I’ve never owned a pair of road shoes - always used tri shoes due to the size of my feet (wide w/ bunions). With that said, 95% of my riding is on my road bike.
Went into a LBS looking for the latest in shoes to see if anything has changed - hoping something would fit my feet. The guy at the shop told me there’s a huge difference in performance between tri shoes and road shoes. By that he meant the power transfer is ‘considerably’ better in a road shoe - it’s more rigid, etc.
Is this true? And if so, wouldn’t wearing them during a longer race out-weigh the few seconds lost in transition?
Perhaps I should re-test my FTP in the road shoe to have something close to empirical data?
Not “typical” LBS BS, but BS nonetheless. Road shoes can definitely be more comfortable because their closure systems aren’t limited to something you can do while rolling down the road, but every tri shoe ever has the same sole and last as a corresponding road shoe from the same manufacturer.
There are definitely more tri shoes out there that don’t lock your feet down as well, which could affect efficiency and power transfer. The idea that flex in the sole reduces power transfer sounds like nonsense.
I prefer tri shoes but fit and closure system are important.
Many shoe companies build their road and tri shoes on the same sole. I would probably ask how “huge” of a difference. It would become pretty evident he has no idea what he is talking about.
FWIW…
Searched around and found this. Basically the guy tested (in a wind tunnel) his PI tri shoe agains a modified (took the laces and tongue out and replaced with elastic) Giro road shoe and came up with a measurable difference in watts: Giro shoe was 4-12 watts faster depending on yaw angle.
I’ve been thinking of trying that with the Scott Road Rc Lace.
The tri carbons have been fine, and it’s nice to have the boa to tweak the fit after a few minutes, but not having to deal with tigening it up out of T1 has to be worth a few seconds atop the aero benifits.
You could probably attach cleats to the bottom of flip flops, and it wouldn’t be that much difference…
This is the correct answer to this thread. I have tested rat trap pedals with running shoes vs all kinds of road shoes and at TT/FTP/tri efforts there is zero diff in power.
Pretty sure that unless you ar electing elbows and headbutting one another in a TdF sprint finish like Cav and Sagan, then it would make no delta.
Any discussion on aero is a different story…but FTP effort power…zilch
Thank you Paul. I thought I was the only one on the planet who liked old school cages and straps, with running shoes. I’ve done my share of crude time trials between them and my clipless, and can’t tell any difference. At least not at my old guy, 20 mph’ish age group level. But eliminating the shoe change in T2 is priceless.
I am that guy quoted above and to add to that I have trained in non-carbon soled mtb shoes. Basically the cheapest MTB pair Shimano makes and I love them. I also use Powercranks on that bike and have never felt at a disadvantage. Total snake oil LBS.
“It enables more efficient power transfer” is the standard excuse for selling expensive cranks, shoes, pedals, stiff frames … you name it. Hear it everywhere. If it was more efficient then you should be able to measure it. You can’t.
My club had a hill climb race for members. Forgot my shoes. Rode it in work safety shoes on look keo pedals. Won it easily (the good climbers didn’t show up). Absolutely zero power loss.
I’m still inclined to believe that a cyclist in running shoes and cages isn’t as efficient as the same rider in clipped-in road shoes. It’s simply illogical.
On a similar point:
Why did Ryan Hall (USA’s fastest marathoner) say the new carbon shoe craze is a “game changer”? (Armstrong’s podcast) Are stiffer soles only advantageous for runners?
I’m still inclined to believe that a cyclist in running shoes and cages isn’t as efficient as the same rider in clipped-in road shoes. It’s simply illogical.
On a similar point:
Why did Ryan Hall (USA’s fastest marathoner) say the new carbon shoe craze is a “game changer”? (Armstrong’s podcast) Are stiffer soles only advantageous for runners?
The carbon plate in the running shoes, such as the VF4%, isn’t there to make the shoe stiffer but to create energy return as it springs back.
I’m still inclined to believe that a cyclist in running shoes and cages isn’t as efficient as the same rider in clipped-in road shoes. It’s simply illogical.
On a similar point:
Why did Ryan Hall (USA’s fastest marathoner) say the new carbon shoe craze is a “game changer”? (Armstrong’s podcast) Are stiffer soles only advantageous for runners?
Cycling really only involves generating power by pounding down on the pedals with the quads at least at high inertia and high RPM (like 40 kph, 90 RPM). If we are talking low intertia (like 10-15 kph) and low RPM (like 50-70 RPM) like in steep hillclimbing then pulling up has some benefit. But otherwise its really low force pounding down on the pedals…running shoes with rat trap pedals and you’re gnerating just as much power as the $500 mouldable carbon shoes. Like I said, those shoes MAY be more aero , but power wise, like another person said on this thread…flip flop SPD system would probably be just as powerful assuming your arches are strong enough (which they should be if you are runner because there is way more instantaneous force each stride through the arch at 180 strides per minute running than there is during 90 RPM cycling).
