Of course Bicycling is not the know all of bike publications, I know that, but in this instance, if you read the article, you would see my point.

I don't subscribe, so I didn't see it in print. Their site's search function isn't working at the moment, and Google keeps pointing me towards their forums. Got a link?

Always use Shimano PD-M540 SPD commuting and have them on all of my bikes.

Bicycling magazine? Man, I haven't read one in like a year -

Can someone tell me how I can "get faster" in 45 minute workouts by doing intervals? How about ways to strengthen my abs? What about carbon fiber water bottle cages that Bicycling "though was a gimmick, but are now completely convinced increase your performance"......

wow, magazine snobs.

I actually trust Bicycling a little more than Rivendell. Not much more, but a bit. And, no, I couldn't find the article you were talking about.

Just picked up a pair of those and a pair of DZR shoes. I'm excited to try them out.

I read Bicycling for the pictures,

As for articles most of them aimed at the fairly new cyclist. There are plenty of trustworthy users on Bikeforums who make unedited recommendations based on what they use and don't make a cent for it.

As for clipless, my Crank Bros Smarties are coming in the mail and when I get them at least one pair of SPD's are going up on ebay with a starting price of $1. So if you want to try clipless there may be no cheaper time.

What kind of SPDs?

Good stuff

I use them on my mountain bike, road bike and commuter. I have a pair of Sidi Dominator's and a pair of Shimano MT31's depending on the ride.

All my bikes are equipped with Speedplay Frog pedals. I've ridden those exclusively for ~15 years. Shoes are Sidi Dominators, but I'll probably add some Shimano MW80's for winter riding.

I got the big black rubber block pedals going. They work fine for me. I don't have too far to go and I can't push the fast button anymore.

It's also more convenient to just stick with work shoes all the time.

3ss

Agreed. If I'm going to wear different shoes anyway, might as well be clipless.

I use the flip-flop Shimano pedals.

Yeah, really. I guess he won't be getting any tips on how to complete that first century...

Y'all must have missed the most recent cover story:

Seven! Ways! To! Use! More! Exclamation! Marks!

you guys are making fun of a magazine on a thread about clipless pedals...maybe you thought it was the road forum?

I don't use clipless pedals for commuting. In my opinion it's too much of a hassle to change shoes when I arrive at my destination, which isn't far. If my commute were longer than four miles I may consider using shoes. However, I mainly just commute with the shoes I wear that day (black Chacos for most of the year). Especially riding around campus, I don't want to be walking around in my Shimano mountain bike shoes or Northwave road shoes.

If I do decide to take my mountain or road bike to work/school that day, I might use clipess. It's sometimes uncomfortable or dangerous when it's wet to use normal shoes on my small clipless pedals.

You're getting all bent out of shape over a couple of funny asides...maybe you thought this was A&S.

Bent out of shape? Uh, no, you are incorrect. That statement insinuates criticism of bicycling offends me, it doesn't.

Maybe you could start a humorous thread about the magazine though. It appears the topic attracts users like flies to crap. You guys could all yuk it up together.

Now I apologize for once again getting off topic like the other yahoos.

This thread was more or less dead... Your post on the bicycling article came 20 days after the last post in the thread. It's not like there was a lively discussion going on and all these posters sidetracked it.

There were about 3 or 4 of the humorous posts, vs 3 posts from you being upset about it.

In any case I don't know what you expected from posting about an article without quoting it, citing its title, posting a link, or otherwise hinting at any points that were made by the author. How do you expect people to discuss the merits of the article, when all you mention is the name of the magazine?

^^^do you use clipless dude? If so, do you find them more efficient? Or are you one of the guys that says they aren't? And I happened to read this some time after this thread was started and dead as you stated, sorry, didn't realize threads had a shelf life.

I think you are more upset about my comments than I am about criticism about bicycling. I find this kind of fun, not upsetting in the least, get it?

and as far as senses of humor go, you guys are way to easy. Your turn.

I've already written about how I don't find clipless pedals improve my performance enough to be "worth it" for me somewhere in the middle of this thread.

As to efficiency that's hard to say, and I'm not convinced that is the most important criteria. It depends what you mean by efficient. If you mean wasting less energy when spinning high rpms, then probably clipless pedals are "more efficient". On the other hand considering efficiency from a purely mechanical point of view, spinning at higher rpm should be less efficient, because for a given power output, you are wasting extra energy accelerating your legs. However it is clear that mashing hard is going to tire out one's leg muscles, so maybe it's that spinning results in better performance, though with greater energy use.

I don't have a power-meter and I haven't timed myself with and without clipless on the same bike in quick succession, so I can't say what the difference in performance is for me. I would be interested if others could post such results.

This was just mentioned over in another thread -- I think it was Clipless Pedal Question over in the Road forum.

Briefly, mashing at a slow cadence becomes an anaerobic thing, which will tire out your muscles quicker. Spinning an easier gear at a higher cadence is an aerobic exercise, and it takes a lot longer to tire out your lungs and heart.

One analogy that was posted was, "Think of doing curls with a 50-lb free weight versus doing them with a 5-lb dumbbell. Which one requires more power, but also, which one do you think you can do for four hours?"

To me, mashing a tall gear is like climbing stairs, while spinning is like going for a jog. Climbing stairs for an hour sucks, but an hour easy jog is manageable for me.

I think both of your analogies are interesting and useful.

Though to be fair it depends what one means by mashing and spinning. For me 60-70 rpm is mashing, and 90+ rpm is spinning. I don't know what I would consider 70-90 rpm... In any case they could all be pretty aerobic (though with different effects on one's muscles), because I could do any of those for an hour. I mean if you go to the 50-lb curls, I wouldn't be able to do 1-per-second (60 rpm) for an hour, I would do 10 repetitions and then have to stop... So I think the stair climbing analogy is more accurate, but the weight analogy is clearer.

Similarly sprinting can be done with super-high rpms and I think that will be anaerobic because you won't be able to keep it up very long...

Within certain bounds I think power output will be the main determinant of whether an activity is aerobic or not. The difference between higher and lower rpms (for the same power output) is that the higher rpms result in less fluctuation in instantaneous power, but more energy wasted "bouncing around".

No, thanks. Flat, grippy pedals work just fine for me in any weather and in any situation. Clipless pedals are overrated.