A350driver

I don’t care who you are, that’s funny!

Paul Barnard

I have managed to climb hills just fine with flats. I have never had my foot slip off of platform pedals. I have had my feet stay clipped in when I needed to do a foot dab and I have missed a clip in under fast acceleration.

livedarklions

TBH, I didn't want to get into it, but is the post you're responding to saying that standing on the pedal while climbings is a bad thing? That's novel!

livedarklions

If you're standimg on the pedals, the extra energy that would've been used for deceleration is being applied to the cranks and the rear wheel. That's why standing on hills is effective.

50+ years of riding flats, never had a foot slip off a pedal. And I ride a lot of hills.

mstateglfr 

Are you claiming people who stand to climb are wasting energy?
If standing to climb uses more energy, it also creates more power. So is that increased energy use largely offset by more power?

AlgarveCycling

Most do both, seated and standing, according to gradient, time in the saddle, how much power they want to put down etc. I use an equal measure of both.

I also much prefer clipless; couldn't race with flats. No way. I just wouldn't be as efficient and don't know of a single Pro or Cat 1 rider who wins road races without clipless. I started out on flats for BMX and still do for leisure rides on my Fixie. But MTB XC, road - clipless all the way for me to get a good pedal stroke maximising energy transfer.

Shawn1970

Adidas do a really great shoe, thw Velosamba, visually like their iconic 'shell toe' but with a 2 bolt cleat fixing on the sole. A perfect style shoe if that's your thing - ride to the pub and look cool without clomping about in full on roadie shoes.

Ttom

I think that sums it up nicely, you can go high tech or you can just go.

jackb

Issues like this really come down t what you like and don't like. Whatever the advantages/disadvantages of any part of bike riding, It's what you prefer that matters. If you like bike shoes, there you go. If you don't, there you go. No big deal.

70sSanO

Unfortunately it is never just preference of likes and dislikes on forums, especially equipment centric sorts forums. It is hardly limited to cycling.

Typically it is a my low budget approach is just as good as your high budget approach so you are wasting your money. Or, my high budget approach maximizes, enhances, my participation in the sport so it is foolish not to go that route. And there is generally an under-current of wanting to ir not wanting to fit into a group of people.

What is ironic is that, for the “average” forum member, he or she truly sucks at the sport in comparison to a professional, or world class, athlete. But the arguments will continue regardless.

For the sports I participate in, I’m more of a low hanging fruit person. Try to spend to the point where the marginal benefits outweigh the marginal cost. Beyond that it is merely an exercise in sucking slightly less.

John

livedarklions

Hilariously accurate! It's the same "which one is the cool kid's table" argument again and again, the only thing that varies is which piece of equipment is the McGuffin.


​​​​​

mschwett 

so true. every forum / pastime has the high road, low road, and the “any uncommon road” clicques.

people here are a little saltier about it, but that’s probably just the demographic.

wolfchild

This not only applies to shoes but to clothing, pedals, frame material, tires, brakes, handlebars type, color of your bike, nutrition and what you eat and drink, and everything else.

Troul 

unless health dictates a requirement, all else reasoning is preferential.

Chickenwings

Looks like there were some thread issues but thanks for the pointer to the Adidas cycling shoes. Those look like EXACTLY what I'm looking for!!

JohnMorgan

Luxury. We had to make do with a rock. And a stick. :-)

Personally, I have flats on the Galaxy, toe clips on the Renown, and wear squash shoes with both. Never had a pair of ‘cycling’ shoes (can’t see me getting a pair) but I don’t race, so I suppose it doesn’t matter for me.

AlgarveCycling

My wife has never owned a pair of bike-specific shoes. She's a Belgian who has been cycling since a small child, 45 years experience, always normal shoes and flats. She's on a commuter-style e-bike now and gets all the healthy exercise and fresh air she needs from that.

I ride flats when hopping on to my Fixie bike or old MTB to cruise down to the beach or pop into town. But for training and racing, clipless and ultra stiff soles for maximum power transfer and no-slip.

I used to race BMX as a kid; had those serrated sharp pedals. Often had cuts on the back of my ankles from my feet coming off them in sprints around the track.

Cycling encompasses a large variety of bike uses; it isn't mostly a sport - most folks who cycle are leisure and commuter cyclists, certainly here in Europe. Touring, general fitness riding are also very common uses for bikes. None of these require the use of dedicated cycling shoes or clipless pedals, albeit some will still prefer them, but most won't because not really necessary.

The answer, as I see it, to this thread is: no, dedicated cycling shoes are not truly required; for most forms of cycling. However, if you want to race, or ride as fast and efficiently as you are able, then it would be highly recommended to use cycling shoes and clipless pedals.

Germany_chris

In the US it's mostly a sport which is why these threads on social media happen.

livedarklions

​​​​​​That's not even close to true, it's really not much of a sport here. In the US, it's more recreational and less utilitarian than other countries, and where I think the US is an outlier is in the number of casual cyclists buying what is essentially racing kit. That said, there's a whole hell of a lot more cyclists riding in street clothes than in kit in the US, but you'd never know it from looking at BF.

GhostRider62

Depends where you live. I very rarely see a cyclist riding in street clothing, they are almost always in kit. I am sure I saw over a 100 riders yesterday (Sunday) and maybe 2 were in street clothing.

pdlamb

If by "sport" you mean competition, I think you're way off base. The U.S. has nothing like the European grand tours, and most mid-size cities are lucky to have one or two half-day races per year.

I suspect the thing most Europeans don't get about the U.S.A. is its size and scale. IIRC commutes by bicycle in Germany, the Netherlands, France, etc. average 4 km, and that may be round trip. How far is it from your home to the next couple medium size cities, say population 100,000 or more? My commute is 10 miles each way (20 miles or 30 km round trip). The next medium cities from mine are 90 miles (150 km) away. That's a lot of space for long distance rides, and a good reason to enjoy the efficiencies of clothes designed for cycling.

livedarklions

I don't know if anyone has gathered statistics on this, but I ride a mix of rural and urban miles, and there's no comparison--way more riders within the city, and the large majority not wearing kit there. When I ride rural roads, the numbers of cyclists are much lower (probably by a factor of a 100), but virtually all of them are kitted up.

Germany_chris

Sport as in exercise

I really don’t want to turn this into a Europe v US debate. Believe it or not there are rural areas all over the world where you have to drive to get to a city.

livedarklions

OK, that makes more sense then. You're using "sport" to mean "recreational". I hear "sport", I think formally competitive (not Cat 6).

Troul 

IMO, I don't get the warm & fuzzy from the general US pop to really support it like a pro sport or even college level sport. The vehicle infrastructure & cultural ways in the USA pretty much hates on bicycles. Also, folks don't take those that ride bicycles seriously in the USA. "lemme ride yer bike mannn, it's not like I'm going to break it... just going up to the corner store...." ................................... riiiiiight, pound sand.