For a myriad of reasons I have gravitated over time to a midfoot cleat position and am using some custom drilled Sidi’s at the moment. Mostly the change has been made due a 20 year nagging Achilles injury which was torn in my soccer days…I just can’t use my calf cycling or it gets ornery on me.
I have found with the cleat further and further back on my foot that I want to have a straighter and straighter leg at BDC. The traditional ‘your seat is too high’ ST comment would probably fit me. However, it feels darn good and while I realize what feels right isn’t always what is best I want to pose this question: Does having a radical cleat orientation like mine lend itself to a straighter let at BDC than traditional fits? I’m not locked out or anything, but it’s significantly straighter than where I was with a normal cleat position following a FIST fit. I have had to move my saddle forward more to accommodate the cleat position as well as down a bit.
Just curious as to your thoughts as it feels I might be violating all your great FIST protocols that got me comfortable in the first place. I feel great here, but really just wanted to hear your thoughts as your fit methodology finally made riding in a TT position a pleasure after almost 25 years of agony!
i don’t have any wisdom on this. i don’t ever set anyone up on a midfoot cleat position, so, i don’t know if pedaling with a different knee angle would be better.
but i’m anxious to see what others say, so, thanks for asking this on the forum.
Great post. Steve Hogg from Australia has long been a proponent of mid foot for road positions. Steve reckons that he has lost the edge on his sprint but has improved overall pedaling efficiency and TT type efforts on the road bike. Great for breakaways but the initial jump won’t be as good. He has also had great improvements in climbing times and power.
The main issue is that road bike geometry is not ideal for mid foot. You need long and lower bikes i.e. long top tubes and short head tubes. Also toe overlap is a big problem at slow speeds.
I’m very interested to see what the resident TT experts on the forum have to say about this.
My experience has been the following…but please take with a grain of salt b/c I’m no fit expert!
I’m accessing my quads and glutes in what feels to be a much more powerful way. This may be an allusion I don’t know, but I feel more powerful. Now then I also went to 165 cranks this year and that may be part of the equation. To the part about bikes…just picked up a Cervelo Dual which was out of necessity as I couldn’t get far enough forward. Don’t know about not being able to get low enough, but we will see.
Hopefully a real ‘midfoot pro’ might see this thread and run with it, but thanks for responding Slowman and all.
Slowman: How you feeling these days? Able to get outside and tinker? With the Cali weather this time of year I would be going cuckoo inside!
Great post. Steve Hogg from Australia has long been a proponent of mid foot for road positions. Steve reckons that he has lost the edge on his sprint but has improved overall pedaling efficiency and TT type efforts on the road bike. Great for breakaways but the initial jump won’t be as good. He has also had great improvements in climbing times and power.
The main issue is that road bike geometry is not ideal for mid foot. You need long and lower bikes i.e. long top tubes and short head tubes. Also toe overlap is a big problem at slow speeds.
I’m very interested to see what the resident TT experts on the forum have to say about this.
I’d rather hear from a biomechanics expert such as BioMcgeek. It’s probably still dark where he lives, though, so here’s my $0.02:
Neither modeling data nor direct measurements support the claim that moving the cleat back from under the metatarsals improves efficiency. Logically, though, it would tend to reduce your maximal power a bit (since IIRC the plantar flexors contribute ~10% of total power under such conditions), and would also tend to reduce the strain on the Achilles (since the lever over which the forces must be applied to the pedal is shortened).
An interesting, but apparently untested, question is whether a mid-foot cleat position aids triathlon performance, by reducing use of the plantar flexors while on the bike and thus saving them for the run, and/or by allowing a more aerodynamic position (since the leg is effectively shortened such that the saddle can be lowered).
I don’t know if this counts as efficiency as I’m certainly not as educated on such matters as you Andrew, but according to my bud’s CompuTrainer now on 3 occasions since the cleat change…I have increased ~15 watts in this cleat position. These changes were done in very close proximity to a 165 crank change too so it’s impossible to know what caused what, but shorter cranks AND the cleat change are hands down giving me more watts. I realize this may be in contrast to lab experiments, but in the real world it’s working out for me! My gut tells me it’s the cleats making the difference b/c my Achilles was still a hinderance even with shorter cranks…tough call.
Very interested to know the why behind this as virtually everyone I know said ‘oh know you can’t use cranks that short you are too tall it will kill your power.’ Also ‘wtf are you doing you HAVE to have the ball of your foot over the spindle!!!’. I’m just not afraid to experiment with my setup regardless of what a study says…if it works it works. Perhaps the reason I’m delivering more power is that I’m not afraid to push hard since my Achilles is ‘protected’?
