Tri shoe typically defined by having only two velcro closures, an oversized heel strap to help with quick on/off, "finished" interior suitable for riding sockless, and a quick-dry uppers and/or generous sole venting to facilitate rapid drying of wet feet.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

minus, is a plus few seconds in the transitions
plus, is a minus few seconds on the way (arguably)
for longer tris, pluses may overweight

---

Hare Krishna

The most basic difference is the entry and closure system. In general tri shoes will have a single velco strap which better facilitates getting your foot in/out of the shoe easier/faster. Especially handy for flying mounts/dismounts.

then there can be all kinds of other features a tri shoe might have, like a rear entry flap, little hooks, better drainage, more ventilation, special linings for bare feet.

 What do you mean plus a few seconds on the way? If you're saying that tri shoes make you bike slower, I'd definitely dispute that.

That's why we are here! Fell free to do it.
I don't recall TdF riders using triathlon shoes - you think they don't care about speed? ; )
Sure, if you make 100 watts, or 20mp\h, there will be not much of a dif.
Marino Vanhoenacke, for example, was using it all the time.



would be interesting to research other IM pros

---

Hare Krishna

I didn't say they make you faster. However, there's nothing about them that makes you any slower than an equivalent pair of bike shoes.

Cycling shoes more firmly keep your foot, which lets you transfer more energy in right direction. Theoretically.
Practically it depends on a rider quality,skills, ect, and hard to count in seconds.

---

Hare Krishna

They also have large boas that cause drag, laces that are hard to get into, and are not designed for time trials. Cycling shoes can cause more drag than tri shoes.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

I would be shocked if anyone was losing any power witha trishoe vs a road shoe at the wattage most people ride at. I could potentially see this in a bike sprint but in a tri, unlikely.

You would have to have some pretty crappy trishoes to not be able to get them as tight as a road shoe. I can cut off circulation with my trivents if I want. You’re not going to lose power.

I took a very road bike shoe - The Giro Empire Slx with laces - and turned it into a tri shoe by removing the laces and tonque and replacing with elastic and then took it into the window tunnel to see how they performed. Not sure if you have seen it but here is a brief write-up.

By design tri bike shoes contain features that will benefit people in triathlon, ie ease of in and out, drainage for water, etc.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

went to refresh my memories - not sure if name Frodeno counts nowadays, but looks like he didn't use trishoes



as well as many top Kona pros http://www.slowtwitch.com/..._bike_pics_5418.html
still 50/50, I would say
more top tricyclist: Raelert (7.41 IM) - tri shoes in Roth, cycling shoes in Kona
Sebastian Kienle:


Take in consideration sponsors contracts..

I was using both, and wouldn't notice big difference.
Just now called to 10 times IM champ. Zyemtsev - he says that for the last years using cycling shoes and likes it a bit better. Thought he is not a super cyclist, but 7h.58m, at 44 y.o. is something....

---

Hare Krishna

Because people race in socks for ironman, they probably find regular cycling shoes to be more comfortable. I didn't say there is no reason to use bike shoes, I said there is nothing about bike shoes that will make you ride faster as opposed to tri shoes. Personally, I find my tri shoes more comfortable than my bike shoes, your example someone who feels the opposite.

Kienle is using the Scott tri shoe. Frodeno is using a shoe meant for time trials.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Most of the cycling specific shoes off a more refined method of locking the foot down using multiple BOA dials or a ratchet system inside the dials. They have more robust design options when creating the uppers and how the upper material wraps around the foot because the shoes are put on before mounting the bike without time considerations needing to be taken into account. This is in contrast to triathlon shoes which use velcro strap(s) you add tension to by feel and having to design around keeping a large opening in the upper to allow for quicker foot entry and exit.

Power transfer can be an argument that's often made but it's less likely that the top end triathlon shoe made with the same premium materials leaves anything on the table. If there is a difference, it would be very minor if at all.

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

I've never seen any published report that indicates shoe stiffness aids in any way. (Not to say they don't exist, I've just never seen one...)

