# Light Cycling Shoes important or not?



## Ryyder (Aug 3, 2012)

Im about to order some new cycling shoes and wondering is the weight should be consideration?

The shoes Im considering both fit well and I like a lot, but one pair is about 100grams lighter, Also a bit more $. 

Do lighter cycling shoes make any noticeable difference? Seems silly to ask but we spend so much effort/money on lightening our bikes, especially for the racers and competitive riders shouldn't shoe weight be a consideration also?


----------



## rider9 (May 27, 2011)

IMHO, yes. Do I own light shoes? No. If the lighter shoes are much more expensive, I would go for the heavier ones. But then, I don't race and the only reason I ride is for fitness and fun.


----------



## enzo24 (Jul 8, 2012)

Any weight you can take off anywhere on your bike, body, water bottles, whatever, will make you go up hills faster. Weight would be low on my list of priorities when buying a shoe though. If you do go for lighter shoes, make sure you aren't sacrificing any sole stiffness. I have a feeling there may be more affordable ways to take off 100g, too. Some of those high-end shoes are mighty pricey.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

If you are not a Cat 2, you will just be spending money.

If you want to go up hills faster, train more.
.
.
.


----------



## Ryyder (Aug 3, 2012)

The price difference is only $50 and since I spend a lot more than that to drop 100grams on my bikes, why not drop weight on the shoes right? Its actually 100grams per shoe I think


----------



## Old Man (Apr 8, 2012)

NO, fit and durability is more important. I have had my share of lightweight shoes and they just did not seem as durable. To lose the weight, makers need to sacrifice something.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

I say spend as much money on shoes as you want. It's a direct contact point to your body. Never skimp on bibs, jerseys, jackets, shoes, socks, chamois cream, gloves, and saddle. 

Losing the weight on the shoes is always cheaper than losing them in the pedals. And buying nice shoes is always more satisfactory than a nice pedal.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

While weight should not be the #1 consideration in a shoe, the weight does matter. It as the same impact as your pedal+cleat weight.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

The weight is the last thing to consider for cycling shoes.
their fit is *much* more important. As well as a sole stiffness (not due to a better power transfer but due to a better feel on long rides). 


Ryyder said:


> Im about to order some new cycling shoes and wondering is the weight should be consideration?
> 
> The shoes Im considering both fit well and I like a lot, but one pair is about 100grams lighter, Also a bit more $.
> 
> Do lighter cycling shoes make any noticeable difference? Seems silly to ask but we spend so much effort/money on lightening our bikes, especially for the racers and competitive riders shouldn't shoe weight be a consideration also?


----------



## desertgeezer (Aug 28, 2011)

I was in a Pearl Izumi outlet store the other day. I picked up a pair of $250 shoes and was only able to detect a slight difference in weight from my Giro whatevers at $100 a pair. I'm sure the expensive shoes are lighter, but it sure didn't feel like a $150 difference.


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

My Mavic Huez shoes fit great and are very light and I only paid $150. I'd recommend trying them. I got them based on fit and price, their weight was just a perk for me.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Expensive shoes are differentiated from cheap one not only - and even not mostly - by weight. Soles (material and construction), a upper material, closure devices, ventilation, fit, ... - you name it.




desertgeezer said:


> I was in a Pearl Izumi outlet store the other day. I picked up a pair of $250 shoes and was only able to detect a slight difference in weight from my Giro whatevers at $100 a pair. I'm sure the expensive shoes are lighter, but it sure didn't feel like a $150 difference.


----------



## Newnan3 (Jul 8, 2011)

I used to ride with sidi mtb shoes that were noticeably heavier than the shoes that replaced them when held in my hands. On the bike I really cant tell the difference though. The newer shoes do feel stiffer but theyre road shoes....


