Pedals

Dec 31, 2009
906
87
48
Matsumoto
#1
I'm in the market for new pedals. I am thinking about using Dura ace 7810. I want the most efficient power transfer and don't mind giving up a little weight. I like the wide pedal platform and I also like the idea of an alloy body. Since the inception of the Dura Ace 7900 carbon pedal the price has gone down on the 7810 pedal. I have been using the Look Keo and the Time Attack, But both made me feel as though the outside of my foot is not supported. My cleats are adjusted so my foot is centered on the pedal and I have tried moving it closer to the frame but with my hips being fairly wide I had to sacrifice a vertically straight pedal stroke doing so. I feel sometimes like LA at 1:45 in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaKR5iOCTts
like my foot will fall of the outside of the pedal.

What I am asking for is any ones opinions on there pedals, and if anyone has used Look or Time and Dura Ace and the differences. I really don't want Speedplay, Even though its the most logical answer due to there different size pedal spindle widths, I just hate there cleat.
Fire Away

About me,
81 Cm
96KG
Sprinter
 

Phil

Maximum Pace
#2
I have wide feet (wear Sidi Megas), 90 kgs or so, also like to have the cleat position wide rather than narrow.

I've used Time and Shimano (Ultegra 6600, but I'm assuming they have the same outer width as the latest Durace?), as well as SPD mountain systems, and prefer the wide, solid platform of the Shimano SPD-SL.

The Times weren't bad, just not as good as Shimano in this respect. I've also started to use non-float (red) cleats, and I've really like the extra stable feel they give.

I went with SPD-SL originally for the durability (Time and Look models consistently had problems with axles and pedal bodies, but I couldn't find any info at all about breaking SPD-SL pedals), but now I like them for the ride feel more than anything.

I've never tried Look so can't comment on them.
 
Dec 31, 2009
906
87
48
Matsumoto
#3
Got em

Just picked up a set of Dura Ace 7810
I have been wanting to do this for years but Always worried about it clashing with my Campy. I decided to hell with it I want the most effective machine for my capability's. If its good enough for Cav, well, its probably too good for me. I just picked up a Ritte Bosberg frame
http://www.ritteracing.com/store/rittecatalog/product/viewspecs/id/53
some deep section carbon wheels from Tim should be coming as well
and a Deda cockpit
so be prepared for a full write up and pictures of my new steed.
I will also mess around with using 2 pedal washers to widen my stance.
I will update you and let you know. I have a really great feeling about this. Now time to dig out the power meter, laser and slow motion recording device, bwah ha ha ha! To the dungeon!
 

Gunjira

Maximum Pace
Oct 2, 2009
1,003
176
83
Tokyo
#4
Just picked up a set of Dura Ace 7810
I have been wanting to do this for years but Always worried about it clashing with my Campy. I decided to hell with it I want the most effective machine for my capability's. If its good enough for Cav, well, its probably too good for me. I just picked up a Ritte Bosberg frame
http://www.ritteracing.com/store/rittecatalog/product/viewspecs/id/53
some deep section carbon wheels from Tim should be coming as well
and a Deda cockpit
so be prepared for a full write up and pictures of my new steed.
I will also mess around with using 2 pedal washers to widen my stance.
I will update you and let you know. I have a really great feeling about this. Now time to dig out the power meter, laser and slow motion recording device, bwah ha ha ha! To the dungeon!
Sounds like an awesome bike, those Ritte frames are very nice.

About the pedal washers:
I recently switched from my worn out look keo2s to Keo Blade's, which give me the option to insert washers for messing with the q-factor as well. I realize that this is subjective, but would you say that the taller/bigger the rider (I'm 188cm), the wider the stance sounds true?
 

Gunjira

Maximum Pace
Oct 2, 2009
1,003
176
83
Tokyo
#6
John, you made me realize, what I have been fearing all along: In reality I might be a wide guy requiring washers:eek:uch: What's next: "Officer, I was just reaching down for my downtube shifters"
 

GSAstuto

Maximum Pace
Oct 11, 2009
945
242
103
tokyo
www.roadfixie.com
#7
What about the Graham Obrea 'backside pedaling' test? Lay on your bike and pretend to pedal - see where your 'natural' position is? This is what led him to develop a bike with very narrow Q factor. I think the stance is different for everyone regardless of size. It has more to do with hip / femur angle, knee angle, etc. Personally I prefer a very narrow Q factor and notice even the outside cup BB is kinda irritating to me vs my standard or track BB of only 98mm. I'm always knocking my knees on the top tube. Especially if I'm on the front of the saddle and in TT mode - I want to be tucked in as much as possible.

Sounds like an awesome bike, those Ritte frames are very nice.

