Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

TECH NEWS

Mavic’s £900 Comete cycling shoes save 4.2 watts per pedal stroke

How much? Yes it's not a typo, Mavic's new cycling shoes really cost £900

“You could buy a car for that!” was the first response in the office when news reached us from Mavic for its brand new Comete shoes. They cost £900.

The new Comete shoes have been several years in development, the project began in 2011, with Dan Martin integral to the final phase of testing. That’s actually where we first spotted these news shoes, on the feet of the Irish cyclist at last year’s Tour de France. 

mavic comete shoes4.jpg

What sets the Comete shoes apart from all other cycling shoes is a two-piece design inspired by ski boots. A one-piece carbon fibre outer shell keeps the weight low and stiffness high, with large vents and two rotary dials, while a removable padded bootie slips into the carbon shell. It can be removed for washing. 

- The best performance road cycling shoes

mavic comete shoes6.jpg

One of the advantages of the new Comete is a very low stack height (the distance between the pedal and shoe) and lower is generally perceived to be better, as it puts your foot closer to the pedal axle. Mavic has measured it at just 4.5mm. This, and a lower contour at the ankle, provides a claimed 19% increase in the available range of motion.

Stiffness was also one of the key objectives behind the new shoes, motivated by demands of professional cyclists it has sponsored over the years for a shoe with more rigidity for better power transfer without an increase in weight.

mavic comete shoes8.jpg

Of course, a £900 shoe isn’t going to come without some bold performance gains, and Mavic has some good ones. It says, and we’re quoting the press release here, that the Comete “reduces up to 15% the energy cost of the major calf muscles recruited during the pedal stroke” and that this translates to a 4.2 watt saving per pedal stroke. Obviously I need to get me some of these shoes because that’s a pretty serious marginal gain. 

mavic comete shoes claims.png

Yes, we're scratching our heads at the claim of 4.2 watts saved per pedal stroke, so we've contacted Mavic for confirmation. 

There’s a small catch. Mavic admits that the performance gains come at the expense of comfort. It’s also not possible to fit 100% of existing foot shapes, and it’s offering just six sizes from 40 to 47.5. The size is adjusted via the insole.

mavic comete shoes9.jpg

The Comete shoes aren’t going to be hitting the shops until 15th April and availability will be limited. At £900 we can’t see demand outstripping supply but we’re really interested to see what they’re like and how they compared to regular high-end shoes from the likes of Sidi, Bont, Lake, Shimano et all.

Yes they’re jolly expensive, you could get these John Lobb black leather shoes for £840 and save yourself a few quid, but they’d be rubbish on the race bike. 

So what do you think? Will you be saving up for them?

 

 

David worked on the road.cc tech team from 2012-2020. Previously he was editor of Bikemagic.com and before that staff writer at RCUK. He's a seasoned cyclist of all disciplines, from road to mountain biking, touring to cyclo-cross, he only wishes he had time to ride them all. He's mildly competitive, though he'll never admit it, and is a frequent road racer but is too lazy to do really well. He currently resides in the Cotswolds, and you can now find him over on his own YouTube channel David Arthur - Just Ride Bikes

Add new comment

50 comments

Avatar
Nicolas_GREGOIRE | 7 years ago
3 likes

Hello,

 

My name is Nicolas GREGOIRE (you can call me Nico) and I am in charge of biomechanics testing for MAVIC. I would like to offer more details and some clarity on the explanation of our claim of saving 4.2 watts per pedal stroke.

 

The goal of one of our tests was to maintain 250 watts for the duration of the test. If we look at the instantaneous power during the pedaling cycle, there is a variation between 70 watts (through the “dead point”) and 400 watts (when the crank is around 90° - in the power phase). With the Comete Ultimate shoes, we discovered less variation (4.2 watts less) due to a more efficient stroke through the dead zone. So, to maintain 250 watts, you require less effort through the power phase. There will be a much more detailed explanation coming in April on mavic.com in our “Engineers Talk”. As we’ve made some bold claims, we are offering you the opportunity to experience this incredible connection to the bike for yourself before you purchase the shoes. At all Comete Ultimate dealers you can reserve a pair for testing through our “Riding is Believing” program starting in mid-April - https://www.mavic.com/en-int/riding-is-believing.

 

Thank you again for the discussion!

