Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 22783413)

I'm curious. What's the reasoning behind the idea that cleats need to have a fixed position? (below the ball of the foot presumably?) Other than it's always been done like that?

The way I see it pushing cleats forward serves no purpose whatsoever. Pushing them back however means you need less calf muscle which is an unnecessary muscle for cycling in any case. Less energy use, more foot stability which translates to better knee stability and onwards goes the chain.

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 22783413)

I'm curious. What's the reasoning behind the idea that cleats need to have a fixed position? (below the ball of the foot presumably?) Other than it's always been done like that?

The way I see it pushing cleats forward serves no purpose whatsoever. Pushing them back however means you need less calf muscle which is an unnecessary muscle for cycling in any case. Less energy use, more foot stability which translates to better knee stability and onwards goes the chain.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22783641)

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?

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 22783742)

Novice cyclists almost always position the foot so that the pedal is midway between the heel and the ball of the foot. Why do experienced cyclists, including those who use flat pedals, position the foot so that the ball of the foot is centered above the pedal axle? Or are cyclists with cleated shoes the only ones who profit from a more forward foot position?

[Edit] Come to think of it, I'm not sure that all riders who use flat pedals do position the ball of the foot over the pedal axle. Maybe some who ride flat pedals can weigh in here.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22783641)

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Why do so many people think everyone else is foolishly holding on to outdated techniques rather than noting that these kind of modifications have been tried and discarded many times before?

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 22783742)

Novice cyclists almost always position the foot so that the pedal is midway between the heel and the ball of the foot. Why do experienced cyclists, including those who use flat pedals, position the foot so that the ball of the foot is centered above the pedal axle? Or are cyclists with cleated shoes the only ones who profit from a more forward foot position?

[Edit] Come to think of it, I'm not sure that all riders who use flat pedals do position the ball of the foot over the pedal axle. Maybe some who ride flat pedals can weigh in here.

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 22783934)

Because that's not how a leg is designed to produce power? People evolved to walk, run, jump, climb trees etc (bit an eddie izzard reference there). Spinning pedals around doesn't equate to any of those activities. The calf has a minimal effect in power production even in running compared to the upper leg muscles. Some would argue that its job is mainly to function as a shock absorber/return spring. Its only job in cycling is to stabilize the foot.

The whole idea of demanding natural movement in cycling is idiotic. Cycling isn't a natural movement. It goes in the same category of claiming tall riders need longer cranks. They don't btw if it wasn't clear.



I think it has been proven in RAAM. Certainly many RAAM winners and otherwise succesful RAAM riders have used a midfoot cleat position. And we weren't even discussing midfoot position yet. Just pushing cleats back on their original mounting range.



Because the old stuff hasn't been studied in the past. This is the era of cycling science. I have come to realize a lot of the old ways of doing cycling stuff aren't based on anything valid. Many things are just "we've always done it this way". Others are being done, because one legendary cyclist did that thing. There's usually never any logical reasoning. Just rambling about how "that's how a leg should work naturally" or "it hasn't caught on so it can't be valid"...



Your typical road racing, which isn't really relevant for your average rider, may have situations where a more forward cleat position can have some advantage. Namely sprinting comes to mind. I was going to mention climbing out of saddle but that isn't really affected. But lots of tradition in pro cycling.

A few reasons why midfoot cleats aren't more common

1) midfoot cleat shoes are incredibly rare. You won't find them even in most well stocked cycling stores. Once you ride a few years with traditional cycling shoes, reaching out and paying immense amounts for midfoot ones is a bit of a leap of faith. Or you could drill your shoes. That's always fun. There are modification kits but really the above still applies

2) fitters don't recommend it. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with natural movement...

3) midfoot is still pretty extreme. I haven't tried it and I like to try all the new things especially in fitting. The thought of it is weird even though it would likely be very beneficial especially in the type of riding I do.