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

You realize you're talking about 3.5 ounces, right? How much difference could that make. I echo the posts above that say a stiff sole (carbon fiber) and a good fit should be your primary concerns. I'd also suggest that you visit the weight weenies forum.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

I own a set of specialized sworks road and they were expensive. They are light, but it was the last thing on my mind when I purchased them. I liked the look and the wide fit was perfect for my feet, tose were my main concern.


----------



## Ryyder (Aug 3, 2012)

Mr. Versatile said:


> You realize you're talking about 3.5 ounces, right? How much difference could that make. I echo the posts above that say a stiff sole (carbon fiber) and a good fit should be your primary concerns. I'd also suggest that you visit the weight weenies forum.


Im talking about almost half a pound, its over 100 grams per shoe. If you think that amount is insignificant you obviously must not do any competitive cycling. Like I've said already they both fit/feel great and neither seems to have an advantage fit or feel wise. The only noticeable difference being $50 more for the lighter ones.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

IMHO, the weight is MUCH less important than fit. Remember the shoes are basically attached to your cranks, so the weight that is being lifted on the rising upward stroke pedal is equal to the weight being pushed down by gravity on the downward stroke pedal. 200 grams off total bike+rider system weight has only a negligible effect in most cases.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

Ryyder said:


> Im about to order some new cycling shoes and wondering is the weight should be consideration?
> 
> The shoes Im considering both fit well and I like a lot, but one pair is about 100grams lighter, Also a bit more $.
> 
> Do lighter cycling shoes make any noticeable difference? Seems silly to ask but we spend so much effort/money on lightening our bikes, especially for the racers and competitive riders shouldn't shoe weight be a consideration also?


If they both fit, then yes, the lighter shoes will make a very noticeable difference. And 100 grams for the shoes is a significant difference. They're in direct contact with your body, you're having to move them directly, they ain't gonna move unless you move them. 
I'm stuck wearing a heavy pair of Carnac Legends. I haven't yet found a light pair that are wide enough. If I do, I'll switch in a second.


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

Ryyder said:


> Do lighter cycling shoes make any noticeable difference?


They make as much difference as lighter pedals, lighter brakes, lighter frame or "lighter anything": they make no difference whatsoever by themselves, but they can make some difference as part of the system of lightweight components (where weight savings from each component add up to something more noticeable).

If you decided to lighten your entire bike by improving everything that can be improved, then choosing lighter shoes makes perfect sense. But if you are only considering the shoes and nothing else, then it will make no difference at all. Better select the shoes by the level of comfort, not by their weight.

Of course, as long as we are talking about a well-made modern bike, the weight of the bike is a completely inconsequential parameter. Its effects fall well below the "noise level" of a typical road ride, meaning that they are not detectable outside of exotic laboratory conditions and measurement environments.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Shoes are rotating mass so it's probably as important as light wheels. But not as important as fit.


----------



## BigBassMan (Aug 3, 2012)

I just bought a set of Bontrager bike shoes for $140 and love them!!


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

velodog said:


> Shoes are rotating mass so it's probably as important as light wheels. But not as important as fit.


The importance of rotating mass considerations is determined by the magnitude of RPM change and the distance from the axis of rotation. 

Lighter wheels are not very important, but it is easy to make a theoretical point for lighter wheels in light of the above considerations.

In case of shoes the "rotating mass" considerations play no detectable role at all (unless unless your cranks are half a meter long and you go from 0 to 500 rpm of cadence in an instant).


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

*Blow your budget*

Shoes and pedals are the most important contact point on the bike because they impact both comfort and performance. Blow your budget IMO


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

AndreyT said:


> The importance of rotating mass considerations is determined by the magnitude of RPM change and the distance from the axis of rotation.
> 
> Lighter wheels are not very important, but it is easy to make a theoretical point for lighter wheels in light of the above considerations.
> 
> In case of shoes the "rotating mass" considerations play no detectable role at all (unless unless your cranks are half a meter long and you go from 0 to 500 rpm of cadence in an instant).


Light wheels are only theoretically important and light shoes make no nevermind, so that makes light shoes just as important as light wheels, just like I said.

