Pedaling Innovations Catalyst Pedal - Review
The Catalyst pedal comes from James Wilson, the proprietor of MTB Strength Training Systems. The Pedaling Innovations venture began after he thought of a new way to help translate the power he created in the gym onto his bike. He found that there was a missing link between the barefooted stance he used in the gym when swinging around kettlebells and various other lumps of iron and the way he could use the same movement patterns to propel his bike forwards on the trail. The solution to this problem resulted in the creation of a larger pedal platform. The Catalyst pedals aren't lightweight at 505 grams, but after shelling out $119 USD, they are the only pedal on the market that come with a 30 day, no quibble, money back guarantee.
Catalyst Pedal Details
• Intended use: improving pedalling dynamics by using a large platform to support the foot
• 6061 aluminum
• Dual sealed bearings and DU bushing internals
• 128mm x 95mm platform
• 16mm thickness
• Red, blue, black or grey colors
• 30-day money back guarantee
• Weight: 505 grams
• MSRP: $119 USD
• pedalinginnovations.com / @PedalingInnovations
• Intended use: improving pedalling dynamics by using a large platform to support the foot
• 6061 aluminum
• Dual sealed bearings and DU bushing internals
• 128mm x 95mm platform
• 16mm thickness
• Red, blue, black or grey colors
• 30-day money back guarantee
• Weight: 505 grams
• MSRP: $119 USD
• pedalinginnovations.com / @PedalingInnovations
Construction
The Catalyst pedal doesn't do any singing or dancing, and this is probably because their designer is a gym rat and bike rider, not an engineer. A simple affair, they are extruded and machined from 6061 series aluminum into a 16mm thick platform. Dual sealed bearings and DU bushings keep things spinning on the cro-mo axle. There are five pins at the front and rear of the platform, and two more between the axle and leading edge of the pedal. At 95mm wide they are comparable to others, but the huge 128mm length is the largest on the market.
Setup and Science
The Pedaling Innovations web page cites a number of scientific studies that helped spark the creation of a pedal with such an oversized platform. To summarize, the key points describe the hips as the main driving force behind a strong downwards pedal stroke, and state that from a biomechanical standpoint there is nothing to be gained from pulling up on the pedals on the backstroke. Mountain bikers are told to center the ball of their foot over the pedal axle, and traditional technique sees pedal strokes focusing on the quadriceps. According to the James Wilson, positioning the axle under the middle of the foot can improve the way hip flexors, glutes and hamstrings fire.
The theory of placing the ball of the foot in line with the axle comes from the way we run or jump as a human; we push off the ball of the foot and toes for movements where we take off from the ground. For movements where our feet don't leave the ground, it's said to be better to keep the foot flat on the floor, supporting either end of the arch at the ball and heel. James says the pedal stroke is similar to squatting or deadlifting in the gym - try squatting with a heavy weight at the gym balancing on your toes versus keeping your feet flat on the floor.
Wouldn't a stiff soled shoe accomplish the same thing as the Catalyst pedal? Well, not quite. Using a stiff sole will help to support the foot, but the calf muscle and Achilles' tendon still need to be recruited to push down on the pedals. Having to keep tension in this area will subtract from the amount of power we can produce in the hips, and next to zero power can be added from these small muscles. The Catalyst pedal is designed to be long enough to give support at both ends of the foot for most people, although basketball players might need something even bigger; I used the pedal with a size 10.5 US Five Ten Impact VXi shoe.
 |
 You might have to spend some time readjusting your foot position. |
A short pedal placed under the ball of the foot requires the calf muscle and Achilles tendon to be flexed in order to pedal and balance.
Placing a larger platform in a more central position under the foot could mean increased pedal power.
Performance
I have been following James' downloadable MTB Strength Training plans for a number of years now and believe they have helped me to improve my pedalling technique. The majority of the training focuses on using plenty of kettlebell swings, squats and exercises designed to improve hip movements and increase the effectiveness of each pedal stroke. Riding with a mid-foot position rather than pushing with the ball of your foot is crucial for using the Catalyst pedal, and a technique that I had a head start on. If you don't have this style dialled in, it may take longer for you to reap any benefits from the extra size, and continuing to use a quad dominant stroke with the ball of your foot placed over the axle won't bring about much of a benefit over a standard pedal. Getting onto the trail I had no problem moving my foot a few centimeters forward as recommended, and it became second nature within a couple of rides. I should also note that I'm a long term flat pedal user and when using clips I always have the cleats positioned as far backward as possible.
I had three concerns when the pedals arrived: would they affect the way I try to keep my heels down on rough downhill sections as my foot would be further forward, would maneuvers that use a 'scooping motion' like bunny hops be more difficult, and would they clip every obstacle in sight with their massiveness? No problems arose with any of these. Keeping my heels dropped wasn't an issue and I even felt more balanced on the bike. Hopping, turning and jumping felt barely different to any other flat pedals and I didn't find them striking the ground any more often than normal. Within two rides I felt like I had gained more power with no extra training, and when putting in hard, standing efforts on the pedals, I found it much easier to maintain form and posture and a strong pedalling technique. Going from normal flats to the Catalysts feels like another step up in terms of keeping my form on point. Also, the extra support from the pedals means that slimmer, more flexible shoes can be used without worrying about them curling over the pedal's leading and trailing edges.
