elcruxio

Typical foot dynamics don't work with cycling any more they do in skiing, skating or any other sport where your feet are attached to some other object.

An ultra stiff cycling shoe is going to be more beneficial for foot health than a loose flexible shoe as the stiff shoe is going to prevent hot spots, pressure spots and all that stuff.

I'm all for minimalist and barefoot shoes for walking and running, but cycling doesn't play by the same rules.

terrymorse 

My first and favorite running shoe was the Onitsuka Tiger, back when you had to have a connection on a college squad to buy them. Lightweight, minimal support. The only change I made was an arch support for my high arches. I wore out so many of those shoes in the 1970s.

Unbelievably, they still make the Onitsuka Mexico, as a fashion shoe. It looks like it is essentially unchanged from the original.

seypat

Which has morphed through the years into this:

https://www.asics.com/us/en-us/metas...1B215-301.html

seypat

A former BF member who got booted in the past 1-3 years ran for Onitsuka/Asics in the late 70s, early 80s.

seypat

Guess I better read up on that since the argument threads will start soon.

livedarklions

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/sram-...-transmission/

seypat

Well I read up on it. I have no dog in the fight since I'm commited to older groups anyway. The only comment that comes to mind is this. It seems like the cycling industry is doing everything it can to be as exclusive of a hobby/sport as possible, at least regarding the 2-3 companies that sell high end components. Shimano is introducing CUES, but that's not aimed at the high end market. No backwards compatability. You replace a universal derailleur with a system that's not. That's a big middle finger to your customers that have been loyal.

I do have another comment. Has SRAM ever made an attractive group? That one's not.

ofajen

I don’t know that I agree that a cycling shoe has to be ultra stiff, and certainly I would have no interest in a stiff shoe that has any toe spring or that is not wide and properly foot shaped.

OTOH, I do cycle now in my Lem’s, which are basically a “transitional” minimal shoe. That is, they have the basics of a minimal shoe: a wide, foot-shaped toe box, no heel drop, a flat footbed and relatively flexible sole, but with a slightly thicker and stiffer sole that works better for cycling.

The critical difference in the Lem’s is a sole that is 10mm thick and thus stiff enough to work well for cycling with platform pedals. Truly minimal shoes with 5-6mm stack height are just too thin for me to be comfortable when pedaling hard. As always, YMMV.

Otto

genejockey 

Converse track flats - just enough sole that the skin of your feet didn't touch the pavement, just enough uppers that they didn't fall off. Padding? Who needed padding? We were 17!

seypat

Got any PF Flyers by chance? I remenber those from way BITD.

ofajen

I typically put 3mm thick flat insoles in my shoes when I run and take them out for all other use. Especially on our hard indoor track surface, it’s pretty harsh on the soles of my feet with no insole at all. Anything over three miles means I absolutely need the insole to tame the wear on my feet.

Otto

terrymorse 

My race day shoe was the Tiger Boston. I left them in a hotel in Hawaii, and I was devastated.

The same model is going for $795 on Etsy, and it's my size. Heck, maybe these are my long lost shoes:

genejockey 

I was a sprinter, so my race shoes were spikes - a hard plastic sole with 4 threaded holes for spikes, with a hint of a heel and just enough uppers to keep the spikes in place under your foot. I can't remember what they looked like, because I wore them for 11 seconds, or 24 seconds, or 55 seconds at a time.

livedarklions

How is that a middle finger? It just means that SRAM is going to have to convince people that it's good enough to warrant buying a new style of frame. Obviously, by doing so, they are limiting the initial release of this line to new bikes, so how is this an insult to me if I want to keep my older style SRAM derailleur on my older bike?
I have no idea if this is going to be a better arrangement, but the appeal of eliminating a part that often gets damaged is rather obvious. I absolutely don't get this notion that offering consumers more options somehow insults them.

