Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've kind of always thought the bike ends at the pedals and that body weight and clothes are a different matter....
But upon further reflection, and a article I am posting below, I now think shoes are no different than pedals when considering weight.

With that in mind, I'm surprised there aren't more posts about lowering shoe weight just as there are about pedal weight.
No one dremeling their soles to cut those nubbs in half?...
I've got some Shimano MO-36 shoes which I just weighed at approx 840 without cleats and approx 885 with egg cleats (not a digital scale)
They have rather heavy rubber soles with beefy nubs. I'm thinking a fair amount of about half the nubs could be taken off without comprimising the integrity of the shoes...

I don't have a lot of choice in shoes because I have very narrow feet and usually have to find the identical womens versions of Shimano shoes....usually not pink, but they just make the heel narrower , as well as the rest of the shoe

Take a look at these paragraphs from the following article....
http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=7815
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For example, with a wheel, if the weight is mostly concentrated in the rim and tire it would take nearly double the energy needed to accelerate it than an equal non-rotating weight. In other words, one pound added to a wheel or shoe/pedal system is equivalent to nearly two pounds on the bicycle frame."

"A few years ago I completed a study with Ned Frederick of Exerter Research that showed how the addition of 250 grams to a shoe/pedal system or 500 grams total for both right and left feet (about the difference between the lightest and heaviest shoe/pedal systems on the market) would require an additional power output of 1.3 percent on rotational power requirements at constant speeds on a level road."

"The effect on climbing, and accelerating, would be about 0.4 percent, but only during periods of climbing and accelerating. The effect on rolling resistance would be about 0.07 percent. This means that the net effect due to all factors of a realistic increase of 250 grams in mass on each leg would be to increase the power required by a cyclist by approximately 1.5 to 1.7 percent. "

"This increased cost could be significant in a long road race of 100 to 125 miles, with several hills and ending with a sprint. In terms of oxygen cost we estimated 1.3 % increase at 200 watts of work (approximately 24-25 km/hr) when only an additional 125 grams is added to each pedal/shoe system (total 250 grams for both legs)."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus given my shoes at 840 grams, which if a light pair was found at say, 640 grams would give me about .5 to .6 percent increase in power (or power saved) over a cross country course according to the article

I'll have to run more numbers to see what all this means. Somehow I doubt that 200 grams on shoes requires .5 or .6 percent increase in power even if on a "rotating" pedal system.

Anyway, how many of you are dremeling your shoes or weighing your shoe strings?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
I don't shave my shoes, but I'd certainly like to take a look at that study. I highly respect Ed Burke and have read many of his articles but I don't know how approx 0.5% increase in total mass can result in 1.7% increase in required power at <b>constant</b> speed and <b>level</b> road.

I'm not sure if shoe/pedals are even 'rotational' components. They don't rotate about a point on themselves (like wheels or cranks) but just translate about center of BB. Either way even if they are 'rotational' they are far too close to the center of rotation that the 'rotational mass' inertia phenomena will have any significant effect.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,770 Posts
I do shave them but not for weight....

I shave my shoes profile to allow an offset cleat position.
I got that tip from Thomas Frischknecht who wants his feet as close together as possible for effective pedaling (low Q-factor).usually you have about 5mm lateral adjustement on your cleats.I put the cleat on the far outside of the foot in order to have my feet closer to the BB. Frischy even modifies the cleats themselves by dremelling the "guides" and allow further offset by another 3mm.so he gains about 6mm on each leg which lowers the overall Q-factor by 12mm.paired to an already short BB axle (he used 103mm road axles) that makes for a much narrower, roadie like feet position.

I already have SIDI shoes which are about the lightest production shoes you can get (ca. 700g the pair).there is a manufacturer who does "custom" shoes which weigh just 450g/pair.I just forgot their name.will have to check that later.a friend of mine just got such shoes and they really weigh just 450g.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
247 Posts
PI Vipers w/Frog cleats @ 807 grams

Yeah, it seems a lighter shoe should not be too hard to design. These PI's seem overly heavy. I did dremel the lugs some, but just to accommodate those wide Speedplay cleats.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
560 Posts
Very true...