Grip wise I didn't find the Catalyst to be great for getting involved in the real rough stuff - the pins are pretty short so I upgraded to some slightly longer pins to increase traction. I would compare grip levels to a DMR V12 or Nukeproof Neutron, whereas I feel more comfortable riding downhill on a more aggressive pedal like a DMR Vault or Nukeproof Horizon. Along with longer pins for more extreme riding, I would like to see some shorter pins or texture in the middle of the pedal as the huge flat surface in the middle can feel a little slippery underfoot. This large surface area could also pose a problem with mud build up in adverse conditions.
The Catalyst is a monster, but needs bigger pins to match.
The 128mm long body has a small amount of concave and is 16mm thick at the axle.
Pinkbike’s Take:
 | The Catalyst changed my view on flat pedals by making it feel as if I had more power, better balance, and the ability to maintain my form for longer periods of time during sustained physical efforts. I do wish they had better grip - as a result they are more suited to trail/all mountain riding than aggressive downhill in their standard form. Still, if I can improve my riding by simply changing my pedals, I'll take it. And don't forget that there is a 30-day money back guarantee, which makes it even easier to try a pair and see if they work for you. - Paul Aston |
264 Comments
Size 14 here.
Same for wheelsizes, how freaking hard can it be to do a 26" vs 27.5" vs 29" test to see the exact difference in rolling resistance? We want facts/numbers, not useless theories.
@deeight: do you have a link for me? I googled this subject a lot but the best I could find was an estimation of how much the difference could be. No real tested-and-proved numbers.
I can't understand how so many companies are trying to sell all these inventions and upgrades by saying theoretically it should be better. And then they think it is weird when no one buys stuff like these longer pedals..
I bought 27.5+ because it's fun. Really really fun.
For those not wanting to watch 17 minutes of video, I'll share the results here:
Over a 3.8km xc lap:
- 29" was fastest
- 26" got second (+12 seconds)
- 27.5" was slowest (+19 seconds)
When they looked at climbing vs descending:
- 29" was the fastest climber, followed by 26", then 27.5"
- 26" was the fastest on descents, followed by 29" and then 27.5"
So basically 27.5" was the big loser here.
I would love to see a dh bike test where they actually do a no pedalling allowed dh run on every bike and publish the times. That would be better than the usual "yeh it's really good" that we normally get. I don't understand why the motorcycle press is all about objective head to heads, and the cycling press is completely averse to any sort of objective comparison.
Due to those variables
Fir instance we dint just sit on our bikes an pedal, we sit we stand we sprint. We move all over the bike in cornering, climbing descents.
And
We hop an pop!
As a 4X'er I'd like the idea of more power but, how would these pedals effect pumping an jumping? I feel horrible with my foot further forward but, us it something that can be gotten used to
So
Yeah! More in depth testing please PB
Also I can't believe that the contact patch on a 27.5 is closer to a 29er than to 26, since 27.5 is closer to 26 than to 29 (it is 25mm bigger than 26", but 36mm smaller than 29"). Also most tests show that the contact patch doesn't get bigger: it gets longer and narrower, but roughly stays equally big in square centimeters. That's where I start doubting the numbers that Giant show us (and still it lacks the IMO most important part: the rolling resistance)
Your data has way to many variables then wheel size.
For example, has your fitness level changed at all over the different sizes?
What about bike handling?
I think it would be hard for any mtbr to admit they have remained static in those things...
Atleast I would be embarrassed to admit that myself :p
But my bigger point is. Rollover increases with larger wheels. That is a fact. Whether that makes you faster depends on every single other factor you could possibly come up with.
James Wilson has already stated i
on his website that these pedals are not for everyone. My first few impressions are that they are for me, so don't knock it until you try it. I do believe that riders with small feet won't benefit as much and it will probably feel really weird. I am really stoked to ride some more on these pedals. Thanks, Pedaling Innovations!
I'm badly flatfooted and sometimes I start cramping in my feet, this happened both with flat and clipless pedals, and has been unbearable at times.
My analysis is that being flat footed, when I support my weight on the pedals, my ankles and calves need to work overtime to keep my heels from dipping too much and falling off the pedal since my foot arches can't support all my weight plus the pedaling movement. This in turn probably started to strain my thighs so they would get fatigued faster than they should. I now realize that for me, using regular pedals was like walking tip-toe style versus just walking. Now when I stomp down on the pedals as hard as I can, my stabilizer muscles and joints don't need to work so much to keep my feet on the pedals, and that's where my hips can contribute even further. For some reason, I can also keep my feet further inboard the pedals than before. Usually I would just use the lateral part of the pedals because I felt the need to have a wide stance to offer more stability and power, Now with my feet fully supported, I can use a narrower stance. This aspect however needs more experimentation and observation on my part.
Thanks for the inquiry man. I hope this helps. I also hope you can benefit from these pedals. Guys like us who have biomechanical disadvantages need all the help we can get.
Thanks for trying to get riders to place their foot in the wrong position on a pedal.
The Ankle is an important part of riding for pumping, absorbing smaller impacts, braking etc.
How do I drop my heels as efficiently when riding if I ride with my feet so far back?
Is this 1 small potential gain for a lot of loss in riding dynamics? For me it would be. This may not impact some riders but for the majority my money would be betting that it does.