Avatar
Rapha Nadal replied to Nicolas_GREGOIRE | 7 years ago
2 likes

Nicolas_GREGOIRE wrote:

Hello,

 

My name is Nicolas GREGOIRE (you can call me Nico) and I am in charge of biomechanics testing for MAVIC. I would like to offer more details and some clarity on the explanation of our claim of saving 4.2 watts per pedal stroke.

 

The goal of one of our tests was to maintain 250 watts for the duration of the test. If we look at the instantaneous power during the pedaling cycle, there is a variation between 70 watts (through the “dead point”) and 400 watts (when the crank is around 90° - in the power phase). With the Comete Ultimate shoes, we discovered less variation (4.2 watts less) due to a more efficient stroke through the dead zone. So, to maintain 250 watts, you require less effort through the power phase. There will be a much more detailed explanation coming in April on mavic.com in our “Engineers Talk”. As we’ve made some bold claims, we are offering you the opportunity to experience this incredible connection to the bike for yourself before you purchase the shoes. At all Comete Ultimate dealers you can reserve a pair for testing through our “Riding is Believing” program starting in mid-April - https://www.mavic.com/en-int/riding-is-believing.

 

Thank you again for the discussion!

More responses like this please.

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to Nicolas_GREGOIRE | 7 years ago
2 likes

Nicolas_GREGOIRE wrote:

Hello,

 

My name is Nicolas GREGOIRE (you can call me Nico) and I am in charge of biomechanics testing for MAVIC. I would like to offer more details and some clarity on the explanation of our claim of saving 4.2 watts per pedal stroke.

 

The goal of one of our tests was to maintain 250 watts for the duration of the test. If we look at the instantaneous power during the pedaling cycle, there is a variation between 70 watts (through the “dead point”) and 400 watts (when the crank is around 90° - in the power phase). With the Comete Ultimate shoes, we discovered less variation (4.2 watts less) due to a more efficient stroke through the dead zone. So, to maintain 250 watts, you require less effort through the power phase. There will be a much more detailed explanation coming in April on mavic.com in our “Engineers Talk”. As we’ve made some bold claims, we are offering you the opportunity to experience this incredible connection to the bike for yourself before you purchase the shoes. At all Comete Ultimate dealers you can reserve a pair for testing through our “Riding is Believing” program starting in mid-April - https://www.mavic.com/en-int/riding-is-believing.

 

Thank you again for the discussion!

 

Guessing minimal cycling shoes will be the nu nu if this catches on. We've had the efficiency in range of motion debate in running for aeons now - barefoot v minimal v cushioned. 

Looking at my first pair of Bonts, the A-3, there's no way that shoe can provide an efficient range of motion for a pedal stroke. Think about the small muscles in your foot that also push on the downstroke, those are almost all totally negated by the boat-like structure of the shoe. 

I'd like to try these Mavics. Pay 900 for the priviledge, never. But definitely up for better cycling shoe design. Got some Empire SLX's at the moment which are much better than Bonts, but definitely we're not really at a stage where cycling shoes are as advanced as running shoes. 

 

Guess with running there's only really shoes to get techy about, besides the clothing fabrics, which is why the shoes are genuinely really amazing these days. Loads of options and a good store can fit you with in house scanning equipment in minutes. With cycling you get a boat like thing, or some traditional bowling shoe shaped thing and everyone's accustomed to that. 

Good to see Mavic pushing it a bit further with the biomechanic angle, not just comfort/weight.

Avatar
rkemb replied to Nicolas_GREGOIRE | 7 years ago
1 like

Nicolas_GREGOIRE wrote:

The goal of one of our tests was to maintain 250 watts for the duration of the test. If we look at the instantaneous power during the pedaling cycle, there is a variation between 70 watts (through the “dead point”) and 400 watts (when the crank is around 90° - in the power phase). With the Comete Ultimate shoes, we discovered less variation (4.2 watts less) due to a more efficient stroke through the dead zone. So, to maintain 250 watts, you require less effort through the power phase. There will be a much more detailed explanation coming in April on mavic.com in our “Engineers Talk”. As we’ve made some bold claims, we are offering you the opportunity to experience this incredible connection to the bike for yourself before you purchase the shoes. At all Comete Ultimate dealers you can reserve a pair for testing through our “Riding is Believing” program starting in mid-April - https://www.mavic.com/en-int/riding-is-believing

Buuuut... you're still putting out 250 watts, so that actual power is the same. That energy/power still has to go in from the rider. Even if the variation between peak and dead point is lower, it's not actually saving any energy. It may be more biomechanically efficient to produce 250 watts this way, but that's not at all quantified by your measurements. The claim is still nonsense.