4) walking in road shoes with midfoot cleats would likely be far more difficult than it is with the traditional cleat position. Not as bad in SPD's but who uses those? (I do. I ride only SPD's. The narrow Q-factor road pedals force you into is stupid)

5) toe overlap. Midfoot cleat is going to cause big issues there so if you're crit racing or group racing in general, you'd need a bike with a different front geometry. Honestly I think this might be the big one why it isn't commong in pro racing.

In long distance riding toe overlap isn't an issue though.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22784317)

The thing is, where is the science? I'm not saying that old stuff is always right, but it has been shown to work very well. However, moving the cleats back is submitted as a biomechanical advantage - according to non-scientists. And here you are insisting that the foot and leg and cycling mechanics MUST work a certain way. But you don't study this stuff in a lab. I knew people at UW Madison that did study things like the pedaling dynamics of oval chainrings and similar topics, but I haven't been able to find any scholarly articles about cleat position except for one about transition to running for triathletes.

People do write articles about cleat position, and I think folks like Steve Hogg are very thoughtful.
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...leat-position/
https://neillsbikefit.com.au/?page_id=348
The problem is that they are drawing conclusion about the cause of things like heel dropping that might not be true. My personal experience is that my heels drop - not because my calves are tired - but because my quads are and my legs start to use the ankle and calf to compensate. Which is pretty much the opposite of what Hogg is saying. He might be right - but there isn't any actual data and he seems to be leaning more on the attractively contrarian argument being made.

But I don't think we put our feet on the pedals because of a biomechanical theory someone had a century ago. We put our feet there because it appears to be the most generally useful spot, is what we learn as children because of flexible shoes and because we seem to do just fine with it.

Simply authoritatively insisting that something is wrong isn't convincing.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22784317)

But I don't think we put our feet on the pedals because of a biomechanical theory someone had a century ago. We put our feet there because it appears to be the most generally useful spot, is what we learn as children because of flexible shoes and because we seem to do just fine with it.

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 22784348)

It makes sense in a way. Clipping in gives some stability so you can have your foot further back from the pedal axle. Why you'd want that I no longer understand but fine. But riding flats with the axle below the ball of the foot feels rickety as f.... I don't ride flats with the mtb anymore but I have them on the citybike. My foot position is pretty midfoot depending on which shoes I have on.

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 22784348)

This is indeed a dilemma. There are precious few studies done about cleat positioning. However that essentially means that if there's no data to support or refute the rearward cleat position, then there's also no data to support or refute the traditional cleat position.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22784361)

But you stated it as fact, earlier.

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 22784397)

You have a very, very strange way on interpreting text...



the highest level athletes are essentially evolutionary one offs who can perform extraordinary feats and adapt to amazing feats. If a pro cyclist won the tour with the cleat hanging down the tip of their big toe, I would not take that as validation for a new amazing cleat position. Just as I don't take (almost) anything the pro's do as validation for my type of riding.

We don't know if the traditional cleat position has negatives. It did for me. I was looking up recumbents before I went from the traditional stuff to the stuff that worked. So mainly seat down, cleats back, reach back and real good insoles. But I'm starting to think that for anything below 100km the insoles are a bit of a faff.

If you need your calf then use a forward cleat. I don't sprint or do hard off the saddle finish line climbs so I don't want to deal with the increased instability a more forward cleat causes.



Again, where are you getting that from? You're the only one stating your way as the absolute correct method. But you never give any other reasoning other than "it's always been done that way so it must be good".

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22784452)

This has been a frustrating thread. Instead of discussing the OP, we have graduated to rejecting cleat position metrics. Maybe I should start a thread about the OP and see if anyone wants to discuss an alternative method of finding a common set back start point?

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy (Post 22784273)

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.

Originally Posted by PeteHski (Post 22784854)

Do you not find it a bit ironic that you are on the one hand defending "traditional" bike fit methods while attempting to re-invent how saddle set-back is defined? I don't think the way bike fitting has been evolving over the last few years is based on fads and fashion. It's more that the traditional methods were a bit dubious. KOPS being a great example as you rightly brought up yourself - although I'm not sure all 1970's European racers had the same body proportions. I'm pretty sure they were as diverse as in any other group.