I'd just like to point out that this was before Barel started breaking his legs and back, etc.
"I had three concerns when the pedals arrived: would they affect the way I try to keep my heels down on rough downhill sections as my foot would be further forward,......"
"Keeping my heels dropped wasn't an issue and I even felt more balanced on the bike. "
Also, he's confidant enough to offer no questions asked money back, so instead of paper riding, you could try for yourself risk free.
I'm certainly not saying I wouldn't try, I see the logic behind this improving your pedalling and strength on the bike, but I feel like these would be the drawback.
As an example, try to do a set of kettlebell swings while on the balls of your feet. You will feel unbalanced and awkward trying to create and absorb that energy. This is why we do swings with the heels down - since your foot isn't coming off the ground it works better if the heels stay down.
This is a very misunderstood subject in the cycling world and a lot of the analogies used to explain it are simply wrong and inaccurate. If you are interested I have written a couple of articles on the subject you should check out:
pedalinginnovations.com/avoid-this-critical-foot-position-mistake-and-improve-your-agility-on-the-bike
www.bikejames.com/strength/do-you-really-need-to-push-through-the-ball-of-your-foot-when-you-pedal
Again, I understand what you are saying and I used to think this way too but after researching it for myself I found that this it simply isn't how the foot and lower leg work on the bike.
And how is riding or landing a jump like a kettlebell swing in the first place??
The only benefit of midfoot pedal position is that it protects the calves from burning out before the bigger muscles in the leg; it's the 'weak link' in endurance riding and triathlons... those are usually the people who use it. I've tried it on my hardtail and it feels atrocious, it massively reduces my ability to absorb small chatter from the trail. Dislike.
James, you need to think of things in terms of physiology, anatomy, biomechanics and the other established sciences concerning things like this rather than relate everything to some anecdotal observations of barely related exercises. The outcome might be the same but you aren't going to win anyone over with the current explanations which miss the point (IMO). It is genuinely good to see something a little different and I don't intend this to be as critical as it sounds.
@groghunter Cycling is not an effort of propelling the human body forward, it is an effort of driving force down more or less vertically to drive a gear that then propels a wheel. Because of this, the balls of your feet dont really need to participate. You want to drive with your largest muscle groups, being hips and glutes and you cannot efficiently drive these muscle groups through the ball of your foot.
If your foot stays in contact with what it is on (like when squatting, deadlifting, standing up from a chair, pedaling your bike, etc). you want it to stay flat on the ground.
This is a pretty simple test and based on it pedaling is more like a swing since in both cases the foot stays in contact with what it is on. And your point about the instability of the current flat pedal design actually is one of the reasons the Catalyst is better - by getting both end of your arch supported you can achieve a balanced foot position not possible with any other pedal.
@LaXcarp, no it doesn't make as much sense to absorb things though knee flexion. A smaller, weaker "spring" and lever (calves and foot) will be much more sensitive/plush in response to small impacts than a large, stiff one (the quads and shin, or glutes and femur). Not to mention, your foot (the lever) is perpendicular to upward impact forces, which makes it much better suited to absorbing impact than, say, your shin bones, which are pretty much vertical (parallel to the force --> harder to engage).
My point wasn't about "current flat pedals" it was about ALL pedals. All pedals, including yours, freely rotate on a bearing, which means it's impossible to stabilize in the forward/backward axis by manipulating the foot, as you would on the ground. There's nothing to push against.
No matter how large you make the platform, you're still standing on a free pivot. This is true for current flats, these flats, or even clipless pedals.
Your pedal is not like doing a KB swing with your feet flat on the ground, it's like doing a KB swing while balancing on a thin rod. Whether you put the rod under your midfoot or under the ball of your foot, it's going to be almost impossible to do a KB swing. Which is why a KB swing is a meaningless analogy when it comes to riding a bike.
@groghunter - Just because your bike comes off the ground doesn't change what is happening at the foot. If the foot stays on the pedal then it wants to stay balanced, no matter what is happening to the bike itself.
Move to a common gym exercise. Complete your maximum squat for 20 reps (you will do more than this on a run down fort william). Now move to calf raises (yes I understand we don't isolate when riding but his is a simple example). Now take the same weight as you could squat. Add 20% and see if you can do calf raises... of course you can. I would consider myself an ok rider and ride with some far better than ok riders every now and then. Follow a professional and watch how they ride. They do not all ride the same. There are different styles that suit different riders (WC finals qualifying level riders). Luckily we are not all the same. Would be boring if we were.
So, thank you, James. Even if your pedals suck, your free content is pretty great and your entrepeneurial spirit leaves you head and shoulders above the armchair engineers hurling their "book learnin'" from the safety of their computer screens.
You tried them and they don't work for you?
Hey maybe these things solve some problems for some people, who am I to tell them they're wrong for liking them? All I know is the "science" behind these is laughable.
Also, the half-assed research that James Wilson quotes on his website states great EFFICIENCY at 200w using flats than clipless. Not better sprinting power, not better power at VO2max, not better power at lactate threshold. Show me something, anything that says that these pedals will result in better AM, DH or XC pedaling. I'm guessing it doesn't exist.
would these be better if i mounted kettle bell handles on my renthals?
