Shoe stiffness

[Cloozoe]

Not going to ask about “power transfer” or the like; have my own grasp of physics to rely on there.

However am interested in comfort specifically as it relates to stiffness. Repeatedly I read in shoe reviews/ round-ups:

“These are really stiff, so you’ll avoid hot spots that occur with less stiff soles”

“These are not the last word in stiffness, but what you lose in power transfer you make up for in comfort”

That would seem to be somewhat contradictory, no?...unless you like hotspots.

Now I’m used to the endless bulls#%t and received “wisdom” that substitutes for empiricism and scientific inquiry in the sport, (my friend Martin will ride two different bikes with two different sets of wheels and tires and proceed to wax eloquent about the superior “feel” of Reynolds 531 vs Columbus SL) and further understand that the purpose of the magazines is to shill product rather than inform, but which is it:
Are ultra stiff shoes more comfortable or less comfortable?

[Cicli]

For me, a good stiff last with a conforming upper works best.
I dont buy into the garbage that you “pull up” on the pedals so......... at least not pull up more than just unweighting the leg on the upstroke. Its all about pushing down from about 2 oclock and through to about 8 on each leg so a confortable last and properly placed cleats work very well for me.

[floxy1]

I’ve always ridden ultra stiff shoes for both the mountain and road bike. I dabbled with some ultra endurance events in AZ and needed shoes that would handle more hike-a-bike. With the exception of walking I never found the more flexible soles to be more comfortable while pedaling. The biggest factor in comfort with shoes was getting the right insoles for my arch.

[Peter P.]

For years I rode Duegi Mod. 101's, a shoe with WOOD soles. No padding. I found them very comfortable, even on 100 miles rides.

So can a stiff shoe be comfortable? Yes. But your foot is the biggest variable, making shoe selection a very personal decision.

I suppose you could offset a very stiff and possibly uncomfortable shoe with a supportive, cushioning insole, but you must find one that suits YOU.

And stiffness is overrated. Unless a shoe is causing foot pain because the sole is flexing under power, it's likely stiff enough.

[Cicli]

My father always reminds me that they rode bikes in the 50’s and 60’s for miles, like 50 or 60 miles with the following.

-No helmet.
-Cut off jeans
-Tennis shoes
-water from a hose
-no cell phone
-whatever road
And so on.

They didnt die.

[Cloozoe]

Thanks, lads. Cicli, based on the era cited I’m an old coot of about your father’s vintage and while I’ve mostly traded my cutoffs for bibs, pretty much share his experience and attitude.

[Mikej]

Originally Posted by Cicli

My father always reminds me that they rode bikes in the 50’s and 60’s for miles, like 50 or 60 miles with the following.

-No helmet.
-Cut off jeans
-Tennis shoes
-water from a hose
-no cell phone
-whatever road
And so on.

They didnt die.

And then they came out with texting and dudes on oxy driving and texting taking selfies shooting up

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Cloozoe

Not going to ask about “power transfer” or the like; have my own grasp of physics to rely on there.

However am interested in comfort specifically as it relates to stiffness. Repeatedly I read in shoe reviews/ round-ups:

“These are really stiff, so you’ll avoid hot spots that occur with less stiff soles”

“These are not the last word in stiffness, but what you lose in power transfer you make up for in comfort”

That would seem to be somewhat contradictory, no?...unless you like hotspots.

Now I’m used to the endless bulls#%t and received “wisdom” that substitutes for empiricism and scientific inquiry in the sport, (my friend Martin will ride two different bikes with two different sets of wheels and tires and proceed to wax eloquent about the superior “feel” of Reynolds 531 vs Columbus SL) and further understand that the purpose of the magazines is to shill product rather than inform, but which is it:
Are ultra stiff shoes more comfortable or less comfortable?

I have used Genius 5 for a long time with a plastic sole..Bought some Sidi with a carbon sole..same size, model, etc, just carbon vs plastic sole...can't tell any difference...both 'comfy'...YMMV and all that.

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by floxy1

I’ve always ridden ultra stiff shoes for both the mountain and road bike. I dabbled with some ultra endurance events in AZ and needed shoes that would handle more hike-a-bike. With the exception of walking I never found the more flexible soles to be more comfortable while pedaling. The biggest factor in comfort with shoes was getting the right insoles for my arch.

I got hotspots doing a brevet series with the cheaper Sidi sole and SPDs. The next season, I switched to a stiffer carbon sole and SPD SL and have not experienced them again in years of ultras and brevets. Everyone is different, but I've found stiff "racing" shoes with carbon soles better for my feet.

[tigoat]

Stiffness, boy I hate that freaking word. I have some shoes with a carbon fiber bottom, which would hurt my feet on a long hard ride. I actually would prefer shoes with a not too hard bottom.

[FlashUNC]

They're not contradictory in the sense that hot spots for some folks happen with two bolt SPD cleats and more flexible soles that shift around that very centralized and concentrated pressure point. That doesn't exist with three bolt road cleats really, so you can have a less stiff sole with those that maybe doesn't have the same power transfer as something super stiff, but a little flex is a little more comfortable if you've got to hobble around the coffee shop stop.

So the answer is both. They are and they aren't. All depends on your feet and your situation.

[Ken Robb]

I think what matters most is how well the foot/insole interface conform to each other so the pressure is distributed over the widest possible area.

[lhuerta]

....too much of the converation from said reviewers is often focused only on sole stiffness, which is important, but indiscernible given the high quality of carbon soles in most modern shoes. What is lacking in most of these reviews is the importance of the upper's stiffness. It is easy to make a stiff sole, but if the upper is not supporting your foot over the stiff sole, then u have only addressed half the objective of why u need cycling shoes.

This issue came to light for me when I switched to Specialized Sub 6 shoes (after 35 years of riding Sidi exclusively). The Sub 6 includes stiff "Dyneema" fabric panels on the upper at the inner and outer mid-foot region. This stiff fabric supports your foot firmly over the stiff sole, keeping your foot planted throughout the pedal stroke. It is a feeling unlike any other shoe I have tried. Other shoes try compensate for lack of upper stiffness by adding more fasteners (BOA or velcro) but if the upper is not stiff to begin with, no fastener is going compensate for lack of upper stiffness. What results with the Sub 6 is that I barely need to cinch down on the BOAs because the upper is doing most of the work holding my foot in place, resulting in a very comfy and non-restrictive fit.

[Cloozoe]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

They're not contradictory in the sense that hot spots for some folks happen with two bolt SPD cleats...
.

Should have been more clear; referring exclusively to write-ups of 3 bolt road shoes and the comfort issue they referred to was strictly related to pedaling. Clearly more flexible is better for walking, but that’s not what I’m asking.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by Cloozoe

Should have been more clear; referring exclusively to write-ups of 3 bolt road shoes and the comfort issue they referred to was strictly related to pedaling. Clearly more flexible is better for walking, but that’s not what I’m asking.

Then the conclusion is still the same. Peoples feet and preferences are all different. Some folks like hella stiff. Some don't.