At 6' and 185lbs I never did much go in for weight weenieism.:thumbsup:


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Significance*



Ryyder said:


> Im talking about almost half a pound, its over 100 grams per shoe. If you think that amount is insignificant you obviously must not do any competitive cycling. Like I've said already they both fit/feel great and neither seems to have an advantage fit or feel wise. The only noticeable difference being $50 more for the lighter ones.


A 150 lb (68 kg) rider on a 6% grade putting out 250 watts will be 15 seconds faster every hour of climbing by saving 200 grams. At 350 watts, the savings will be 13 seconds per hour of climbing. If these numbers are significant for you, then certainly spend the $$ to save the 200 gm.


----------



## Ryyder (Aug 3, 2012)

*significance*



Kerry Irons said:


> A 150 lb (68 kg) rider on a 6% grade putting out 250 watts will be 15 seconds faster every hour of climbing by saving 200 grams. At 350 watts, the savings will be 13 seconds per hour of climbing. If these numbers are significant for you, then certainly spend the $$ to save the 200 gm.


A typical weight weenie spends roughly $1000 per pound of weight cut. So for me to be able to save almost 1/2 pound for only an additional $50 seems pretty significant.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

Ryyder said:


> A typical weight weenie spends roughly $1000 per pound of weight cut. So for me to be able to save almost 1/2 pound for only an additional $50 seems pretty significant.


It seems as though you have your mind made up which begs the question; why are you asking us?


----------



## Saikidodo (Jul 7, 2008)

Can always drop the weight from the heaviest part of the bike - you! But if you're one of those slim Italian physique types then maybe shoes is the only place to lose weight? But at the end of the day, its your money. Do whatever you want with it. As long as its a good fit :thumbsup:


----------



## Ryyder (Aug 3, 2012)

Mr. Versatile said:


> It seems as though you have your mind made up which begs the question; why are you asking us?


Made up my mind about what? The question was "are light cycling shoes important", as in would they make a noticeable difference like say lighter wheels, tires etc....

Because I made a statement about the costs of cutting weight, I don't see how you draw the conclusion that my mind was made up.

Unless your one of those forum regulars that loves to make new members look like idiots for asking simple questions that are "so below you"... Maybe those people should keep their snarky replays to themselves.


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

Ryyder said:


> Because I made a statement about the costs of cutting weight, I don't see how you draw the conclusion that my mind was made up.


Your statement was "So for me to be able to save almost 1/2 pound for only an additional $50 seems pretty significant."

If you are claiming that it is, indeed, significant it does _sound_ like you have made up your mind to buy them...at least that it is worth the cash outlay. Nothing wrong with that, but most people don't like being asked for help, and then having the "helpee" come back at them with arguments for why they are wrong.

Using the weight weenies $1000/pound number doesn't necessarily make this deal worth it, just cheaper than what some people would pay for a similar weight loss. Just remember, there are plenty of people on that site that run absolutely terrible tires called Tufos simply because they are light, even though their performance is simply horrible. Using their logic to justify a purchase may not be the best idea, and I say that as someone who is a member over there.

As for light shoes, I like them, but as others have said, fit and stiffness are both FAR more important qualities to consider. As AndreyT said, they are no more or less important than lightweight pedals as they are part of the same system.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Ryyder said:


> Made up my mind about what? The question was "are light cycling shoes important", as in would they make a noticeable difference like say lighter wheels, tires etc....
> 
> Because I made a statement about the costs of cutting weight, I don't see how you draw the conclusion that my mind was made up.
> 
> Unless your one of those forum regulars that loves to make new members look like idiots for asking simple questions that are "so below you"... Maybe those people should keep their snarky replays to themselves.


Make a noticeable difference in what exactly?

I train my ass off to eek out every last stupid watt to be able to be competitive (subjective) in road events. When I'm absolutely dying, on the rivet and watching the best guys ride away from me up that last climb I'm 100% sure 200g off my shoes will make no noticeable difference in my performance to close that gap.

