretchers in them and customize. I normally customize my shoes, ski boots, everything. My Lake cycling shoes have been shaped heavily with a spot stretcher, and they fit my feet like they were custom made. Anyway, back to the original question, sorry.

Comparing the EC70 shoe sole flex with the flex of a shoe with the EC90 sole, would there be any noticeable difference in stiffness?

Possible answers include:
A) The EC90 sole is noticeably stiffer than EC70, the 70 is poorer at transferring energy.
B) There is no flex difference between the two.
C) It's Saturday night, and you're posting about carbon cycling sole flex comparisons...Have you ever kissed a girl?
D) Nerd factor 11, on display here, is rarely seen; it's like seeing a comet, the blood moon, or a Keanu Reeves movie with actual acting.

Last edited by Super D; 03-02-19 at 09:33 PM.
Super D is offline