...I personally had to pare down my inside right shoe's heel. The relatively low Q-factor I use was causing my foot to catch the RD on the upswing. Since then, no problems, on or off the bike. I walk on the outsides of my heels, anyway. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,770 Posts
yes - these are the ones!

yup - that's the shoes i was talking about.

and to Bojs statement above:
i think you are wrong by saying the shoe weight isn't that relevant.during winter i ride with those neoprene covers over my shoes.you definitely can feel the added weight.BIG TIME! it's days and night to pedal with heavy "shoes" than with light ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
About those neoprene booties or shoe covers

nino said:
yup - that's the shoes i was talking about.

and to Bojs statement above:
i think you are wrong by saying the shoe weight isn't that relevant.during winter i ride with those neoprene covers over my shoes.you definitely can feel the added weight.BIG TIME! it's days and night to pedal with heavy "shoes" than with light ones.
If you can feel the added weight of those "neoprene covers" BIG TIME.......could you give us some idea of how much they weigh each OR per set.....so we might get some idea of how much weight makes a big difference?

I see in one catalog some that cover just the shoe and some that go up to the ankle and they don't give the weight for any of them. Which type do you have?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,770 Posts
my Neoprene covers weigh 200g/pair...

I use those which cover the whole shoe and have a zipper in the rear and just a small opening in the sole for the cleat.they weigh 201g/pair.now this is not that heavy but once they become wet fom sweating and riding through water/snow that adds even more.but even at just 100g per foot i can tell a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Anchors away.....

nino said:
I use those which cover the whole shoe and have a zipper in the rear and just a small opening in the sole for the cleat.they weigh 201g/pair.now this is not that heavy but once they become wet fom sweating and riding through water/snow that adds even more.but even at just 100g per foot i can tell a difference.
Thanks for the quick response...
So if your SIDI shoes weigh 700g and my Shimano's weigh 840g, then in effect, I am constantly wearing 70% of a 200g pair of neoprene booties ALL THE TIME....
I just have to find a lighter pair of shoes......or something.
As I said, my problem is that my feet are so narrow I have to wear the women's models for fit, so my selection choices are small.
I'll take a look at what SIDI has for women.

Of course mine are good for walking .......I've had to hike out as far as 6 miles in them on one occasion.
 

·
No relation
Joined
·
192 Posts
Have you tried Sidi's narrow fit?

The Dominator 4 comes in a narrow. Fits very well on my narrow feet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Is the women's version called the Dominatrix?

Ichabod said:
The Dominator 4 comes in a narrow. Fits very well on my narrow feet.
Thanks, I'll take a look......my feet are 8.5 B .....or 42 European sizing
Mens narrow might work.
For example in running shoes, the only brand I can wear are New Balance
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,770 Posts
Sidis fit extremely well...

I use them always without inner sole and with bare feet! they fit llike a glove.
the SRS comes with 1 buckle and 2 "turn-ratchets" which allow you to get a real thight fit without beeing uncomfortable.
 

·
No relation
Joined
·
192 Posts
They damn well should be

Chester said:
Thanks, I'll take a look......my feet are 8.5 B .....or 42 European sizing
Mens narrow might work.
For example in running shoes, the only brand I can wear are New Balance
Your foot size is more available in women's than mine, although that's a big chick foot. I got some Dominators in 47 narrow recently, and was amazed at how well they fitted. I went on a mission to try as many shoes as possible, and the Sidis pretty much ended the search prematurely. I had no idea they were so light, a hidden bonus.

Coincidentally I wear New Balance trail running shoes.
 

