A faster shoe

winjim

Iron pony
Don't listen to such BS, you can have all the lightest wind cheating stuff you can possibly buy and you're speed won't improve, all that crap is nonsense generated by the cycling industry to goad rich people into parting with their money in the attempt to gain speed. I saw this same crap happen years ago in the golfing world, and knew a guy who bought into the hype of fancy scientific words of the how the clubs were made and how extreme testing proved it, and on and on and on about golf clubs that cost $2,000 EACH! he got the entire set!! so I asked him about 3 months after he bought them if his game was better, his response was: "Shut up Froze! those damn clubs didn't nothing for my game!" And now they're wanting us to buy the speed hype in cycling because cycling is the new corporate golf, and rich people without much brains are cycling.

I can hear a lot of you screaming at me so how can I prove to you that it's all hype....hmmmmmmm, oh I know, let's look at the history of the world's longest bicycle race, the TDF, and see what history says. Please read: http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_tourdefrance_vitesse.htm. At first glance it appears that the speeds keep ramping up, however you need to interpret the chart better, let me explain. If you look at 1974 the line intersects at 35 km per hr, however in 2016 they continue to draw the line upward but in reality since 2010 the little dots show the speeds have actually dropped where the predicted line is, so in 2016 the average speed was 40 km per hr; so for the last 42 years we've only seen a 5 km per hour, or 3 miles per hour, so from non aerodynamic steel bikes to fancy aero CF bike that's the speed increase we get? Actually the picture gets worse because if you look at the dots they were doing 35 km per hour as far back as 1956!! But wait I'm not done having my fun with all of this, for you see since 1956 to now the average distance of the race has been reduced by 700 miles; so in 1958 the total distance was 2,795 miles over 22 days, in 2016 the race was 2,193 miles over 21 days, the race between those two years was actually reduced by 700 miles, but look at the average miles per day raced, in 1956 they raced an average of 127 miles, rounded down, per day, but in 2016 the average miles raced per day was 104, rounded down. This should tell you all that the only reason speed has gone up by a tiny amount of 3 miles per hour over the last 60 years is due to the race being easier in terms of miles, those 700 less miles allows the cyclists to have more energy in reserve and that's why the speeds have gone up, not all the fancy and expensive aero crap.

I know you all are going to deny this information I showed, but facts speak for themselves, and the emperor's new expensive fancy clothes that everyone in his circle said was so nice and he looked so good wearing them, have been reviewed to be no clothes at all.

And now someone wants to argue the effect of faster shoes? LMAO!!! or faster anything for that matter!
They say it peaked with Lance Armstrong but he never won the TdF.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
Valhalla
Strewth, imagine how fast Lance Armstrong would go in those shoes!
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
Marginal gains. Running, then there isn't many areas you can focus on other than shoes and clothes.

Tyres, the ones that are on my MTB now are without a doubt much better at gripping the terrain than the ones it came with - both premium makes, but one is faster, the other grippy.
 

YukonBoy

The Monch
Location
Inside my skull
Strewth, imagine how fast Lance Armstrong would go in those shoes!
Why, do they hide drugs in the thicker soles?
 

DRM

Über Member
Location
West Yorks
These shoes were on the BBC breakfast news, apparently they are faster as the sole has been designed to be stiffer and bends in a slightly different point, and has a spring plate built into the sole to help with the effort of running.
 

froze

Senior Member
Yes, that's my point. You can't compare pre and post 2010 data in the way that you have.
I compared to what the graph showed, and the graph didn't stop at 2010, it stopped at 2016, the graph is more than accurate to prove that all the wiz bang technology that we have today doesn't work and it's not worth the money for us regular cyclists to go chasing down some rabbit hole thinking we're going to gain 10 mph if we just buy all this expensive stuff, we won't even gain a 1/4 of a mile per hour but the marketing people don't want you to believe that, because if they told the truth about all this crap that's suppose to make us faster they would be out of business. There's a sucker born every minute and the cycling world, just as it was in the golfing world, have a lot of suckers.
 

winjim

Iron pony
I compared to what the graph showed, and the graph didn't stop at 2010, it stopped at 2016, the graph is more than accurate to prove that all the wiz bang technology that we have today doesn't work and it's not worth the money for us regular cyclists to go chasing down some rabbit hole thinking we're going to gain 10 mph if we just buy all this expensive stuff, we won't even gain a 1/4 of a mile per hour but the marketing people don't want you to believe that, because if they told the truth about all this crap that's suppose to make us faster they would be out of business. There's a sucker born every minute and the cycling world, just as it was in the golfing world, have a lot of suckers.
You said that since 2010 the dots have fallen beneath the prediction line. Firstly, it's not a prediction line, it's a regression line, and secondly there's another variable been introduced. It's perfectly possible that an undoped rider in 2010-16 will have been faster than an undoped rider in 2000-2010. We don't have the data.

You're right about applying it to regular cyclists though, the graph clearly relates to elite athletes and isn't really relevant to a 40yo fat dad.
 
It is a bit like the old marginal gains argument. David Brailsford says it is necessary, so I'm going to do it too.

Ignoring the fact that DB is dealing with those at the very top end, where margins between winning and being no one are fractions of a second. Me? I can make massive gains by doing the simple things, like actually training properly. But whatever I do, either marginal or significant, I will still be a middle-aged mid-field bloke on a bike. Unless I'm trying to beat my 7-year-old to the top of the hill.

:bicycle::cycle:
 

MichaelW2

Veteran
generally stiffer sole = better power tansfer as far as shoes go, i doubt they can make them any stiffer to any benefit than they are now .
Rebound effect in cycling would serve no purpose i would think as it would interrupt smooth pedal style
Once soles are stiff enough to resist YOUR bending force, making them stiffer adds no advantage. They may benefit some other rider with more power who can generate more force.
 
Top Bottom