All mtb pedals to this point are just some tech we borrowed from roadies?? Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but virtually the entire WC DH field has switched AWAY from flats to **mtb specific** clipless systems. They're about as far from roadie influence as you can get. I think mtb riders were plenty involved in that process...
How much suspension are you guys riding? I've tried pedaling at the midfoot but on a hardtail I think it feels like shit, unless the trail is really smooth.
Everyone knows SPDs have benefits. Foot retention, added power, greater efficiency. Multiple people (who have PhDs in this field!!!!!) in this thread have posted scientific journal articles that prove it. If you've been on both roadie pedals and mtb clipless you know they're MASSIVELY different systems; cleat size, release tension, 2-sided, mud shedding, pins, etc. They're mtb technology 100%.
So, I have to go with my gut. I am a better, and faster, rider on trails with flats. I also have more fun, so it's a no brainer for me. If I was competing at the level where tenths of a second matter, I might reconsider. Notice, I'm not advocating for anybody to do anything but give new ideas a chance, otherwise I would be riding a steel 26er with a 110mm stem and 24in bars, 3x9 drivetrain, 2.1in tires set to 50psi with tubes, three inches of coil suspension, etc. My current bikes are packed with changes that met with blind resistance because of "conventional wisdom".
In a nutshell these pedals make you more conscious of where pedaling 'starts' - with your hip joint - and de-emphasizes the lower limbs and ankle joint. Learning to use larger muscles and joints will absolutely improve muscle endurance, strength, and probably even speed/suppleness in the pedaling stroke, once properly learned.
The first few days of snowboarding my feet ache like crazy, because I haven't trained or adjusted the larger muscles and core to initiate turns and handle terrain. By mid season that's changed, and turns start with the core and hips, leaving the lower limb muscles alone. I think this is the same idea.
I did a road bike fit session once, where the bike doc moved my cleats back behind the ball of my foot...again to engage more of the upper leg muscles.
These are good training tools for people interested in improving their pedaling technique, and perhaps even every-day pedals for trail riding. Don't knock em til you try em. The inventor is not asking you to spend $400 on a pedal, accept a new pedal/crank interface, or buy special shoe/pedal systems.
Not sure if this would be the case on the pedals but that picture with shoes above... I mean the positioning looks kinda like it might compare to landing on the sole rather then toes.
As an example, try to do a set of kettlebell swings while on the balls of your feet. You will feel unbalanced and awkward trying to create and absorb that energy. This is why we do swings with the heels down - since your foot isn't coming off the ground it works better if the heels stay down.
This is a very misunderstood subject in the cycling world and a lot of the analogies used to explain it are simply wrong and inaccurate. If you are interested I have written a couple of articles on the subject you should check out:
pedalinginnovations.com/avoid-this-critical-foot-position-mistake-and-improve-your-agility-on-the-bike
www.bikejames.com/strength/do-you-really-need-to-push-through-the-ball-of-your-foot-when-you-pedal
Again, I understand what you are saying and I used to think this way too but after researching it for myself I found that this it simply isn't how the foot and lower leg work on the bike.
As an example, try to do a set of kettlebell swings while on the balls of your feet. You will feel unbalanced and awkward trying to create and absorb that energy. This is why we do swings with the heels down - since your foot isn't coming off the ground it works better if the heels stay down.
This is a very misunderstood subject in the cycling world and a lot of the analogies used to explain it are simply wrong and inaccurate. If you are interested I have written a couple of articles on the subject you should check out:
pedalinginnovations.com/avoid-this-critical-foot-position-mistake-and-improve-your-agility-on-the-bike
www.bikejames.com/strength/do-you-really-need-to-push-through-the-ball-of-your-foot-when-you-pedal
Again, I understand what you are saying and I used to think this way too but after researching it for myself I found that this it simply isn't how the foot and lower leg work on the bike.
I agree with you, as far as quick and reactive movements go, but pedalling is about producing sustained power. When I rode clips my calves were the first muscles to wear out. On flats the first muscle to wear out is my quads, and it takes longer.
Your biggest mistake is getting involved in the discussions in the comments section. If your pedals are really as good as you say they will speak for themselves.
The pedal stroke vector will be variable, as will the angle of the slip plane that together with pedalbody friction gives you transferred force vectors in the vertical and horisontal crank plane.
All a longer platform does is making you keeping your foot on the pedal straight as a crooked foot position will be worse on this pedal than a normal platform as contact points with pins are further from horisontal foot rotation axis when foot is placed centered on the pedal spindle and gets even worse when the foot is un-centered.
A symmetric pedal body gives predictable grip regardless of foot position and i find that more important when things get bouncy and rough. When it´s not rough ideal foot position is easy enough on any flats because that is where you end up automatically when your foot is feels stable on the pedal.
So what problem does this pedal solve again? At that price and weight?
It's easy to see pulling helps if you have a power meter on your bike too; pulling up increases the wattage for short bursts. But because you are engaging more muscle significantly, you will tire much faster if you pull AND push. So to completely disregard pulling as being unnecessary is foolish...it has it's purposes.
I used to think this as well but when you look at the science you find that it isn't true.
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0765159799800550?via=sd
"Results.
The results show a significant increase of the maximal values of force, velocity and power output when clip-less pedals were used, whatever the friction force applied.
Conclusions.