It’s funny, but 2 of those ‘detractors’ have asked me ‘so you are liking those 165’s? Where did you get them?’.
It’s funny but I always seem to remember looking at Jurgen back in the day and thinking how far back the cleat looked on his foot and what an extreme forward position he had…I wonder if he was messing with cleat position? Hmmm. Man that guy was fun to watch with all the chaos behind him.
With a few years of mid foot cleats under my belt here are a couple of key points from me:
Very hard to test and prove since I think you have to really allow for a few 1000 kms of riding to get fully adapted either way but I believe it is worth a few Watts at threshold power. Since my switch I have got my LT power up a little and set new PBs for TTs despite being in my mid 40s
Obviously to keep the same hip angle you need to move the saddle forward a similar distance to how far you move the cleats back. This may limit the number of frames with geometry that can fit you. If you like riding steep and you already have a long set-up (e.g Felt or Cervelo) then you have no where to go but custom. If you are on a narrower frame then you will probably have to switch to a longer one. I have a relatively short torso so I find my P2C can accommodate me… just
I don’t know if this counts as efficiency as I’m certainly not as educated on such matters as you Andrew, but according to my bud’s CompuTrainer
If you are referring to the CompuTrainer’s SpinScan function, then no, it is not a measure of efficiency. In fact, both cross-sectional and interventional studies show that the ‘rounder’ your pedal stroke, the less efficient you will tend to be.
I’m just not afraid to experiment with my setup regardless of what a study says…if it works it works.
Well what the studies indicate is that neither of the changes you have made would reduce your sustainable power, so in that regard your results are entirely consistent with the scientific literature.
Perhaps the reason I’m delivering more power is that I’m not afraid to push hard since my Achilles is ‘protected’?
Quite possibly, which is lab studies are so important. That said, given your Achilles problems then experimenting with cleat position makes perfect sense (esp. if you aren’t concerned with sprinting ability).
Is economy of competitive cyclists affected by the anterior–posterior foot position on the pedal?J.R. Van Sickle Jra, M.L. Hullab
Accepted 29 May 2006. published online 10 August 2006.Abstract
The primary purpose of this investigation was to test the hypothesis that cycling economy, as measured by rate of oxygen consumption in healthy, young, competitive cyclists pedaling at a constant workrate, increases (i.e. decreases) when the attachment point of the foot to the pedal is moved posteriorly on the foot. The of 11 competitive cyclists (age 26.8±8.9 years) was evaluated on three separate days with three anterior–posterior attachment points of the foot to the pedal (forward=traditional; rear=cleat halfway between the head of the first metatarsal and the posterior end of the calcaneous; and mid=halfway between the rear and forward positions) on each day. With a randomly selected foot position, was measured as each cyclist pedaled at steady state with a cadence of 90rpm and with a power output corresponding to approximately 90% of their ventilatory threshold (VT) (mean power output 203.3±20.8W). After heart rate returned to baseline, was measured again as the subject pedaled with a different anterior–posterior foot position, followed by another rest period and then was measured at the final foot position. The key finding of this investigation was that was not affected by the anterior–posterior foot position either for the group () or for any individual subject (p0.156). The for the group was 2705±324, 2696±337, and 2747±297ml/min for the forward, mid, and rear foot positions, respectively. The practical implication of these findings is that adjusting the anterior–posterior foot position on the pedal does not affect cycling economy in competitive cyclists pedaling at a steady-state power output eliciting approximately 90% of VT.
As a person who has ridden every pedal out there (including SMp), as well as every length of crank (including PowerCranks) AND spend the better part of a decade on beam bikes (Softride/Zipp) where a “round” pedal stroke is key to a comfortable (dare I say efficient?) ride. I find the longer I am not on a beam bike I tend to be a “pusher” a bit more than a “spinner” (but regain some of the spin and ultra high rpm on a DS MTN bike). My cadence has gone down quite a bit (+/- 20rpm on avg down from 110+) on the road bike (175mm) and higher on the Tri bike (170mm) and also with a lower stack height on the Tri bike as I have Time Titan Equipe pedals w/Time (four bolt) cleats that sit at 6mm to the center of the pedal axle from the top of the sole of the shoe (Time claims).
So, the question is - was I better off “spinning” at high RPM’s that would by default infer that I had a “round” pedal stroke, or am I better off now with a lower avg pedal speed and ding more pushing?..I suppose being as beam bikes are pretty much a thing of the past it may be a moot question as pertaining to beam bounce…
An interesting, but apparently untested, question is whether a mid-foot cleat position aids triathlon performance, by reducing use of the plantar flexors while on the bike and thus saving them for the run, and/or by allowing a more aerodynamic position (since the leg is effectively shortened such that the saddle can be lowered).