I'm 100% sure they will make zero difference when you need to close a gap on the flats.


----------



## Ryyder (Aug 3, 2012)

xjbaylor said:


> If you are claiming that it is, indeed, significant it does _sound_ like you have made up your mind to buy them...at least that it is worth the cash outlay. Nothing wrong with that, but most people don't like being asked for help, and then having the "helpee" come back at them with arguments for why they are wrong.
> .


I wasn't telling anyone they are wrong. I was simply saying; the people that think 1/2 a pound is totally insignificant, they must not do much racing. In competitive mt biking, guys i ride with spend lots of time and money getting their full suspension 29ers down to 23-24lb range for racing and competitive purposes, and for those type of competitors 1/2 lb is huge! My thought it that 1/2 of weight on the rider might be very insignificant BUT then started thinking 1/2 lb of riding shoes might actually be significant afterall, since it is part of the drivetrain in a sense, especially since were clipped in... Thats why i asked others thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

_"The shoes I'm considering both fit well & I like, but one pair is about 100 grams lighter" _

*I'm not very good at math, but the last I knew there were 2 shoes in a pair. That would equal about 50 grams per shoe or about 3.5 ounces per shoe.*

_I'm talking about almost a half a pound, it's over 100 grams per shoe."_

*I'm not saying that's untrue, but you have to admit it's certainly different from your 1st post*

_If you think that amount is insignificant you must not do any competitive riding."_

*It's probably just me but, I thought maybe there was a little condescending tone in that last statement. At any rate I'm guilty as charged. I raced a lot in the mid 60s through the late 70s & eventually worked my way up to cat 2. I'll be 70 in a few months & no longer compete because I just don't feel like it. I'mm in 2 cycling clubs both of which have very spirited rides. They're not actually competition. Sometimes I join in. Anyway, if your comment was not meant to be condescending I apologize in advance.*

_"Unless you're one of those forum regulars..."_

*Jeez! Guilty again.*

_"...that loves to make new members look like idiots for asking simple questions that are "so below you."_

*Nah, that's not me. I've been riding for a very long time & I still have lots to learn. There are several reasons I'm a regular at these forums. One is to learn, another is to help other cyclists when I can, & also I like the camaraderie. It's likely I could have couched my post in more "gentle" phrasing. One of my personality defects, & I'm not sure it's a defect, is if you don't want to know what I really think, don't ask me because I'll tell you.

Anyway...I'm ready to play nice if you are.*


----------



## j.carney.tx (Jun 15, 2011)

I went from a casual mountain bike shoe (leather-ish upper, rubber sole) and mtb pedals to SIDI SDS (sidi design, other manufacturer) road shoes and Look KEO pedals. 

MUCH lighter, and a lot more comfortable. However, if asking about a minimal difference from one road shoe to another, probably not so important.


----------



## Ryyder (Aug 3, 2012)

Mr. Versatile said:


> _"The shoes I'm considering both fit well & I like, but one pair is about 100 grams lighter" _
> 
> Anyway...I'm ready to play nice if you are.[/B]


The weight was per shoe, 110grams per shoe.

Im not into those "I'm right your wrong" inter web discussions, So lets not make assumptions as to intended tone.

It just didn't sound like you were into competitive cycling based on your response, no harm intended.


----------



## xjbaylor (Dec 28, 2006)

Ryyder said:


> I wasn't telling anyone they are wrong. I was simply saying; the people that think 1/2 a pound is totally insignificant, they must not do much racing. In competitive mt biking, guys i ride with spend lots of time and money getting their full suspension 29ers down to 23-24lb range for racing and competitive purposes, and for those type of competitors 1/2 lb is huge! My thought it that 1/2 of weight on the rider might be very insignificant BUT then started thinking 1/2 lb of riding shoes might actually be significant afterall, since it is part of the drivetrain in a sense, especially since were clipped in... Thats why i asked others thoughts on the matter.