seypat

The UDH came out in 2019. That means the product life cycle for the new system they want you to buy might only be 3-4 years as well before you have to change again and possibly have to buy an all new frame/bike. The UDH was/is there to possibly save the RD during a crash. You've eliminated that, so back to damaging an RD. You also have to disgard your current bike if it's a 2018 or older. All of that is a middle finger to me. They did make the RD modular, so must be expecting it to wear parts/get damaged on a regular basis. I guess that's better than the whole RD each time. Like I said I have no dog in the fight. We'll see how it goes.

seypat

I was also a sprinter. My time/efforts were mostly spent in these, though. They were dethroned by the Air Jordan.

livedarklions

Are you claiming that SRAM is going to switch all of its production to the new standard and that everything older will become unavailable? It would be absolute brand suicide, and I don't believe it for a second.

Eric F 

Right now, this is only at the top end of SRAM's MTB range. My expectation is that it will trickle down over time, and that may be based on how it is adopted/accepted by frame manufacturers and users.

Eric F 

A long-term test video I watched discussed multiple built-in contingencies for damage protection from front and side impacts. They also demonstrated being able to stand on the rear derailleur without damaging it.

I'm not a fan of the idea that a frame has to be built exclusively for this design, and eliminates the ability to use other drivetrains. That seems to be the case, but maybe I'm wrong, or the manufacturers can make their frames adaptable.

elcruxio

Toe spring isn't necessary if you don't plan on doing significant walking in cycling shoes.

A poorly fitting shoe, ie. too narrow for the foot being stuck in there isn't a fault of the shoe, it's the fault of the user. One should always choose shoes that are correctly shaped.
Though that kept in mind, cycling shoes can be narrower than walking shoes as you shouldn't be using your toes for anything. Since they can remain at rest and thus in narrow formation the shoe doesn't need to have extra space for splaying. The nearest analog for foot function I can think of for cycling is standing. Or maybe doing light quarter squats.

And because the foot is really not doing anything in cycling I do believe the foot should be supported to remain in place ie. heavy duty arch supports. It's a thing I'd never put near any walking or running shoe but for cycling they're the last piece of the foot-leg-pelvic stability puzzle. Once the foot is nice and immobile, a significant percentage of weight on saddle just disappears.

for me minimalist shoes work for light cycling around town. Cycling without shoes isn't an issue either. But I wouldn't want to ride longer distances without proper foot stabilization. I always start getting all sorts of issues when I try.

livedarklions

Given that scenario, it's hard for me to get how seypat 's concern with 'backwards compatibility" is even relevant. It just means you can't retrofit older bikes to take it, so what? The older bikes will still operate just fine with their older technology. Those bikes aren't going to be made obsolete.

Backwards compatibility is mostly an electronics industry concern, where so many of the devices rely on their ability to interact with other devices and software to be useful. There's where an innovation that becomes the new standard can cause your device to be obsolete. People are only going to be running one rear derailleur system on any given bike, just because it's older doesn't make the bike less ride-worthy.

livedarklions

This to me is the far bigger issue with the backwards compatibility--that SRAM is limited in its market for the new product. That's not an eff you to the consumers, it's the level of risk that SRAM is taking on here. I don't know how many frame manufacturers are going to want to build these frames that are compatible only with this standard, and if the answer is zero, this technology ain't going anywhere. There's got to be some critical mass point where the number of new bikes produced with this standard is enough to make the line worth producing.

seypat

What I'd be worrried about is forking out the dough for another bike with this new system. Then in 3-4 years, maybe the next time they add another gear, they tweak the hanger system just enough that I have to buy another new frame/bike because the one I purchased now won't be compatible with the future system. So new bike every 3-4 years. That's what I get out of it. I could be wrong.

seypat

You're in that target market. What do you think about it so far?

Eric F 

On the test video I saw, the bike was a Yeti, so apparently 1 manufacturer is on board at some level. I would expect that we will see the system on the World Cup MTB circuit, too, which would mean others are also on board.

EDIT: New stuff I just learned...The new SRAM system utilizes SRAM's UDH rear end standard (I see that seypat mentioned this previously), which exists on 210 MTB frames currently available. If that's the case, my issue with bikes not being compatible with other manufacturer's systems is resolved.