Originally Posted by
Kontact
Why would disabling the way your leg is designed to produce power at the foot be better, especially lacking any real data of a performance advantage?
Cyclists compete in very short and extremely long forms of racing. If there was a clear advantage to an alternative cleat location, wouldnt it be a proven necessity for RAAM or the like?
Why do so many people think everyone else is foolishly holding on to outdated techniques rather than noting that these kind of modifications have been tried and discarded many times before?
Most of the major shoe manufacturers are now providing further rearward adjustment for cleat position. Nowhere near mid-foot, but a good few mm further back than what was considered "normal" in the past. Personally I've found a significant benefit to moving my cleats further back i.e. less foot fatigue on longer rides. Maybe I'm sacrificing some top end sprint power, but that's unimportant for my endurance events. I've never tried a mid-foot position for the reasons elcruxio stated. Maybe pro racers can tolerate a more forward cleat position to maximise their sprint power, without affecting their endurance. But I just get sore feet!