1/2 pound is not huge. Their PERCEPTION is that it is a huge amount. It is expensive to make a light bike 1/2 pound lighter, but the difference, in actual performance numbers, is not that significant as proved by Kerry Irons. 

From my point of view someone telling people that 1/2 lb is HUGE in racing is the one that isn't seriously knowledgeable about racing. The very fact that full-squish bikes and hardtails race side by side (both successfully) should tell to that there are far too many variable to focus that much on weight. I will also promise you this. In an endurance race I promise you that a hot-spot caused by an ill-fitting shoe will cost you a lot more time than 1/2 lb of weight.

1/2 pound is a difference, and it is a _measurable difference_, but it is _not a huge difference_. I am a borderline weight weenie and I can tell you that the appreciable difference between a 23 and 24 pound MTB is bragging rights. Nothing more.

And for the record, I think you should get the shoes if they fit and you want them. I ride in S-Works shoes and I love them. But I don't notice a difference in weight when I switch to my Serfas Podium rain shoes, though the difference is most definitely there.


----------



## Ryyder (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks for your replays everyone!


----------



## ajdo101 (Aug 8, 2012)

Nowadays one can purchase light "anything" that also fits well. Just depends on $$$


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

I had some heavy older generation Carnacs and then saw some Mavic shoes on sale online and bought them. They are much lighter, and though I doubt it makes much difference technically, psychologically I perceive my feet feel lighter, easier to spin.


----------



## stringcatt (Jun 20, 2009)

*Maybe the most important*



Ryyder said:


> Im about to order some new cycling shoes and wondering is the weight should be consideration?
> 
> A pro cyclist will stay off of his/her legs as much as possible. Why? Because they will fill with fluids;water and blood. They rotate like your wheels. Cyclist rarely attend the opening ceremonies at the Olympics, why? See above. Levitate your laegs as often as possible.
> 
> So the shoe is important but train with something heavier


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

My body weight can vary a half pound a day, or perhaps even more. However, as with many things, add a half pound here and there, and eventually it all adds up. 

Most of my riding is casual commuting, touring, and fun rides. After years of using casual street shoes and toeclips, I've finally made the leap to clipless.

I've chosen SPD pedals, and low top MTB Casual shoes because I can wear them for more than just riding my bicycle. It may not be optimal, but they work well for me. Now, if I could just remember where I put my leather racing shoes, I may actually try my new cleats on them, but they certainly were not fun to walk in when I last used them.


----------



## cnardone (Jun 28, 2014)

When i played softball and took it seriously, I'd pay a lot more than $50 for a bat that hit the ball just a little harder. So, I understand if I was serious about competing, 10 seconds and hours saved would be worth the $50 to me. 

As a fun / get healthy rider, I'd put that $50 against another pair of shorts so I don't have to do wash as often!


----------



## obed (Jan 12, 2014)

from reading your posts I am convinced that the weight of the shoe is important to you. So buy the damn things and be done with it.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> If you are not a Cat 2, you will just be spending money.
> 
> If you want to go up hills faster, train more.
> 
> ...


Or better yet, shed weight off the engine. :wink:


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

obed said:


> from reading your posts I am convinced that the weight of the shoe is important to you. So buy the damn things and be done with it.


He probably already did, since this discussion was two years ago. And he's probably not listening to you, since he went away and hasn't posted since then.


----------



## bikepro (Jan 22, 2006)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> If you are not a Cat 2, you will just be spending money.
> 
> If you want to go up hills faster, train more.
> .
> ...


+1 Shoes are like saddles. It is more important that they be comfortable than be light. If they are both, fine, otherwise choose comfort.


----------



## TJay74 (Sep 9, 2012)

I don't worry about shoe weight at all, I am more worried about stiffness and power transfer and comfort. 

With that I ride in Specialized S-Works in both my road and MTB shoes and love them.