This improvement of maximal power could be attributed to a significant increase in optimal velocity, which was observed for both considerable and minimal friction force. In fact, clipless pedals allowed a greater muscular activity, a greater efficiency index, and better muscular coordination."
They were simply stating the prevailing theory, not testing that theory. All of the studies I have seen where they actually look at those claims show that they simply are not true and that pulling up on the backstroke isn't the best way to pedal.
Seeing if clipless pedals held your feet in place better during an 8 second sprint is not the same as looking at where those observed increases came from. I'd argue that the flex in the foot was the culprit for the loss in power (flew = power leaks) and that is more from a bad flat pedal design, not that clipless are better. Change the platform and get rid of that flex and you don't see the same differences, which is what the Catalyst Pedal does.
"Purpose.- The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical parameters measured on a non-isokinetic cycle ergometer equiped with or without toe-clip pedals during sprinting.Methods.- Two groups of subjects (international-national and regional cyclists) performed four sprints of 8 seconds with two different friction forces applied to the belt (0.5 or 1.1 N.kg - 1 ). A variance analysis with repeated measures (shoe-pedal linkages and groups) has been performed.Results.- The results show a significant increase of the maximal values of force, velocity and power output when clip-less pedals were used, whatever the friction force applied.Conclusions.- This improvement of maximal power could be attributed to a significant increase in optimal velocity, which was observed for both considerable and minimal friction force. In fact, clipless pedals allowed a greater muscular activity, a greater efficiency index, and better muscular coordination."
You need to read more than just the conclusions as scientists can be very biased in them and word them in ways that help them get published - like reinforcing the prevailing theories - instead of just sticking to the actual facts in the study.
Also, there's no "feeling" when you look at a power meter result from a ride and notice the same climb done with just pushing and the 2nd same climb being done with pulling up in addition to pressing shows an increase in wattage. You don't need a lab and 50 scientists doing a comprehensive study to analyze and observe that, you just need to be able to read a graph.
I can tell you personally I'm interested in giving these pedals a try as all I do is sprint intervals on a road bike and I would like to see how these affect my riding in trials, where it's a static explosive movement with a single leg doing most of the initial drive with the non-choco foot doing auxiliary work for propulsion; where hip drive/extension and force production is more translate-able from the gym (deadlifts, cleans, squats) into riding where heel drive is prominent. PM me if you're interested in me testing them. I can give an unbiased opinion and I have an top tier university at my disposal for lab testing....
The widest part of the foot is just under the ball, I mean between the ball and mid-foot but closer to the ball.
As simple example please take SPD shoe, where do you have cleats is shoe in 99% there are placed in the wides part of foot.
But when you ride a bike in rough terrain (i'm thniking about enduro, fr, dh and all extreme discyplines) what is the most important thing in position on bike? wide elbows and BEND ANKLE - this mean guite low position. Pedal should be tilted from the level your ankle should be lower than the axis of the pedal. Which gives this position? Better control especially on platform pedals.
I think it's harder to bend the ankle when pedal axis is closer to the mid-foot.But of courese as I mentioned I'm not a specialis and I didn't make any study this is my opinion.
I'm not thinking about the force of pedaling because this is more important on road, in rough teraing the most important in filling the bike and having good control.
Can you spell "psychosomatic"?
The science behind these pedals is poor. Pedalling is not deadlifting. Pedalling is not skiing. The reason people move their cleats back is because cleats only give you 1 choice for foot positioning, so you have to go for a compromise between pedalling power and confidence in the rough. Flat pedals do not limilt you in this way, so you will see experienced riders moving their feet around to deal with different situations. Feet forward/heels down when you are fighting the terrain. Feet back/heels up when pedalling or pumping. You have calf muscles. They are bloody usefull. There is good science behind not over working your calf muscles during dead lifts. Not using your calves on a bike is just dumb.
Essentially this pedal is designed to fix a problem that doesn't exist, by someone who seems to spend more time in a gym than on a bike...
Heres an experiment for you:
Jump as high as you can flat footed (make sure your toes leave the ground before or at the same time as your heels)
Now jump as high as you can off of your toes (engage your calfs, heels leave the ground well before the toes)
See how much higher you went the second time? Thats because of all the extra power you transferred into the floor using....your calf muscles.....
Food for thought.
As an example, try to do a set of kettlebell swings while on the balls of your feet. You will feel unbalanced and awkward trying to create and absorb that energy. This is why we do swings with the heels down - since your foot isn't coming off the ground it works better if the heels stay down.
This is a very misunderstood subject in the cycling world and a lot of the analogies used to explain it are simply wrong and inaccurate. If you are interested I have written a couple of articles on the subject you should check out:
pedalinginnovations.com/avoid-this-critical-foot-position-mistake-and-improve-your-agility-on-the-bike
www.bikejames.com/strength/do-you-really-need-to-push-through-the-ball-of-your-foot-when-you-pedal
Again, I understand what you are saying and I used to think this way too but after researching it for myself I found that this it simply isn't how the foot and lower leg work on the bike.
Steve Hogg gives some better descriptions of this IMO:
www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/04/power-to-the-pedal-cleat-position
When you are swinging a kettle bell, the weight of the bell is trying to pull your upper body around. Trying to counterract this force from the balls of your feet will be difficult of course. You are trying to fight the huge inertia of the kettle bell, through just two tiny contact points with the floor. However you will never experience a situation anything like this on a bike, unless your bars have become detached from the stem.
