|
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest
(Post 15810565)
Let's think this through. Would it have been a nice day if he flipped, but came loose from his bike? :twitchy:
No, flipping your bike means you're going to have a very bad day whether you're attached to it or not. The thing we should learn from your story isn't that clipless pedals are bad or dangerous, it's that you shouldn't run your bike into things. |
Originally Posted by pallen
(Post 15811058)
No one is saying clipless pedals magically give you continuous power, that's just silly.
The claim that "clipless means less fatigue" is a new one to me, and (again) I haven't seen an iota of evidence to back it up. Is there a graph showing power output on platforms? I find when I am on platforms that I never fully unload the upstroke pedal, and my feet start hurting a lot quicker. |
Originally Posted by thump55
(Post 15811628)
No, the one with platforms is 1 lb heavier. That must be the reason it is slower.
It surely couldn't be because of less quadricep fatigue due to more hamstring usage to maintain the same wattage. FWIW, when I am riding hard instead of just riding around with the wife I would rather be wearing clipless pedals, especially up and down hills. |
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe
(Post 15811711)
The claim that "clipless means less fatigue" is a new one to me, and (again) I haven't seen an iota of evidence to back it up...
|
Originally Posted by PiLigand
(Post 15809937)
Let's break this down, engineering style.
Unless you've got one of those funny (and pretty damn cool, imo) elliptical crank sets, your crank and drive train in general are radially symmetrical. So really, they don't care which 'direction' you're pulling/pushing, just that energy is going from you to it. (In reality, since it's a polar [radial] system, you are only really pushing in one direction the whole time, you're just using different muscle groups to accomplish it. So, if consider using the exact same amount of energy on platform vs clipless, you just get to spread that energy payment over different muscle groups, which helps to keep you from exhausting yourself too quickly. Also, it should help you maintain a more consistent power output. Like I said, the crank doesn't really care which "direction" you push, but you're not using the same radial system as it. So when using platform, you can only push down, which only lets you use one quarter(ish) of the crank rotation per arm, or about half the rotation in total. Pulling/pushing in other directions uses - again, assuming the same amount of energy - the same energy spread more consistently over the crank. As for clipping/unclipping, I still have the occasional trouble unclipping really quickly, but it's a necessary evil IMO. |
Originally Posted by curiouskid55
(Post 15811276)
Hasn't anyone ever done one legged drills? Try riding with one leg. The superiority of clipless pedals should be obvious.
|
Originally Posted by RJM
(Post 15811723)
I would personally do a test and just replace your clipless with platforms one day and see if you are the same speed.
|
|
Originally Posted by pallen
(Post 15811058)
I do notice a bit of negative values, especially on the right foot. Its small, but I wouldn't call that insignificant.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_urSQl6wUA5...1-1024x624.JPG |
The only way you're getting me out of my clipless road pedals is if you pry them off my cold dead feet!
|
Originally Posted by Hermes
(Post 15809940)
How about a flying 200 meters on a track bike?
How anyone can argue about the effectiveness of clipless pedals after that, I don't know. |
Originally Posted by Rowan
(Post 15812255)
I think the most graphic demonstration of how effective clipless pedals are was Lance Armstrong pulling out of his and whacking his nut on the top tube after the infamous handbag incident on the TdF.
. Sorry, I really couldn't resist. :p |
Originally Posted by dudemanppl
(Post 15812285)
FTFY.
Sorry, I really couldn't resist. :p |
Originally Posted by Rowan
(Post 15812255)
I think the most graphic demonstration of how effective clipless pedals are was Lance Armstrong pulling out of his and whacking his nuts on the top tube after the infamous handbag incident on the TdF.
How anyone can argue about the effectiveness of clipless pedals after that, I don't know. Man, he wasn't wearing a helmet or a cup. Safety first, Lance! |
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
(Post 15812602)
Handbag? Is that what they call musettes in OZ?
Man, he wasn't wearing a helmet or a cup. Safety first, Lance! |
Originally Posted by Bah Humbug
(Post 15812609)
Does anyone ride with a cup?