----------



## Rekless1 (Aug 23, 2012)

Hmm.... pretty old thread. 

Anywho...

I think shoe weight matters enough to consider. I also think the weight 'adds' up over time on the bike contributing to fatigue, probably when you need it most.

And for the record, if $50 will buy me a 15 second lead on someone who was otherwise equal to me in every other regard, after only 20 miles on the bike, YES ma'am...please may I have another.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

JCavilia said:


> He probably already did, since this discussion was two years ago. And he's probably not listening to you, since he went away and hasn't posted since then.


It takes me months to buy something. I have to research and read reviews. Then I have to read reviews of the reviewer to see it the review I read was a real review.

So, a good 8-16 months are needed to find out if the thing I want is worth it. By that time, a new version of that thing is out. So, then I have to read the reviews and comparisons of the new vs old.

All be told, if I'd just get off this stupid computer and ride more, I'd be faster than getting the "best" thing out there.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Sole stiffness is far more important, followed by comfort. A stiff sole will be more efficient at power transfer. 50 grams of weight just won't be noticed.


----------



## jajichan (Jul 9, 2014)

I'd get the lighter shoes. 

Generally the lightest shoes are the ones without the fancy buckle. Velcro straps are about as light as you can get, and sometimes those velcro strap shoes are cheaper than the fancy buckle ones. 

But for 50 bucks, I'd go lighter. Especially if the weight is that significant


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Fit is important of course, stiffness is paramount. Comfort is tertiary... But if you are going to be concerned with weight, this has to be one of the most logical places to matter? You lift those feet a bazillion times every ride. 1/2 lb may be insignificant in many respects, but if you are concerned with lightening up by 1/2 lb this would a great place to take that savings, IMO, my unprofessional opinion... Dead thread or not, I think a lot of people will be interested in this thread. Save the weight.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

Matters to this guy and he has completed 8 consecutive Grand Tours and counting.

Cycling Shoes | Hanseeno


----------



## 1500SLR (Sep 30, 2018)

You can spend $300-$400 on a shoe such as my Shimano S-Phyre compared to my heavy shoe that weighs 500grams you can shave 250grams per shoe and that's 250grams each coming off your bike. Where my bike weighs 8.5kg and with shoes it weight 9.5kg it now weighs just 9kg with shoes on (thats 19lb down from 20lb). But it's only going to make you quicker if you can ride quicker while going up hill and every bit of weight you save off your bike is a law of diminishing returns. Mind you you're talking about the difference in weight between a $100 shoe and a $300-$400 shoe and you can save weight cheaper by buying a nice stem and seat post for $400 first before you go down that path way.

I have noted new Strava PBs as I've made my bike lighter but that's me, it might not be you... it depends on how much you're training and how much of a fat ass you are. But when you head towards 8-9kg then the overall weight of your bike becomes fairly inconsequential, unless your a pro where every second gained counts. Then of course making your bike weight UCI legal will give you time gains of 30seconds over the duration of an entire race, if you're quick enough to pedal that fast.

That said there are other reasons to have more expensive shoes. Such as BOA clips. I wasn't sold at first but when you consider that you can have a clip that makes sure that the tension in your shoe is perfect within a click of comfort then it becomes something beneficial. I found with velcro straps it was a matter of having things too loose or too tight. With BOA clips you can dial in your comfort within a couple of clicks and never feel like you've got your shoes on too tight.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

*thread*


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

ewitz said:


> Matters to this guy and he has completed 8 consecutive Grand Tours and counting.
> 
> Cycling Shoes | Hanseeno


I'm not sure a well known world tour pro with famously eccentric tastes in gear is the best comparison to make here.

Also, lots of people here are comparing extremely high end shoes to extremely heavy low end shoes to exaggerate the differences here. Mid range / inexpensive cycling shoes are really good and really light these days. I recently got a pair of 2018 Shimano RC7s: very comfortable shoes (YMMV), very stiff, very light and can be had for $120.


----------

