Following up on a thread where I didn’t get too many bites. Hoping maybe @mcneese.chad may be able to give some insight on this front. I’ve found at least one prior thread on this subject, but I find myself still a little unclear on the best approach.
In paying more attention to my feet, it turns out my right foot (dominant foot) is substantially smaller than the other, maybe almost 1cm or a whole shoe size or so. In fact, a somewhat recent fit with a reputable fitter pegged the size difference as a 1.5 size discrepancy (46, versus 44.5). Not really sure how I missed this for nearly 40 years, but here we are.
I have a tendency to drop that hip down and forward, and I always thought it was due to some pelvic imbalance or leg length issue. However, could my smaller foot be to blame? All other things being equal (leg length shoe size, etc.), if a rider has one smaller/shorter foot, wouldn’t that make that leg “act” shorter? Wouldn’t it also make the foot want to “slide forward” in the shoe over the pedal a bit, also pulling that hip down and forward?
If I’m right on this, wouldn’t this make the logical solution to shim the shorter/smaller foot? If so, do you shim the same amount as the foot length discrepancy?
I know some people recommend staggering the cleat forward on the shorter foot. However, this seems problematic to me. After all, staggering cleats would just make the smaller foot potentially more unstable, as the cleat is already effectively farther forward relative to the metatarsals and overall foot length. This is especially true if your shoe for the smaller foot is already a bit “accidentally” too big. Moving it forward even more would just create more problems, right?
Any fitters with experience in this realm to share? Good solutions?
Maybe, but not as a rule. The very first question is exactly how you put on and strap down the shoe on that smaller foot. Also keep in mind that depending on your actual ankle angle through the bottom of the stroke, it may or may not make that much difference WRT leg extension. There is more to this issue then simple math of sizes, unfortunately.
As someone with a size 9 left foot and 8.5 right foot, I live with this basic issue. Specifically, I deal with it doing two things that work for me, but may not be right for everyone:
I put on both shoes and “bang” the heel on the ground to seat both heels firmly in the shoe’s heel cup. Then I tighten the shoes down as appropriate. As such, my shorter foot is located to my body and the bike with respect toe the heel. This is important to note as it relates to point 2 below.
Because of #1 above, I move the cleat on my shoe more rearward on the right shoe. The goal is proper placement of the pedal cleat with respect to my actual foot on both feet (different sizes), not the shoe (same size). #1 sets heel as consistent location, so the ball of my big toe (as the landmark for cleat placement) is further to wards the heel on the right foot. I do this to maintain “even” loading on my feet and calves particularly.
This is my personal take and I have not handled this issue with any of my other clients, so I have just that and gut feel for other possible recommendations.
Man, @mcneese.chad, you are quick on the replies! Many thanks for your input!!
Interestingly enough, I do things a little different than you, but with a similar goal. I put a heel insert/pad into the shoe of my shorter foot, to move my foot forward a little in the shoe. My thinking is that I already prefer my cleats as far back as possible, and the shoe size discrepancy throws off the cleat position relative to my metatarsals of the shorter foot if my foot is “jammed back” in the shoe. Therefore, I’m trying to keep the cleat of my shorter foot in a good position, and avoid my shorter foot sliding around in the shoe.
With the foregoing in mind, this is why I started to consider whether a shorter foot makes the corresponding leg “act” shorter as well. Effectively, I’ve simply got a shorter lever below my leg/ankle on the right side, which increases how much that leg has to “make up” in extension at the bottom of the stroke. Given I tend to drop my right hip down and forward at saddle heights that don’t seem crazy for my inseam/height, this got me thinking about whether some sort of shim might be a potential solution given the way I set up my cleats.
OK, considering that you are effectively pulling the short foot forward, that all makes sense to me. Seems a shim (or two) would an easy thing to try. I’d buy some spacers and just put them in. The ones I use come in 3mm steps, and I’d try one to start for a quick test.
Looking for some one to help convince my self I’m not crazy, because I swear I read it once, and can see and feel it but can’t measure it or find my source again… i think the ultegra hydro mechanical hoods are shorter by ~1cm than the sram eTap Axs levers in terms of reach correct?
