Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Aero testing results - shoes
Quote | Reply
Having seen a number of threads about testing on shoes, I was wondering if anyone could give the biggest change they have found by changing shoes?
I think Thomas had a 12w? Improvement with giro empires
Anything better?
Anyone tested bog standard cycling shoe versus a Crono for example?
Quote Reply
Re: Aero testing results - shoes [TriByran] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've field tested quite a few shoes / covers. Most marketed as aero. (although not Crono's) bont zero's, spec sub6 (without the sleeve) DMT P1's, some old Spec S works shoes I removed the boa's from and made into lace ups.

For the most part, they were all very close, within what I'd consider my margin of error. Covering the shoes (velotoze short) seemed to be a positive for all of them, but again, narrow margins.

I don't know about 10+ watts on a "normal shaped" shoe, even going from an ugly one to a smooth one. Maybe if you pedal flat footed or toe down and that shoe specifically mates well to your style.

I had expected GP's custom Simmons shoes to have been a big improvement (although the more I look at that design the more I'm not sure about that) but from his data it was almost nil.

I think, for the most part, the foot is not a good shape for being slippery. The farther away from that you go, likely the better. (why the Crono / old Project 96 shoes are likely better generally)

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: Aero testing results - shoes [Morelock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes I’ve actually tested a carbon slipper type set. They were definitely not aero!
The human foot as you say isn’t aero.
Quote Reply