Nope - they are on the twitter feed scroll to : 13 Jul 2016
I've been riding this 1st / original prototype since the day I made them. I rode them to fastest bike split one year, so they do perform well. No real issues, other than have to replace the loop "cleat" /season. I would like someone else, perhaps a pro to try them out. They are reserved for race and pre-race dial in. I don't use them day-day riding. Requires the shoe be formed to the pedal so I suppose the Bonts are ideal. Bonts are a thin sole shoe too.

Need more grip = go w/bigger pedal.

---

Training Tweets: https://twitter.com/Jagersport_com
FM Sports: http://fluidmotionsports.com

Speedplay Stack height, 4 hole vs. 3 hole shoe. According to Speedplay their stack height is 8.5mm on a 4 hole shoe and 12.5mm on a 3 hole shoe. I'm not sure what the stack height is on the Coombes, but it ain't much. So in an attempt to maintain the "ain't much", I just spent some time looking at 4 hole shoes. So let me bounce this off of you....

I looked at pics of the soles of various 4 hole shoes and it looks to me, in every case, like the 4 hole platform is quite thick. So maybe chasing after low stack height by choosing a 4 hole shoe is a waste of time because the thick sole on the shoe negates any advantage of the native Speedplay compatibility (no adapter needed). Your thoughts?

Hello RangerGress and All,

I have some Lake 4 hole shoes and they are heavy .... compared to Giro SLX and Bont.

There is a trade off to consider .....

Are Speedplay easier to lock into than Look? I've been using Look for years and for the love of everything holy I have a hell of a time getting locked in. For triathlons it's fine since shoes are locked in prior to race start. Riding on road and having to stop for traffic can be a little bit of a production.

Also, you're on crack if you think Chipolte (sp) is better than Qdoba

Let's put it this way. After spending some time on Speedplay I would switch back to Look in a heart beat if I was confident they were faster. I much prefer the feel of Look from a power transfer perspective along with engagement/disengagement. Speedplay IMHO are too easy to disengage and too hard to engage.

I rode X2s for years and never had a problem with disengaging. For engaging, try pushing forward and down instead of straight down. This works better if you engage on the downstroke rather than at the bottom of the stoke.

As a food-for-thought only question, how hard would it be to devise a test to determine if the perceived better power transfer of Look exceeded the better aerodynamics of Speedplay?

So after 6-ish months of using the Speedplay pedals are your thoughts the same?