I’m trying to compare 2 previous bike fits reach values and am thinking that reach difference is where my discrepancy is coming from
I rode 2017 SRAM Rival mechanical hydro and the 2018 Ultegra Mechanical (same as current design) and I would say it is opposite….the Shimano is longer.
I wasn’t really sure what to measure on the two so I measured the distance between the imaginary parallel line from the upright portion of the hood, along the centerline of the tops, to where it intersects with the horizontal center line of the deepest part of the drop (pardon my toddler level drawing skills)
For a sram red eTap axs shifter that distance is ~4.3 cm. For an ultegra mechanical 8600 that is 3.2cm. It’s nothing official but I guess it will have to do.
Anyone have ideas / calculator to adjust seat height for different Q-Factors? Right now my road bike and Stages SB20 have the exact same position - down to my ability using the VeloAngle, saddle, and pedals, but I get knee issues on the SB20. So I’m wondering if the slightly wider Q-Factor which effectively raises the saddle could be the issue.
Assuming a standard Ultegra crank, Q factor is 146mm and @dcrainmaker has the SB20 at 157mm.
I’d experiment by pushing the cleats outboard, to bring the feet inboard but maintain the longitudinal and rotational position.
Could also try looking down when pedalling and see if the knee when at the top of the pedal stroke is tracking further out, maybe a video from the front on both setups to confirm.
A picture of the cleats and soles of the shoe showing current position would be interesting.
Thanks for the Q-F info. It’s a notable difference.
To the original question, even at that stance width change (assuming the same shoe and cleat position) a change in effective saddle height would probably be just a few mm’s. I can run a triangle calculation estimate later, but if we assumed a right triangle with the angled hypotenuse with just 5.5mm short line would only be a few mm longer than the other straight line, at a typical saddle height of 700mm or more. Essentially, I don’t think saddle height is the issue here.
As mentioned above, I feel the key here is stance width. If at all possible, two pairs of shoes is best. That way you can make the ones on the wide Q-F setup with the cleats set wider which places the feet narrower.
Much of this depends on the current placement of your cleats on the shoes. But considering the Q-F delta, I don’t think it makes sense to use the same shoes and cleat position on both.
Right now I have one pair of road shoes that I use both on my road bike and the SB20. I’m getting another pair of shoes, so once those are setup I can setup the cleats on the SB20 shoes in the narrow Q-Factor position.
The pain is on the outside of the knee, and starts just below the knee cap and runs up the IT band - it’s a little worse today, even with no riding.
Also, depending on what cleat system you are using, if you need to reduce the width more than the lateral cleat adjustment allows, there are these SQLab pedals that offer a 5mm narrower stance.
Not conclusive, but this sure can be a result of a wider stance width.
Do a simple test with your feet flat on the floor, at a “normal” standing width for you. Then slightly wiggle your feet about the same 11mm [1/2"] wider and feel what you can tell around your knees. This widening along with the still “flat fee” as we get in clipless pedals can add tension to the outer part of our legs, tendons and muscles.
All that to try and demonstrate that wider stance might be the source of your pain. It will be interesting to hear what happens with your 2nd set of shoes and cleats setup with more narrow stance. Hoping it solves the issue, but be sure to report back.
Take your inseam length (feet in socks on the floor to crotch height) and multiply by 0.833.
Use that value as the set distance between the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the saddle.
I can’t find hard info on the precise location set on the saddle, so I question
Is that distance is to the middle of the saddle length?
Or is that distance regardless of saddle length fore-aft position, measured thru the center of the seat tube?
Either of those will impact the end results. I consider setback a fairly personal thing and something that would only be impacted by a seat tube change if you are unable to reach a desired value as a result of limits on saddle fore-aft range in the rails, coupled with the setback value of the seat post.
I will add, that the Lemond method ignores at least 2 large variables:
Actual bike crank length is ignored or assumed to be “normal” at 172.5mm? Either way, this could be a real issue for some riders with longer or shorter than “normal” cranks.
This also ignores the true range of motion that each rider has in their pedaling. Ankle angle is the most visible one and not everyone “ankles” the same, so that should not be ignored.
Essentially, this like so many other “quick” methods has some issues and anyone using it should recognize it as a start only, not an end in most cases.
That’s why it’s more of a starting point. I’ve seen some fitters say take the rear of the saddle and measure 120mm from there to a point toward the nose. Use that as the measuring point.
