Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Re: Results from Speedplay Zero Aero Test [FatandSlow]
FatandSlow wrote:
jens wrote:
GreenPlease wrote:
I bought them and tested them at A2: no difference between my flappy bont tri shoes + regular speedplay cleats and my monocoque carbon shoes from Simmons and the speedplay aero cleats. I'm likely an outlier though.


I don't think you are. The dimples and all that other stuff do jack****. The only "improvement" is the shorter spindles and effectively narrower q factor. That works for people like me whose feet and legs want to be really close. It probably doesn't work for the average guy whose legs want to be further apart.


Not sure about the dimples. Agree completely about the shorter spindles being the main contributor. Especially for triathletes. Triathletes seem more likely to ride toe-down. My suspicion is that as one moves forward, the position rotates around the bottom bracket. If one keeps the same ankle angles, the heel is gonna come up and toe will point down.


I'm aware this an older thread, but since I consider swapping my spd sl for zero aeros because I hope for an aero advantage, I chime in in the discussion.

What does Jens mean with "all of the improvement is about the q factor"? Two possibilities:

1) If he refers to the improvement of speedplay zero aero towards other brand pedals he missed that post 1 of this thread is a comparison between two speedplay systems.
2) It can also be that he alleges that the normal zero system in the test has a bigger q factor than the zero aero system, caused by different spindle lengths and/or different cleat adjustments.

Considering possibilty 2), it seems indeed that the test of Post #1 is somewhat useless without the certainty that the q-factor was the same in the test with the normal zero system and the zero aero system.

Edit: I found the answer in the original test protocol

http://www.ero-sports.com/...lay-zero-aero-pedals

from which post #1 of this thread is only an excerpt. The spindles always had the same length. The q-factor can thus not be responsible for the difference in Watts.
Last edited by: longtrousers: Nov 29, 18 8:13

Edit Log:

  • Post edited by longtrousers (Dawson Saddle) on Nov 29, 18 6:24
  • Post edited by longtrousers (Dawson Saddle) on Nov 29, 18 8:13