I’ll keep this as short as possible. As the title suggests, we independently tested the Speedplay Zero Aero pedal against a standard Speedplay Zero pedal and did find a repeatable aero advantage. Here’s a quick synopsis:
We used two test riders:
Male using Sidi Wire SP Carbon shoes (Speedplay-specific) who completed 3 runs with each pedal system
CdA w/Zero pedals: .2441, .2437, .2458 - Average CdA = .2445CdA w/Zero Aero pedals: .2387, .2381, .2394 - Average = .2387Watts Saved = 4.8
Male using Specialized S-Works 6 shoes who completed 2 runs with each pedal system
CdA w/Zero pedals: .2389, .2390 - Average = .2389CdA w/Zero Aero pedals: .2352, .2359 - Average = .2355Watts saved = 2.9Both riders saw an aero advantage with the Zero Aero pedal, though rider #1 clearly saw better savings. There were two distinct differences between the riders which could provide an explanation. Rider #1 used a Speedplay-specific shoe which negates the need for a base plate thereby lowering the overall stack height of the pedal system reducing frontal area. Rider #1 also pedaled with a flatter pedal stroke (heal down) which exposes more of the pedal system to the wind. Rider #2 pedaled more toe down exposing less of the pedal system to the wind.
Testing one pedal system vs another (i.e. Speedplay vs Look) is a decidedly more difficult task, but could be done in the future. Questions?
Watts saved suggests there was a ‘total watts’ that was reduced through the use of the pedals. What is the percentage savings, and what is the margin of error for the test?
I’ll keep this as short as possible. As the title suggests, we independently tested the Speedplay Zero Aero pedal against a standard Speedplay Zero pedal and did find a repeatable aero advantage. Here’s a quick synopsis:
We used two test riders:
Male using Sidi Wire SP Carbon shoes (Speedplay-specific) who completed 3 runs with each pedal system
CdA w/Zero pedals: .2441, .2437, .2458 - Average CdA = .2445CdA w/Zero Aero pedals: .2387, .2381, .2394 - Average = .2387Watts Saved = 4.8
Male using Specialized S-Works 6 shoes who completed 2 runs with each pedal system
CdA w/Zero pedals: .2389, .2390 - Average = .2389CdA w/Zero Aero pedals: .2352, .2359 - Average = .2355Watts saved = 2.9Both riders saw an aero advantage with the Zero Aero pedal, though rider #1 clearly saw better savings. There were two distinct differences between the riders which could provide an explanation. Rider #1 used a Speedplay-specific shoe which negates the need for a base plate thereby lowering the overall stack height of the pedal system reducing frontal area. Rider #1 also pedaled with a flatter pedal stroke (heal down) which exposes more of the pedal system to the wind. Rider #2 pedaled more toe down exposing less of the pedal system to the wind.
Testing one pedal system vs another (i.e. Speedplay vs Look) is a decidedly more difficult task, but could be done in the future. Questions?
Thanks for the info. I hope you can test a Look system in the future.
There were two distinct differences between the riders which could provide an explanation. Rider #1 used a Speedplay-specific shoe which negates the need for a base plate thereby lowering the overall stack height of the pedal system reducing frontal area. Rider #1 also pedaled with a flatter pedal stroke (heal down) which exposes more of the pedal system to the wind. Rider #2 pedaled more toe down exposing less of the pedal system to the wind.
What would be interesting to me is an additional data point with the speedplay specific shoe with the “walkable cleat” (i.e. the aero cleat) and the regular zero pedals.
In other words, how much of the improvement over the regular Zero setup is in the cleat and how much is the one-sided aero pedal? My gut feel is it’s mostly the cleat “fairing”…and just buying the cleats is a MUCH less expensive proposition than the full aero pedal kit. And the reason I say on the speedplay specific shoe is because it appears the only way to get the aerodynamically shaped cleat spacer is by buying the aero pedal :-/
Watts saved suggests there was a ‘total watts’ that was reduced through the use of the pedals. What is the percentage savings, and what is the margin of error for the test?
His post actually included the base CdAs and the deltas, so you can derive the answers to your questions.
Interestingly, when I was working with Brandon McNulty in prep for TT Worlds, we did test walkable cleats vs standard cleats on the Zero Aero pedal. We didn’t have regular Zero pedals that day, so I figured I try it since I knew Brandon could give me good, consistent, numbers. We only did one quick test, but there was about a 1.5 watt difference. I don’t like quoting one test, so I didn’t include those numbers.
As jeffp indicated, there was no need since the riders didn’t switch shoes. According to Speedplay, there is no stack height difference between the standard Zero cleat and the walkable cleat.
For rider #1, the order of runs was: Zero, Zero Aero, Zero, Zero, Aero Zero, Aero Zero.
For rider #2, the order of runs was: Aero Zero, Zero, Zero, Aero Zero
Oh, sorry Jeff. Cleats were changed, too. Standard Zero cleats on Zero pedals; walkable cleats on Zero Aero. The beauty of Speedplay is we could be reasonably sure to replicate the cleat/foot position. Tougher to do when comparing one pedal system vs another, which is why we didn’t do it (or, at least, not yet).
Interestingly, when I was working with Brandon McNulty in prep for TT Worlds, we did test walkable cleats vs standard cleats on the Zero Aero pedal. We didn’t have regular Zero pedals that day, so I figured I try it since I knew Brandon could give me good, consistent, numbers. We only did one quick test, but there was about a 1.5 watt difference. I don’t like quoting one test, so I didn’t include those numbers.
What style shoe, i.e. did it have a spacer? And if so, what kind.
Also, that’s not quite what I was getting at since the pedal is the Aero…I’m interested in how the walkable/aero cleat performs on the regular Zero pedal