About the pedal washers:
I recently switched from my worn out look keo2s to Keo Blade's, which give me the option to insert washers for messing with the q-factor as well. I realize that this is subjective, but would you say that the taller/bigger the rider (I'm 188cm), the wider the stance sounds true?
 
Dec 31, 2009
906
87
48
Matsumoto
#8
:p1:

Sorry Gunjira, but that kinda boils down to opinion. I don't always like posting my opinion as people don't really know my experience and until someone trusts me as a fitter I don't go into these subjects too detailed.
But I am compelled to write about this but only touch lightly on the subject.
first I will show you some opinion then offer my advice. Here are some common educated opinions on the subject lifted from Sheldon Browns web sight.

"It is generally considered a good idea to keep the tread (q factor)fairly narrow. There are three main reasons for this:

1)The hip joint is optimized for walking, and in normal walking the footsteps are pretty much in line, with little or no "tread."
2)For standing pedaling, the farther out the pedals are from the center line, the harder you have to pull on the handlebar to counterbalance the tendency of the pedaling force to tip the bike sideways.
3)The wider the tread, the higher the bottom bracket needs to be to prevent clipping a pedal while pedaling through a turn."

First I will try to dispel these ideas
1. True, the hip was made for walking. Cycling is not the same as walking so why would we place our q factor based on how we walk. In fact, cycling is more like climbing stairs. Do you walk with one foot in front of the other when climbing stairs? Go ahead try it. It seems to me you get the most power out of your stair step when your feet are about shoulder width apart(hint hint).

2. To me it seems like it would be the opposite, if you have a longer pole the leverage is greater... right? So, if my right foot is further away from my left arm when standing in a sprint, be that with a wider bar and a wider q factor then wouldn't that make the leverage to power greater? Sure you may have to pull your bar with more force, but wouldn't it equate greater power output in the end? This especially doesn't matter to me as I have never even thought about how much my arms hurt or limited me after a standing sprint.

3. This is true. But this can be trained. This is where you have to choose wisely. It seems to me pedaling efficiency is the most important aspect in competitive cycling, not pedaling through corners.



There are so many other reasons and opinions but if you really want to know how I fit people come to the next EPerformance camp and I will make you as efficient as possible.



I also will think that crank manufacturers have tossed this idea out the window due to the amount of money it would cost with no real return in revenue. To them we are better off not knowing and I really don't think its going to change.
 
Dec 31, 2009
906
87
48
Matsumoto
#9
Also

Touching base with Grahams opinion, Your pedaling style comes into play as well.
Graham=Track spinning 130 to 180 RPM This may be a good way to set his Q Factor
Me=Power Sprinting 70 to 110 RPM I want to know where my leg needs to be when loaded like a mac truck

Also when you are upside down there is no pressure on your feet, so its a bit like setting your q factor based on your walking, its not really equivalent. Stairs other than riding is the most natural and easy setting to get an idea of how the mechanics of it work.

All said and done every one is different and all this comes in to play when you are setting up your bicycle fit.
 

Phil

Maximum Pace
#10
1. True, the hip was made for walking. Cycling is not the same as walking so why would we place our q factor based on how we walk. In fact, cycling is more like climbing stairs. Do you walk with one foot in front of the other when climbing stairs? Go ahead try it. It seems to me you get the most power out of your stair step when your feet are about shoulder width apart(hint hint).
I was thinking about this exact same thing on my lunch ride today (prompted by your question, in fact); I've never understand why any analogy to walking would apply to cycling, a very different motion!

Speaking of Cavendish, he runs extra wide pedals to help with hip problems. I've also considered fiddling with Kneesavers/washers, but the former moves the pedals out too far, and the latter makes me nervous, reducing the amount of pedal thread in the crank...
 

Gunjira

Maximum Pace
Oct 2, 2009
1,003
176
83
Tokyo
#11
Thanks, this is very rich information. I can see how finding one's suitable position on the bike through an individual fit would be beneficial. While I consider joining the next EPerformance camp, I will try out a couple of things...
 
Sep 2, 2009
5
0
0
#12
Yeah, I have tried different Q Factor settings, and always felt best on the widest ones. I am no skinny-minny, and am, I suppose, on the stocky side of a build for most roadies.

Just today, I was legging it up the road, and started thinking about my feet position. I came to the conclusion that I would not be able to put down as much power if they were closer together.

I then went home and watched some Men's 100m Olympic sprints in slow motion (not for that reason, before Mike, James, Tim, Eric, etc etc chime in!), and indeed, those living-missiles don't run with their legs in a narrow straight line, rather they have their legs spread out slightly, and 'gyrate' down the track.

And if they do it, and Cavendish does it, who are we to argue.
 
Sep 2, 2009
5
0
0
#14
No trolling at all intended, but when I first read the Ritte website, it seemed like the biggest piss-take I had ever read.

Still not convinced.