However, if you had a kettle bell attached to your hips, and were allowed to stand on the floor AND hold onto a fixed bar with your hands, then tried to swing the weight of the bell around using your arms and legs together, you would instinctively engage your calf muscles when attempting larger more vigorous movements just as you would engage the muscles in your foreams. This is a far more accurate simulation of situations that happen on a bike, as you now have four contact points, and suddenly have a huge amount more control over the weight between those points. Why would you not use your calves? What exactly do you lose by doing so?
Look at quadrapeds. They all walk round essentially on their toes. They have four points of contact with the floor, so do not need to apply their heels to the floor for stability as a top-heavy biped like a human does. Because they are not hindered like bipeds in this way, they stand on the balls of their feet at all times, allowing them to engage their calf muscles to put more power into the floor. Why do you think humans are such incredibly slow runners for the length of their legs? because we have evolved long calves and short feet to improve balance. When you are on a bike, you are no longer a biped. You are now a quadraped pushing levers with your feet. About as far removed as possible from a biped swinging free weights around with his arms.
Well if you are turning your cranks several thousand times an hour, I suggest favouring what is by far the largest muscle in the lower leg...
Pedaling on the balls of your feet will help with this.
Another experiment for you:
Stand on your bike, balls of your feet over the axles. Now bounce up and down, using only your calf muscles and ankles to make the motion. This will feel normal, familiar even, very much like you are giving the suspension a test or pumping little features on a trail. If you keep this up for several hours, your calves will begin to tire.
Now stand on your bike with the axles midway between heel and toe. Now do the same motion as last time. Instead of bouncing up and down in smooth natural feeling arcs, you will now just be wiggling your toes up and down. This will feel wierd and nothing much like anything you have done on a bike before. After some minutes, the muscle on the front of your shin will likely be so exhausted it will be shaking, and you will not be able to keep going.
You do KB swings flatfooted so you can apply force against to floor from your heels or toes to balance. This is impossible when you're standing on a spindle.
The physics behind this pedal are SO. EFFING. BAD. Midfoot pedaling is for triathletes. They have a reason to protect their calves during the bike ride.... they have to run on them afterwards. But they also don't have to do any technical riding, absorb small impacts, etc.
Maybe it does help some people with specific problems. But it definitely doesn't work for the reasons explained in the "science" section.
And @bkm303 - you keep making my point about how unstable normal pedals are. When you can get both ends of your arch supported (like you pointed out is what happens with swings) you can apply balanced force into the pedals. You can't do that as effectively with the small platform currently available. How much of your current pedal stroke is simply your foot adapting to a less-than-optimal platform and not the best foot position possible. And I don't think you are using the word "physics" in the right context.
For people with arch problems I can see why it would be nice to have the arch supported. Or if someone's calves crap out regularly on rides I could maybe see a benefit there too. But having the spindle under your arch doesn't allow you to apply "balanced force" any more than having it on the ball of your foot.
Does your pedal freely rotate? If so, then my comment applies to your pedal, "normal" pedals, SPDs, whatever. None of the stability benefits of lifting or doing KB swings flat-footed apply in any way once you stand on a pedal.
When you press your toe into the floor, you create a moment that can rotate your body backward. When you press your heel into the floor, you create a moment that rotates your body forward.
When you push your toe down on your pedal, the pedal rotates forward, like any other pedal. When you push your heel down, the pedal rotates back. Nothing you do with your foot on the pedal can stabilize you in the forward/backward direction.
Er, no. Sorry. Thats just utter rubbish.
If you send me a video of you standing in the "attack position" on a set of these pedals, then removing your hands from the bars without falling over and faceplanting your stem, I will give some more thought to the above quote. You can get some kettle bells involved if you think that'll help. Until then I will keep hold of my bars while riding.
"By getting a better platform for your foot you allow those (upper body) muscles to relax."
Also utterly untrue. Your foot pivots forwards and backwards around the pedal axle. This is true whether I'm hanging onto that axle with my toenails, or if I have it right at the back of my heels. This has no effect on the balancing requirements placed on my upper body.
"they (my calves) are just not working as hard because they are not under a constant stress"
Stress they can take all day long. Because that is exactly the job the calf is designed for. If the calf was in any way the weak point in this equation you might begin to have a point. But it just isn't. The calf is an enormous muscle compared to the size of the lever it works against, the foot. However the muscle on the front of the shin, normally used only for retracting the foot and placed under no real load at all IS far weaker than the muscles around it. Hence "shin splints". All moving your foot back during pedalling achieves is the reduced use of the huge calf muscle and the increased use of the tiny shin muscle.
This last point I feel is addressed by the experiment I described above...
"psycho-semantic"
No
Psychosomatic. It means an imagining a difference due to expecting a difference. For example thinking pedalling like Rob Warner is a good idea because what works for powerlifting "must" work for all sports.
@PedalingInnovations I don't think anyone is debating that pedaling power comes from the upper legs and glutes (which is what all the studies on your website indicate). But as long as the calves can keep up and don't get burnt out, there's "no difference in power or economy between pushing through the ball of the foot and the mid-foot pedal position" (quote from your own website).
