Any question answered...

Isn't this fundamentally the same idea as the Shimano AX stuff from years ago - align the footbed with the axle better?

There's a sweet spot of efficiency with regards to Q-factor (a proxy for the distance between the middle of the feet).

Imagine an inverse bathtub curve with the x-axis being the distance between the feet and y-axis being bio-mechanical efficiency.

Taking one extreme; if your feet are right next to each other (effectively impossible given a frame's geometry) then efficiency is not at its highest. Efficiency (and therefore power delivery) will increase as you move the feet further apart.

At the other end, if your feet are on pedals that are 5ft apart, its going to be hard to get some meaningful power into the pedals. As you move the pedals closer together (from 5ft apart) things will get better.

Those two things imply there is a sweet spot (or spots) in the middle of those extremes where biomechanical efficiency is greatest.

The theory is that the sweet spot for efficiency is closer together than existing bottom-brackets/cranks/spindles/cleats can get you to.

This design looks to get the feet closer together given existing bottom-bracket/crank solutions and therefore should provide more efficiency. So for the same rider effort/work they see more power going through the pedals/cranks/chain/transmission/etc.

Doesn't the sweet spot distance apart vary with anatomy?

Doesn't the sweet spot distance apart vary with anatomy?

Yes, some people require a greater factor than others for their unique biomechanics.

Of course it varies with anatomy, but for the vast majority of people the sweet spot is closer together than traditional BB/cranks/pedals/shoes can provide.

Graham Obree was a major proponent of bonkers designs to drastically reduce q-factor.

If you can't reduce the distance from crank outer to crank outer (because of chainlines, frame costs, etc) the natural place to make gainz is to mess around with the pedal/spindle/cleat, which is what this design does.

Ow duz mans do a RUBIKS CUBE ?

There's a thread for that. UTFS. Noob.

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/150089/

The resident expert is @mashton.

Does anyone understand this claim?

No.

It's a claim without context, and therefore meaningless.

In general, it is a claim widely made but not well supported that reducing the distance between the sole of the foot and the pedal axis, in some cases to a slightly negative number, improves biomechanical efficiency, which might increase power or reduce fatigue.

It's likely to be the case that minimising this stack height is a good thing, but that nearly all the gains have already been achieved by the time you get to the <25mm of all the common clipless road systems, and if you try to get the stack any lower with conventional crank threads you throw more away by increasing Q (@xavierdisley showed that for most people, standard Q is already much wider than the optimum) than you gain by reducing stack. Nonetheless, many have decided that this is the hill they will die on, from the 1898 Ramsey Swing Pedal via Shimano Dynadrive in the 1980s to Steve Lubanski's Side Mount Pedal in the first decade of the present century, and all have disappeared without trace.

Oh, and UCI suddenly took a dislike to the Ekoi pedals for no good reason, so the whole question becomes moot for now

Have you seen something to suggest they are aiming to reduce Q factor for gains? Many people already have shoe rub on their cranks, I don't think these pedals are aiming at reducing the Q factor, just stack height.

They're probably also more aero by having such integration with the shoe.

Velo magazine says "The French brand claim the pedals, called the PW8, offer as much as an 8 Watt saving versus competitor’s pedals, owing to their unusually low stack height of just 8mm." https://velo.outsideonline.com/news/pre-race-uci-ban-on-prototype-ekoi-pedals-leaves-riders-floundering-for-new-shoes/

Interesting, I'll freely admit I'd just assumed it was q-factor based on the photos.

Looks like the pressure on the sole of the foot is more evenly distributed than with other clipless pedals. So maybe there's a comfort benefit? Perhaps also less chance of getting the dreaded Hot Foot?

Looks like the pressure on the sole of the foot is more evenly distributed than with other clipless pedals

Foot support is what your shoes are for. A decent carbon sole is more than stiff enough to avoid pressure concentrations from the pedal platform. If you're getting hot spots in good race shoes, the problem is your shoe fit, not your pedals.

The most important questions have been ignored. Are they 31g lighter, therefore 0.037mph faster? Will they make me more attractive to the gender of my choice? Are the cleats compatible to my other bikes, which I don't use? How much have existing pedal manufacturers bribed, apologies, supported the UCI?

I rather like the claim of 'up to 8 Watts saved', presumably the base figure is for a good old cage pedal with straps, otherwise fuck all. If I were to add up all the claims made by manufacturers I could convert my paltry power output to 50kph over any terrain whilst eating burgers.

Would it it be easier to buy a crank 8mm longer or am I missing the point?

I would guess some/all of the theoretical watts saved is that 8mm lower stack allows you to drop your entire bike fit (seatpost/handlebar stack) by 8mm with associated aerodynamic benefits.

am I missing the point?

Yes, but since your understanding of geometry is so flawed, can I interest you in some PMP cranks?

drop your entire bike fit (seatpost/handlebar stack) by 8mm

But it's not an 8mm drop, it's 8mm stack from the axis to the sole of your shoe. If you were already obsessed with low pedal stack you'd be using 4-bolt Speedplay, which are 8.5mm from axis to shoe sole. It's a lot of fuss over 0.5mm 🙂

Ah, just twigged what the 8mm is about, I'm from the era of PMP cranks and no, I didn't buy them for obvious reasons lol

I learnt to ride in the 60's where we tied blocks of wood to our feet or pedals to be able to ride bikes that were too big for us, I shudder at the loss of efficiency :)

If you want to learn with an actual person rather than a video then let's meetup for a drink. (My bona fides: I have the fiftieth fastest time in the UK for solving a 3x3 cube, for the over 40s age category)

If you prefer a video on YouTube then JPerm is your man.

https://youtu.be/7Ron6MN45LY?si=aNmSjM7KZYS1OQ3r

Is it imagination, or did kids used to get lost in super markets more?

I just heard someone saying "can Alex come to the front", and realised I can't remember the last time I heard a supermarket calling for a kid. Whereas I'm sure it's something you used to hear every now and then. And I must go to supermarkets in peak child times now more than ever.

They just text them now.

More attractive to everyone, and cute cats and dogs too