Avatar
Bob Wheeler CX | 7 years ago
1 like

At what point exactly, did cycling become a hobby for shameless yuppies?

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Bob Wheeler CX | 7 years ago
1 like

Bob Wheeler CX wrote:

At what point exactly, did cycling become a hobby for shameless yuppies?

Janurary 1st 1997

Avatar
matthewn5 replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
1 like

beezus fufoon wrote:

Bob Wheeler CX wrote:

At what point exactly, did cycling become a hobby for shameless yuppies?

Janurary 1st 1997

Janurary 1st 1887 - you got the century wrong.

Avatar
Darkhairedlord | 7 years ago
1 like

If you spend £900 on a pair of shoes you'll look 4.8 million % more of a dick.

Avatar
burtthebike | 7 years ago
1 like

At £900 and 4.2W, that's £214/W.

I'm pretty sure solar panels using gold cables and gemstones would work out cheaper.  But perhaps this is merely the latest demonstration of the amount of money that some people will pay for the latest product.   Fools and and their money?

Avatar
rix | 7 years ago
0 likes

After reading this I feel kinda ashamed that I own two pairs of Mavic shoes...

Avatar
fenix | 7 years ago
3 likes

They don't look very aero to me. You would be bleeding speed there Surely.

Avatar
Morat | 7 years ago
3 likes

But more importanly, are they armoured to take disk strikes?

Avatar
nortonpdj | 7 years ago
1 like

Normally it's the Emperor's new clothes, but this time the Emperor is shopping at the COBBLERS

.....well I thought it was funny....ish...

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago
5 likes

Coming to a coffee stop near you. Will increase interest in your and your bike by 15%. Admirers will use an average of 4.2W more talking about your shoes than they did your last pair, envy will also increase by up to 15%.

Please note - none of the figures have any real world application and you may still get dropped by a fit 17 year old using £80 shoes. Disappointment may then run at 100%.

Avatar
DaveE128 | 7 years ago
2 likes

The "watts per pedals stroke" has already (rightly) been pulled apart. What I was amused by is the "up to 15%" energy saved. That is a bit like "up to 50% off" sale signs, (ususally with the "up to" in tiny writing) which mean that virtually nothing is significantly reduced at all, and is probably a comparison to prices that no-one ever bought the products at anyway.

Is this (up to) 15% compared to deep sea diving boots?  3

Truly a load of marketing doo-dah.

Avatar
Jackson | 7 years ago
2 likes

Everyone's being pedantic. I'm sure they mean 4.2W at steady state (and they probably tested at 40km/hr to inflate the pathetic W figure as far as reasonable). Probably the worst bang for your buck in TT equipment but don't buy a pair. I kinda like the Robocop meets 60 year old German bike tourist in SPD sandals aesthetic though. 

Avatar
DaveE128 replied to Jackson | 7 years ago
1 like

Jackson wrote:

Everyone's being pedantic. I'm sure they mean 4.2W at steady state (and they probably tested at 40km/hr to inflate the pathetic W figure as far as reasonable). Probably the worst bang for your buck in TT equipment but don't buy a pair. I kinda like the Robocop meets 60 year old German bike tourist in SPD sandals aesthetic though. 

Not pedantic at all IMHO. If you're going to make a technical claim about a very expensive product, you should at least get it right. They're talking nonsense and they've been called on it. 

You're making massive assumptions about what the figure is meant to mean, and if you spent £900 on a pair of shoes on the basis of such assumptions, you'd almost certainly be very disappointed.

Agree the aesthetics are quite interesting though.

Avatar
Jackson replied to DaveE128 | 7 years ago
2 likes

DaveE128 wrote:

 

Not pedantic at all IMHO. If you're going to make a technical claim about a very expensive product, you should at least get it right. They're talking nonsense and they've been called on it. 

You're making massive assumptions about what the figure is meant to mean, and if you spent £900 on a pair of shoes on the basis of such assumptions, you'd almost certainly be very disappointed.

Agree the aesthetics are quite interesting though.

How's this hypothetical disappointed Fred who's just bought his £900 shoes going to measure his 4.2W power saving then? With his SRM (accurate to +/-2.5%)? 