Back on topic, I know of one fitter who is using a sddle setback method similar to what I think you are proposing. He found from client observation that in most cases setback correlated well with hip-marker alignment on a 73 deg line projected from the BB. If their hip marker was ahead of this line they would likely feel too far forward and vice-versa. This fitter was actually using KOPS as an arbitrary starting point and then the balance method to adjust. The resultant hip alignment with the 73 deg projection was an observation - which he now actually uses in his fits. He says it is largely independent of saddle height, although very tall riders tend to move forward of this virtual line.

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 22784929)

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.



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.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22785004)

I'm not trying to reinvent how set back is defined as much as find a more reliable method to place a rider in that traditional location using more reliable metrics.

And I think KOPS is less reliable because the white male population is less likely to be as diverse as the world population of both sexes. That hardly seems like a radical position to take. KOPS was never universal, but it probably works more often on the population it was extracted from.


Thank you for validating my hypothesis with an example of someone doing almost exactly what I described using the same angle number. Clearly I'm thinking along the right lines.

Originally Posted by elcruxio (Post 22784929)

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.



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.

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy (Post 22785126)

We see quite a few riders complaining of cramps in their calves. Moving the cleats back and exercising will both fix that. Choice, though the latter improves performance..

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22778076)

109% is barely 35 degrees. I did this for a living and checked the math many times.

I wrote the OP because I was hoping for a discussion of whether the way I was thinking about set back was considered useful or not. Instead you decided to post that nearly everything I do as a fitter is garbage and people should ride bikes like Sean Kelly. I apologize for being brusque, but I really wasn't looking to throw out everything I've been doing for years in favor of squatting low and a long way from the handlebars.

Originally Posted by Road Fan (Post 22789997)

I usually use heel on pedal to start to set my height, on a great road bike but on a trainer. I'm finding in this little amount of riding, I lower the saddle to stabilize my hips, surprised to find I am someplace below the heel-on pedal point. But it feels good, and the legs are feeling supple again.

I think what are needed are methods, not formulae, at least for saddle height, but time will tell if I'm right.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22790003)

I really don't think there is a real difference between measuring yourself off the bike and measuring yourself on the bike. Using leg length and a multiplier is one way of forming a triangle, setting knee bend is another. Both are approximations since no one measures the exact same way or sticks to the exact same angle every time.

Heels on pedals? How are your heels shaped? Shoes? Pedals?

All approximations.

Originally Posted by PeteHski (Post 22792138)

The heel method has the slight advantage that you don't have to actually measure anything. I agree it is dependent on shoes and pedals, but so are the common formulae. Some people use the Lemond Formula - 3 mm to account for modern shoes with less stack height. But we know it's only an approximation anyway as we are not all Lemond clones. Comparing both these methods puts me at the same saddle height within a couple of mm anyway. Close enough as a starting point.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22793088)

Generally, the heel method is the lowest saddle height solution of any of the common methods, since what it measures is essentially your cycling inseam. Meanwhile the other seat to pedal method takes the cycling inseam and adds 9% to it.

The .883 height I've been using for 35 years is within 1cm of the 109% method, but I am well close to 2cm away from even being able to touch the pedals with my heels.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22793088)

Generally, the heel method is the lowest saddle height solution of any of the common methods, since what it measures is essentially your cycling inseam. Meanwhile the other seat to pedal method takes the cycling inseam and adds 9% to it.

The .883 height I've been using for 35 years is within 1cm of the 109% method, but I am well close to 2cm away from even being able to touch the pedals with my heels.

Originally Posted by PeteHski (Post 22806344)

I compared saddle height for the various methods for myself:-

Heel method = 770 mm
0.883 = 777 mm
109% = 784 mm

My current saddle height is 780 mm, although I sometimes run it as low as 770 mm.
Setback is currently 100 mm, but it's a fairly short saddle.