But I'm not seeing references to improved stability or balance in these studies... only efficiency and power. And these are all related to seated pedaling with no obstacles, correct?
@gabriel-mission9 - Holding the handlebars is one thing, using them to make up for bad, unbalanced body position is another. How you use your handlebars is your business but any skills coach in the world will tell you than you shouldn't be putting too much weight on your handlebars (i.e. not using it to hold yourself up) and instead using your feet. And if you don't understand how an unbalanced foot affects movement in the rest of the body then I don't know what to say except that you need to do some more research in that area because it simply isn't true - an unbalanced foot certainly does affect how the upper body can move and react. And by creating a balanced foot I am not placing stress excessive stress on either the front or back of the lower leg so you don't have to worry about shin splints. To be honest your understanding of functional movement and how the brain and body work seems to be a little lacking based on these responses, what was it that you did again that made you an expert in some way in these areas?
If you send me a video of you standing in the "attack position" on a set of these pedals, then removing your hands from the bars without falling over and faceplanting your stem, I will give some more thought to the above quote. You can get some kettle bells involved if you think that'll help. Until then I will keep hold of my bars while riding."
Below I will paste the only real concrete statement you have actually made:
"As an example, try to do a set of kettlebell swings while on the balls of your feet. You will feel unbalanced and awkward trying to create and absorb that energy. This is why we do swings with the heels down - since your foot isn't coming off the ground it works better if the heels stay down."
In response to that you got this:
"Its got nothing to do with whether your feet come off the floor or not. By the time that has happened, all the power has already been transferred. The fact that is possible to jump higher when you engage your calf shows that it is possible to apply more power to the floor when you engage your calf.
When you are swinging a kettle bell, the weight of the bell is trying to pull your upper body around. Trying to counterract this force from the balls of your feet will be difficult of course. You are trying to fight the huge inertia of the kettle bell, through just two tiny contact points with the floor. However you will never experience a situation anything like this on a bike, unless your bars have become detached from the stem.
However, if you had a kettle bell attached to your hips, and were allowed to stand on the floor AND hold onto a fixed bar with your hands, then tried to swing the weight of the bell around using your arms and legs together, you would instinctively engage your calf muscles when attempting larger more vigorous movements just as you would engage the muscles in your foreams. This is a far more accurate simulation of situations that happen on a bike, as you now have four contact points, and suddenly have a huge amount more control over the weight between those points. Why would you not use your calves? What exactly do you lose by doing so?
Look at quadrapeds. They all walk round essentially on their toes. They have four points of contact with the floor, so do not need to apply their heels to the floor for stability as a top-heavy biped like a human does. Because they are not hindered like bipeds in this way, they stand on the balls of their feet at all times, allowing them to engage their calf muscles to put more power into the floor. Why do you think humans are such incredibly slow runners for the length of their legs? because we have evolved long calves and short feet to improve balance. When you are on a bike, you are no longer a biped. You are now a quadraped pushing levers with your feet. About as far removed as possible from a biped swinging free weights around with his arms.."
And this:
"You do KB swings flatfooted so you can apply force against to floor from your heels or toes to balance. This is impossible when you're standing on a spindle."
Would you care to actually respond to those points, or are we just gonna sling insults around all day?
I assume its something to do being un-alert and off balance?
Also, I responded to all of your points which you chose to ignore, please go back and re-read my replies.
Plus, you think that any positive feedback is simply made up so there is really no use discussing it with you anymore since there is no changing your mind.
"Again, what is your training and background in this area?"
I've asked the same question to you several times and never received a reply. Are you a PT by background? Any accreditation, membership with professional bodies, education, etc? There doesn't seem to be any info on the website.
To be fair it sounds like no-one in this discussion has any physiology/ biomechanics background and it has run its course like any other PB comments section
I have also discussed my thoughts on this pedal with a lot of very smart people with many more letters behind my name and they all agree with my conclusions. If you have some thoughts on my the theory behind my pedal I am always looking for input, I have just spent a lot of time researching this subject and thinking about it and I am pretty confident that I have an answer for any objection that gets raised. I know that sounds cocky but I would not have put in the considerable time and money it took to get this pedal to market if I felt there was a hole in its performance.
Also maybe do a science search and you might be surprised - there is a lot of scientific publications in all aspects of bicycle design and manufacturer, not exactly my area, but carbon fibre research has been booming over the last decade - even specific to bicycles... so yes much of my bike has been scientifically authenticate for example:
Carbon fiber in bicycle frames (and other things) nearly a 1000 citations:
science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6119/535.short
Do you also want me to find studies for bicycle suspension, dampers, brakes, gearing... you name it, it's available.
Anyone with a PhD has had experience with the peer review process being a complete failure -- because reviewers are very often subject to their own bias, or they are just plain lazy or stupid. It happens all the time. I'm in the PhD club too, and, in my field, i have learned that real life experience trumps a fresh PhD almost every time for practical things (materials science and engineering).
Let's get away from the "absolute" of peer review... because it is certainly not. And if you only entertain thoughts you read in peer reviewed journals (or text books), then i have doubts about your ability to really think about anything at all.
Also, I have these pedals, and they feel much more secure than standard size pedals. BUT, I have a tiny foot, not a oversized giant one. (size 8-8.5 lol). so clearly, My opinion doesn't matter.