This hits the nail on the head
Studies have shown it doesn’t help performance, but also that it doesn’t seem to hinder it. This can be applied to the achilles sufferer by saying “sure, move the cleat, you won’t slow down AND it’ll help your achilles feel better”. This may be able to be applied to the general tri population as “Sure, move your cleat, it won’t hurt your bike but your calves may be fresher for the run”.
That would be an interesting study.
I will say though, I don’t feel as though my calves have ever limited me off the bike (n=1)
That just sorta makes sense, I would presume that your foot is just an extension of the lever - once you have a constant output I am not sure that your cardio vascular system cares where it is on your foot that your power is being transferred to the pedal, only if you are providing more or less power to that pedal than the baseline output.
I don’t know if this counts as efficiency as I’m certainly not as educated on such matters as you Andrew, but according to my bud’s CompuTrainer
If you are referring to the CompuTrainer’s SpinScan function, then no, it is not a measure of efficiency. In fact, both cross-sectional and interventional studies show that the ‘rounder’ your pedal stroke, the less efficient you will tend to be.
No I was referring to the ~15 watt gain in power output, although I was paying particular attention to the SpinScan when the new cranks went on b/c I had ‘heard’ that was a big deal, but what the hell do I know?! I’m just a dumb hick who grew up detassling corn and listening to Bocephus;).
For a couple of years now, I’ve been running Speedplays all the way back on their adapter plates, which is less than half as far back as true arch or midfoot cleats.
My take is that essentially what you’re doing is moving your entire body forward on the bike by the same distance as you’re moving the cleats backward. I.e. none of the leg angles change, as long as you’ve got the adjustability on the bike to make those accommodations. To move forward that far on the saddle, I am using an ISM Adamo. To move forward that much on the aerobars, I am using an Ergostem at max extension. I’m considering experimenting with cutting some new holes into old MTB shoes to try out a true arch cleat, but don’t know if I can get the position I want without changing my front end out. It’d be nice to try out a bike with a long front center and tweaked fork rake/head tube angle a la Dan’s suggested touring-bike based tri geometry, but I’m doing what I can on the cheap.
I’ve noticed that I’m not using as much of the Speedplay float as I used to since the change, due to the shorter lever arm. I think that similarly one would notice less ankling, if one were an ankler and move to a more midfoot cleat position.
Went to a rearward cleat position due to a work-related achilles injury, by the way. Haven’t trained to do any sprints, so don’t know if I lost anything on that end.
I just came off the Speedplay adapter recently as well. FWIW regarding your float…I have 5* of forefoot varus on my right and no shit…my knee would actually touch the top tube if I didn’t consciously force it out. I pedaled this way for 25 years before I found out it could be corrected with external cleat shims. I’m just a dummy. Talk about a revelation in transferring power…no more energy wasted trying to force my knee to track straight! >>>>>>To my point. With the true midfoot cleat I don’t run anything for my varus and my knee feels outstanding. I guess moving that far forward on the spindle takes the varus issue out of the equation enough to not be an issue.
This year has been a revelation for Mr. Dummy. 175’s to 165’s and this cleat position has basically alleviated a lifetime of Achilles pain and ‘Varus Wars’. I think I’m the .5% of cyclists who knows…this stuff would probably hinder most, but it’s given me an excitement for the bike I have never had before. I am SOOOOOO freakin’ psyched to get my used Dual here and get comfy on it. I think it should be fine as I could still ride my roadie cyborg so any improvement will be a winner.
Perhaps one reason pro bike riders do not consider moving their cleats back is that on a TT bike they would have real trouble getting aero and maintaining a UCI legal saddle position.
Separate issue… Does anyone know why mtb shoes generally allow much more rearward cleat positions than road shoes?
in healthy, young, competitive cyclists pedaling at a constant workrate, increases (i.e. 
decreases) when the attachment point of the foot to the pedal is moved posteriorly on the foot. The 
of 11 competitive cyclists (age 26.8±8.9 years) was evaluated on three separate days with three anterior–posterior attachment points of the foot to the pedal (forward=traditional; rear=cleat halfway between the head of the first metatarsal and the posterior end of the calcaneous; and mid=halfway between the rear and forward positions) on each day. With a randomly selected foot position, 
was measured as each cyclist pedaled at steady state with a cadence of 90
rpm and with a power output corresponding to approximately 90% of their ventilatory threshold (VT) (mean power output 203.3±20.8
was measured again as the subject pedaled with a different anterior–posterior foot position, followed by another rest period and then 
was measured at the final foot position. The key finding of this investigation was that 
was not affected by the anterior–posterior foot position either for the group (
) or for any individual subject (p
0.156). The 
for the group was 2705±324, 2696±337, and 2747±297