Tom, can you please explain this a little more (first I’ve heard of this):
“…and Zoot has suged ahead with some interesting design thems such as their heel to toe drop that they claim is tuned for running off the bike.”
How does your run form change after riding a bike? I can see maybe a slight difference in the first few minutes until your running legs come around, but after that, I don’t think my form is any different.
I won’t say that I disagree with Tom, because he could be speaking about something else entirely, but in general I think Zoot has claimed that the 10mm heel to toe drop on their shoes was a differentiating feature tailored triathlon specific running. This is a differentiating feature as compared to more conventional 12 or 14mm heel drops, but is certainly still a lot of drop as compared to many other shoes out there, like 1.5mm (I think) on Newtons, 4mm-5mm on many of the Saucony’s, 0mm on the Sauconi Hattori, VFF, Tera Evo, etc.
I also won’t attempt to go into great detail of the significance of this, refer to Dan’s thorough article on HT offset and ramp angle for that, but the theory is that lower HT offsets promote a more natural form, i.e. a mid to forefoot strike. This is purported to be a more efficient form, and when you are already running on tired legs such as in triathlon, efficiency is key.
There are two conflicting arguments I could present in regards to this topic. One one side, I could make the point while that while I respect Zoot as a company, they have been somewhat slow to react to some trends in the industry and are no longer quite as innovative as they once were. The rationale for this would be that while lower ramp angles, drainage ports, speed laces, and overall lighter shoes were certainly innovative at one time, these features are fairly common on many shoes today. Furthermore, there are many manufacturers that have certainly taken some of these concepts further than Zoot has, with lighter, lower and certainly more minimal offerings.
On the other hand, I don’t think the previous statements represent an entirely fair argument to make. There is the obvious logical fallacy that if some is good, more is better, and in our case, if less is good, even less is better. There very well may be a point of diminishing returns in the low and light game where we start the benefits of low ramp angle eclipsed by the costs of fatigue induced by lack of support. Not to mention that that this is highly individualized. There are Olympic marathoners who heel strike, even if low and light is better in general, it’s not going to be better for all people under all circumstances.