Otherwise every bike shoe maker would be extolling how many watts their latest shoe saves you. But curiously they don't... They use buzzwords like "power transfer" and "efficiency" with no data to back it up. On the flipside I've seen various tests (eg GCN) show that shoes and/or being clipped to the pedals makes no difference in steady state power/VO2/Lactate etc. I'll concede you can't sprint as well on flat pedals, but that's about it.

Given that a shoe is wrapped around a bendy squishy meatsack that pivots at the ankle and pedal spindle, I'm always curious about how stiffness (beyond just directly under the ball of the foot to spread the load onto the spindle) helps in any way.

Back to the original question: A tri shoe should save you a few seconds in transition. It *might* lose you a few seconds on the road. It *might* be less comfortable than something with more adjustability/closures. So I'd expect to see a tradeoff as race distance increases. You can afford to lose 10-20 seconds in transition in an IM if your feet are blister-free, or aero savings are better, after 180km, but not after 20-40 km.

If you often bike in cold weather, tri shoes will be colder because if their more open top.

that is a wonderful way to describe it!

have not encountered much non-biased testing on shoe stiffness, suffice to say that the Marketing budget is bigger than the Lab budget. I could argue that too much flex for a particular rider would increase fatigue to the meatsack, or potentially cause compression numbness to the top of the foot (heel bends downward)

When cycling shoe soles were wooden (usually a ply and blend of two different woods) stiffness was different, according to the application. Longer road or Tour shoes were built for compliancy and lightweight, where track shoes were built like brick shit houses for stiffness and who cared about the weight. If you spy old photos of the Tour greats (Bartoli etc) you can certainly see how much their ballet slipper shoes flex in the midsole. Then again, the quill pedal was a different surface area than modern clipless.

When nylon came into use (70's?) there was some stiffness gain without a weight penalty. With the introduction of carbon, Sidi and Carnac poo-pooed it and claimed that carbon was inappropriate as it was too stiff and would cause injury. Back then they did a carbon forefoot plate inset into a nylon sole. Eventually material cost and molding for carbon got cheaper, but still many shoes are a resin composite and not a carbon layup. And pixie dust.

I do not think there is a depth of thought into 90% of the carbon cycling shoe design, exceptions being Rocket 7, Bont and similar, in regards layup per se. I know of a few frame designers who have dabbled in it, but it's a losing proposition as you have 15 sizes in the run to layup (where bike frames only have 5). The higher end Lake shoes have a carbon foreplate that sits under the footbed and acts as a spring suspension, to give compliancy/cushioning. Other than that I'm not aware of nifty enhancements in the sole like this (please fill me in!)

---

Anne Barnes
ABBikefit, Ltd
FIST/SICI/FIST DOWN DEEP
X/Y Coordinator
abbikefit@gmail.com

This post provides an opportunity for me to ask a question that I have always wondered about when observing pros racing Kona (or any race) using road shows and stepping into them on the fly. With the snugness and multiple closures I cannot figure out how the pros step into their road shows while on the bike? I can do this with tri shoes, but not with my road shows and especially my S works road shows which are super snug.

I have always wanted to ask Chris McCormick how he stepped into his Specialized S Works on the fly in Kona when he was racing. I have a pair of S works road shows and cant even get them on sitting on a stool in my garage unless I release the Boa straps completely thus opening up the shoe to the max. I cannot imagine trying to put the fishing line type straps over the latches while riding and I can imagine working your foot into the shoes while riding without doing that.

People on here have been experimenting with lace up shoes and elastic laces. I had S-Works 6 shoes and I had to sit in my car and put them on. They are hard to get on and hard to get off. I sold them because I didn't want to wear them anymore. I just don't see the appeal of them over good tri shoes.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

In addition to all the obvious differences, I have found my tri shoes have more of an angle between the toe box and the heel of the shoe. Any validity to that? I have SIDI road and tri shoes in the exact same size. My tri shoes are more angled, the road shoes much are flatter. Thoughts?

---

"The first virtue in a soldier is endurance of fatigue; courage is only the second virtue."
- Napoleon Bonaparte