·
hip boy
Joined
·
88 Posts
Custom shoes

Here are the custom shoe makers that I know of in the US and what I have heard about them.
BTW, SIDI's are the best production shoes for hard-to-fit feet because they use Lorica which stretches when it gets warm. They confrom to your foot as you wear them.

http://www.d2customfootwear.com/
660g per pair. 425$ a pair.
Good reputation, durable shoes. I will be ordering one pair in the next couple of months.

http://www.rocket7.com/
470g per pair. 360-500$ a pair.
So-so reputation, shoes don't last more than a year.

http://www.lustracing.com
only road shoes. 900$ a pair! :eek:

MaxXx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Yes...Shimano's .womens shoes end at size 42

Ichabod said:
Your foot size is more available in women's than mine, although that's a big chick foot. I got some Dominators in 47 narrow recently, and was amazed at how well they fitted. I went on a mission to try as many shoes as possible, and the Sidis pretty much ended the search prematurely. I had no idea they were so light, a hidden bonus.

Coincidentally I wear New Balance trail running shoes.
yes, the Shimano womens shoes all end at size 42, which is exactly my size...

They now have a 04 shoe the M120W which is rated at 680g in size 40
cost is about $110, so if that fits me and I expect the size 42 to be about 700g then that might be a good loss of 140 grams from my present pair.
The only problem is that they appear white....but I imagine a little shoe polish would easily fix that.

Or I can find some narrow Dominators or womens Dominators which might weigh a bit more but are probably a superior shoe.

Or I could just go wild with my dremel and make my present shoes look like Swiss Cheese. Especially good during those hot summer months....ventilation through the soles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Riding on empty

DeepWalletDave said:
I used the sander disc on my dremel and shortened my fingernails......this saved 2 grams.....then I got a haircut, saved 25 grams......brushed teeth, saved .5 grams.....

Had my rear wisdom teeth removed.....this saved 23 grams.... but the biggest weight savings come from taking a power dump and a huge leak.....saves about 900 or so grams.....

I can't begin to tell you how cheaper it is to take a leak and a dump then it is to remove 900 grams off a bike.....
Dave, I could tell you weren't British even before looking at your profile.... You must get a lot of fiber.....Brits can't get the benefit you do from a "power dump" because of the following facts...gleened from the internet..

"The normal daily stool weight in the UK is 50-200g. However, in countries where the diet is higher in fibre, the average stool weight is 500g. "

I eat a lot of fiber, but have not at this time, taken readings on my "releases"... All that potential scale cleaning has kept me in the dark... But if what you say is true, then I've been overlooking a real gold mine of lower weight... 900 grams, hey?
The weight of the liquid releases are much easier measure.......as we all know, water weighs 29.573529 grams per ounce...or for you full bladdered boys, 3785.4118 grams per gallon.

I also empty my pockets of change, and instead only carry bills.(weight 1g each).
Coinage can really slow you down big time.... Some examples

Penny 1990-D 2.5086g
Nickle 1999-D 4.9947g
Dime 1992-D 2.2634g
Quarter 1995-D 5.7063g

I believe that D is for the Denver mint, though I would guess all other mints are very similar and from year to year I would also imagine they meet similar specs. Of course I don't waste time by trying to calculate some yearly deduction for wear, but if I had to carry coins, I would only carry old ones.

I just wish I has more hair and teeth available for reduction.....but nature and life has not been kind......... me being over 50 and all......thus my focus on my shoes...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Chester said:
"The normal daily stool weight in the UK is 50-200g. However, in countries where the diet is higher in fibre, the average stool weight is 500g." QUOTE]

50-200g...BAH....I've sh!t more than some bikes weigh here, it must be some English thing or somthing ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
dont be such a weight weenie, people talk about losing grams off their bike, when actually they should be losing pounds off thier midsection. much cheaper and healthier :p
 

·
Who are the brain police?
Joined
·
10,112 Posts
How much body fat do you have? ...shave your hair, remove your teeth, cut your toe-nails, wash with unscented soap, don't use deodorant, take exlax, ride naked, exhale more than inhale....
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top