Also, anyone with legitimate input to give on a pedal design probably wouldn't do so in the middle of pinkbike comment flame wars. xD
Bombing down I agree being up on the balls of the feet feel the best, in order to instantly change the body position for better cornering or center of gravity. But the beauty of flats is that you can position your foot to suit your needs.
I don't dispute that maximum peak force through the pedals could be applied with a mid-foot position, but this is a fallacious argument; you may as well say the same thing about jumping wearing _socks_..."since the sole of your foot does not break contact with the inside of your sock then your lower leg acts much differently".
As you can only apply force through the contact points between the bike and the ground, the _whole bike_ is essentially an extension of your foot. Ignoring the effects of the bicycle suspension, every time you hit a bump, or take off or land a jump, the forces are more akin to jumping than kettle bell swings.
Even if the argument were not fallacious in this respect, there are other issues, because cycling (whether MTB or road) is rarely a case of application of maximum peak force to the pedal. If you were doing kettle bell swings for four hours straight it might be a bit more comparable, but who knows, the only people who have ever tried this either died of boredom or were murdered by a 'roid raging group of CrossFitters for 'doing it wrong'. At sub-maximal power, you can develop higher pedal speed by extending through the ankle - I find it much harder to recover from losing traction on a climb if I'm in the mid-foot position. I can also spin faster for a sustained period as the centre of mass of my leg doesn't have to move as far if some of the spindle movement is taken up by flexing at the ankle. And when you want to jump, you can apply force for longer because you can extend further - peak force may be lower, but you achieve higher velocity (and the same applies on landing). With a normal position, you can get your centre of mass lower and further back.
Aside from all of this, if the mid-foot position really had an advantage, we would have seen it dominate track events by now - but it doesn't.
FWIW, I did run mid foot position (including necessary adjustments to saddle position) on my road and mountain bikes for several months after suffering an achilles rupture, and went back to a 'normal' position when I could because it works better for me most of the time.
- Pedaling them absolutely feels different (for me, that's a good thing because I wanted to try this new idea).
- It changes how the foot delivers force to the pedal - it's not the size so much as it providing a solid base to both the front & back of the foot.
- As others have stated, it forces me to use the big muscles (at minimum, they will be great for training)
- I feel solid on the bike.
I get the sense that these pedals will force me to use proper form in cornering & attack, and may require that I have proper mobility in general. I'm really curious to try these on the trail, but living in CO that hasn't happened yet. I'm glad I bought the pedals because I know they will benefit my training, and I'm pretty sure they will have a place on my bike on the trail - maybe not every ride, but at least for some.
Because the pedal is now asymmetrical it is designed to be used with the longer section forward of the spindle. When you remove your foot from the pedal the longer section of the pedal will rotate to the bottom (assuming good bearings) so when you go to place your foot back on the pedal will the pedal now be in the wrong position with the long section of the pedal now behind the spindle? I think it would be a pain in the ass always repositioning the pedal to make sure the long section was forward of the spindle. I changed from clips to flats because I like to be able to stomp straight back onto the pedal and go, not fiddle around to make sure the pedal is aligned in the optimal pedalling orientation.
If enough people start moving their foot forward an inch or two on their pedals, how will this affect top tube length? I believe that the seat should come forward as much as the foot to proper pedal, foot & knee alignment to prevent knee injury, so effectively reach is shortened, all other things being equal.
Also, does anyone wonder if moving the foot forward on the pedal makes it more likely that you'll experience an overuse injury at the hip rather than the ankle or knee?
/end discussion
As an example, try to do a set of kettlebell swings while on the balls of your feet. You will feel unbalanced and awkward trying to create and absorb that energy. This is why we do swings with the heels down - since your foot isn't coming off the ground it works better if the heels stay down.
This is a very misunderstood subject in the cycling world and a lot of the analogies used to explain it are simply wrong and inaccurate. If you are interested I have written a couple of articles on the subject you should check out:
pedalinginnovations.com/avoid-this-critical-foot-position-mistake-and-improve-your-agility-on-the-bike
www.bikejames.com/strength/do-you-really-need-to-push-through-the-ball-of-your-foot-when-you-pedal
Again, I understand what you are saying and I used to think this way too but after researching it for myself I found that this it simply isn't how the foot and lower leg work on the bike.
I do believe you can generate more power with a flat foot but normally when completing a strength move you are only doing a fraction of the repetitions that you would be doing on a bike ride. This stuff is dynamic for sure.
Another comparison, climbing stairs? Flat feet or on the ball?
30 days to beat up on these on a trials bike...might be well worth it to see if all the gym time gets translated more fluidly on the bike...
www.ridebicycles.com/blogs/ride-bicycles/81841921-pedaling-innovations-catalyst-pedals-trail-review
For me , riding in a mid foot position is more about technical riding- putting weight through the BB to pump , generate momentum and make the tyres grip more . Also the heels down stops your from getting your weight pitched forward , which could happen more easily if your weight is on the ball of your foot . I can't see it being quicker than spds for flat/uphill sprints but I thought most people on here wouldn't care about that ?
It's too late anyway it looks like James has managed to brainwash Sam Hill already ...
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Sam-Hill.jpg
They look awful and they cost $120.
They give a rigid enough base that you can use the middle of the foot pedal position already.