I mean, the horror!!! |
Originally Posted by Bah Humbug
(Post 15812609)
Does anyone ride with a cup?
|
Originally Posted by jsharr
(Post 15812129)
|
What I know is that it's startling to wander down to campus and hear all the kids on their platform pedals sounding Zippppp Zippppp Zipppppp Zippppppp... in individual strokes instead of the steady whirrrr of roadies.
|
Originally Posted by Homebrew01
(Post 15812903)
Yes, it was. Showed the weaknesses of the studies. I stand by my assertion that pulling up adds significantly to power to the drivetrain in certain situations.
|
Originally Posted by cooker
(Post 15812016)
You have some assumptions in there that might be unsupported. You can't assume that spreading the work among different muscles groups improves efficiency, because those muscles may differ in their mechanical and chemical efficiency . So you might end up underusing your most efficient muscles, and overusing some inefficient ones. You also can't assume that steady power output is more efficient than pulsatile output concentrated on the downstroke. In fact pro cyclists exert much more effort on the downstroke than the upstroke and it seems to work for them.
One muscle's proficiency dosen't have anything to do with the others. Joule for joule, the power comes from direction, not timing. If you can spread say 40 watts over two strokes, even if it's 30-10, then you can optimize (minimize) the wear on said strokes. Yeah, everyone has a better push down than anything else (thus the elliptical cranksets), but that's no reason not to use everything else too. if you push down with 40 watts but you can also pull with 15, why not take the 55? (totally making these number up, as I'm sure you noticed) it's [almost] the same energy transfer, but more power. |
Originally Posted by PiLigand
(Post 15812974)
My assumptions are not unsupported. I say that in confidence, not in aggression. I may be newer to bikes, but I am incredibly well based in thermodynamics.
One muscle's proficiency dosen't have anything to do with the others. Joule for joule, the power comes from direction, not timing. If you can spread say 40 watts over two strokes, even if it's 30-10, then you can optimize (minimize) the wear on said strokes. Yeah, everyone has a better push down than anything else (thus the elliptical cranksets), but that's no reason not to use everything else too. if you push down with 40 watts but you can also pull with 15, why not take the 55? (totally making these number up, as I'm sure you noticed) it's [almost] the same energy transfer, but more power. |
I may be newer to bikes, but I am incredibly well based in thermodynamics. Would you care to calculate how much force is required to lift your leg? Or do you imagine that lifting 10% of your body's mass requires no energy whatsoever?
Originally Posted by PiLigand
(Post 15812974)
Yeah, everyone has a better push down than anything else (thus the elliptical cranksets), but that's no reason not to use everything else too.
if you push down with 40 watts but you can also pull with 15, why not take the 55? 2) Because your leg was not designed to exert significant forces when lifting. 3) Because, presumably due to the above factors, pulling up actually reduces your total efficiency. |
Originally Posted by Homebrew01
(Post 15812903)
Yes, it was. Showed the weaknesses of the studies. I stand by my assertion that pulling up adds significantly to power to the drivetrain in certain situations.
Another source, by the way, is Andy Pruitt, one of the top cycling sports docs, who heads up the Boulder Center for Sports Medicine, does fittings for numerous pro teams: "Because of advancing technology and the development of new ways to observe and measure biomechanics in action, we know a great deal about the pedal stroke. And one of the things we know is that even the best pedaling stylists don’t produce power when they pull up on the backstroke. The most they can hope for is to unweight the rear foot so it adds less drag to the power output of the foot that is pushing downward. But it’s not possible even to get the back foot out of the way entirely." http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...yclists_137556 With all due respect, I'm gonna go with the top sports doc, who has been working regularly with top pros in numerous disciplines (including road, mountain & track) and has been using pedal-based power meters for over a decade. |
Originally Posted by Mountain Mitch
(Post 15812237)
The only way you're getting me out of my clipless road pedals is if you pry them off my cold dead feet!
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:34 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.