Originally Posted by
Carbonfiberboy
Not to be a frigging elitist or anything
. . . but this rearward cleat stuff rather reminds me of Brooks saddles. I dunno . . .Cleat placement is all about performance choice. Moving the cleats back is rather crippling one's legs, by choice. I've always pedaled with the ball of my big toe over the pedal spindle. Never had an issue with it, and as you probably know, I concentrate on long rides. The purpose behind that placement is to activate one's calf and tibialis muscles. And yes, I do squats, great for the big movers in the legs, and I also do calf and toe raises because uh, squats don't do anything for them. Yeah, it's only about performance, but I care about that. I also use a position and pedaling style which activates my hams and glutes. The more muscles I can spread the load to, the better I go. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2FQqHF8x5I
and starting at about 9:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bMBTRqctF0&t=484s
Watch the changes in ankle angle. This is not "ankling." Changing the angle of the ankle reduces the changes of angle at the knee and hip, focusing on the most powerful range of motion for those joints.
It all depends on what you need. By moving the cleats back you gain foot stability but lose peak power. I don't personally need peak power and I can still crank out high enough power if I need to. For me long term stability is more important. For a trained individual (such as Pantani) the stability issue is much less of a concern. Not many typical riders are trained to nearly the same level. I also do not like the idea that I'd need to train certain muscle groups so that I can graduate to ride in the fashion I prefer. If there's a shortcut with caveats that don't concern me, I'm taking it.
On another subject, I notice how much more reach these folks used than is now common. I used to do that until my fitter moved my hands back. I rather liked it better the other way. I think more reach puts less load on the hands - they just bounce up and down, no load on them. I don't know why riders changed that.
In my experience the issues caused by too much reach begin manifesting when you start having your saddle in a position that allows for balanced recruitment of the quads and hamstrings. If get to that point and start adding excessive reach, there comes a point when you start tipping forward, placing more weight on the hands and all that fun stuff. Affecting factors are arm length, pelvic stability, and as a big factor upper body mass, among other things. Bigger hunks can tolerate less reach and vice versa.
Typically adding reach doesn't just mean you move your hands forward into a more vertical position. More often it means leaning the whole torso forward and that's really why adding reach for most people doesn't remove weight from the hands but does the opposite.
I believe in the pro peloton they have shorter reach these days because it's easier for the rider to achieve lots of drop instead of lots of reach. Added drop doesn't move the CoG forward as quicly as added reach does. There's also no inherent advantage in adding reach beyond the required amount.
What I do find interesting is the relationship of weight on hands, balance and back angle. It seems to me that to a point more forward lean increases balance and lessens weight on hands. I have no idea why, but I imagine it's different muscles taking over the balancing of the torso. Or it could just be me.