We all know technical claims in the bike industry are mostly nonsense, it's all part of the fun. 

Avatar
davel replied to Jackson | 7 years ago
1 like

Jackson wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

 

Not pedantic at all IMHO. If you're going to make a technical claim about a very expensive product, you should at least get it right. They're talking nonsense and they've been called on it. 

You're making massive assumptions about what the figure is meant to mean, and if you spent £900 on a pair of shoes on the basis of such assumptions, you'd almost certainly be very disappointed.

Agree the aesthetics are quite interesting though.

How's this hypothetical disappointed Fred who's just bought his £900 shoes going to measure his 4.2W power saving then? With his SRM (accurate to +/-2.5%)? 

We all know technical claims in the bike industry are mostly nonsense, it's all part of the fun. 

It's the 'per stroke' shit that people are mainly laying into. It's even more pointless and inaccurate than just claiming a 4.2W saving.

Avatar
DaveE128 replied to Jackson | 7 years ago
0 likes

Jackson wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

 

Not pedantic at all IMHO. If you're going to make a technical claim about a very expensive product, you should at least get it right. They're talking nonsense and they've been called on it. 

You're making massive assumptions about what the figure is meant to mean, and if you spent £900 on a pair of shoes on the basis of such assumptions, you'd almost certainly be very disappointed.

Agree the aesthetics are quite interesting though.

How's this hypothetical disappointed Fred who's just bought his £900 shoes going to measure his 4.2W power saving then? With his SRM (accurate to +/-2.5%)? 

We all know technical claims in the bike industry are mostly nonsense, it's all part of the fun. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

Avatar
Rapha Nadal | 7 years ago
1 like

I love the amount of technical experts this board has as members...

Avatar
Gasman Jim | 7 years ago
3 likes

I echo everyone else's views on these shoes; outrageously overpriced, probably uncomfortable and scientifically inaccurate marketing bullshit. Not the first time I've heard this from Mavic...

This reminds me of the time I was buying some new winter socks in my LBS and the Mavic rep happened to be there. He proceedsed to tell me that their top level winter socks kept feet warmer because they had fine copper strands in the material!  Of course I pointed out that this was complete bullshit because copper is an excellent conductor of heat and not an insulator at all, and the copper might actually be there for some antibacterial effect. Poor show when a company's reps can't even hype their own products correctly!

 

Avatar
steviemarco | 7 years ago
2 likes

Doesn't look like the heel protector is replaceable so I'll give them a miss! 

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
0 likes

My inner cynic says we'll be waiting a while...

Avatar
pamplemoose | 7 years ago
2 likes

I give it 2 weeks before you can buy no-name Chinese versions on Ali-Express for 1/10th the price!

Avatar
srchar | 7 years ago
4 likes

You can't save "4.2 watts per pedal stroke". You can save 4.2 watts, or you can save 4.2 joules per pedal stroke.

...which just proves that this bollocks comes from the marketing department rather than anyone with even a passing interest in engineering.

Avatar
Carton replied to srchar | 7 years ago
2 likes

srchar wrote:

You can't save "4.2 watts per pedal stroke". You can save 4.2 watts, or you can save 4.2 joules per pedal stroke.

...which just proves that this bollocks comes from the marketing department rather than anyone with even a passing interest in engineering.

Not necessarily. My take is that the reasearch came up with a saving of up to 4.2W over a pedal stroke. But that the hypothetical savings would actually be less than that 4.2J. See, I'm going to guess that those "savings" were over real or hypothetical (Chris Hoy) maximum of 3,000W over one revolution at 120rpm, so something like .5s, versus a much smaller number over a full second (say, 2.8W on 2,200W). So the engineering guys went with the larger headline number, "for upto one (360 deg - they're being conservative, after all  1 ) pedal stroke". The marketing guy at Mavic edited out the "upto", and abra cadabra, buy these shoes and you're getting all your electronics powered for free (well, £900) over the entire IndiPac.

Avatar
Morat | 7 years ago
3 likes

OMG at last! I can buy myself a 4.5W per pedal stroke saving which will make me FLY past the other competitors fellow riders at my next sportive!

/noms a burger

Avatar
antonio | 7 years ago
1 like

Row going on now at Shimano, how could they have possibly underpriced their sandal cycling shoes by so much?

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
5 likes

Shoes are for pussies. If they were serious they'd simply graft the pedal cranks directly to their metatarsals.

Pages

Latest Comments