Running Shoes VS. Cycling Shoes and Why Everyone Here Are Being Cheapskates

Cycling shoes last longer

0/10 because you really can't be this dumb.

$250 does not get you "low end" cycling shoes. That's an absurd and factually incorrect statement. If you know where to look and watch out for sales, you can get top-flight cycling shoes for far less than that. And even at full retail, $250 is a high price point for cycling shoes.

And as the other poster pointed out, running shoes might have to be replaced as often as once a month (for a high-mileage person), while cycling shoes can last for years.

Everyone is semantically plural but grammatically singular:

He is ...

They are ...

but:

Everybody is ...

Peter Sagone wrote:

$250 does not get you "low end" cycling shoes. That's an absurd and factually incorrect statement. If you know where to look and watch out for sales, you can get top-flight cycling shoes for far less than that. And even at full retail, $250 is a high price point for cycling shoes.

And as the other poster pointed out, running shoes might have to be replaced as often as once a month (for a high-mileage person), while cycling shoes can last for years.

$250 is certainly low end for cycling shoes. Did you even bother to check the Competitive Cyclist page for the prices? $250 is cheap. You won't get a high end cycling shoe for $250, not even close. What are you? A commuter with SPD shoes?

And as a cyclist, I use two wheels at a time each with $50 tires that have to be replaced every couple of months. Not to mention my race wheels. I spend more on bike clothes in one season than you probably spend on everything running in 10 years. Running shoes are dirt cheap by comparison even if you buy new ones every week.

The proper comparison is between running shoes and tires.

$250 easily gets you into carbon fiber race shoes in cycling. I'd consider those high end. It isn't the $400 s-works or fizik infinito, but you can still get a damn good shoe.

Cycling shoes last WAY longer than

If you are going to compare cycling shoes to running shoes (which is terrible anyways), you might as well bring nordic ski boots into the mix. The premium boots selling for $800-$1200. And if you are blessed enough to get Salomons made by Pierro Gignoux, a lot more than $1200.

I won't bother responding to your ad hominem attacks. Competitive Cyclist is notorious for being ridiculously overpriced. Over the years I've gotten the same models of pro-tour level cycling shoes by Vittoria, Mavic, and Shimano for way less than $250, not even close. (Ebay can be amazing). But as was pointed out above,

"0/10 because you really can't be this dumb."

Peter Sagone wrote:

I won't bother responding to your ad hominem attacks. Competitive Cyclist is notorious for being ridiculously overpriced. Over the years I've gotten the same models of pro-tour level cycling shoes by Vittoria, Mavic, and Shimano for way less than $250, not even close. (Ebay can be amazing). But as was pointed out above,

"0/10 because you really can't be this dumb."

You are moving goal posts with eBay. You might as well say you can get the Nike's for way less than $250 from eBay.

But as everyone knows, you get counterfeit shoes from eBay from the Chinarello factories that also make the Trok bikes.

Peter Sagone wrote:

$250 does not get you "low end" cycling shoes. That's an absurd and factually incorrect statement. If you know where to look and watch out for sales, you can get top-flight cycling shoes for far less than that. And even at full retail, $250 is a high price point for cycling shoes.

I wish my cycling shoes only cost $250. Even at $500, I think a pair of cycling shoes are a steal. I got a pair of Bont full custom shoes for $1,100 and they, apart from a professional bike fit, are the best investment you can make as a cyclist. Skip the Dura-Ace (which you definitely don't need) and go with Ultegra (or even 105) and the difference is made up right their. Guaranteed the shoes will make you a better, happier and more comfortable cyclist then any high end gruppo or wheelset will.

The contact points are the most important parts of the bike to eliminate hotspots/pain- not the frame, the wheels, the drivetrain, etc. it's the body part(s) that touch the bike that are the difference between pain and pleasure. More comfort = more miles = better/faster/stronger cyclist.

You spend more time (hours/miles) in cycling shoes than 20 pairs of running shoes combined. Act accordingly.

Expensive cycling shoes are a gimmick anyway. They have conducted studies and not even been able to prove that 'clipping in' is helpful.

The problem is cyclists are huge fad followers and become extremely defensive of their thousand dollar purchases even when the science doesn't play out.

Great industry to be in though.

I say this as someone who cycles too. Anyone worth their salt on the bike knows that 95% of the sport is the engine. Guys using gear from the 80's will still compete in and come out near the top of local races if they are good.

Cycling shoes rule!

In cycling, every random dude is sponsored. I wouldn't mind running shoes being expensive if they gave them away for free to every 15:xx 5K runner.

You sound like the douche that shows up to a Thursday evening social ride kitted out in Rapha and not able to shut up about his Willier and his sweet new POC sunnies.

Competitive Cyclist? That's akin to using Tiffany & Co as your argument for the cost of a decent engagement ring.

Aside from the obvious, that cycling shoes last a very long time, competitive cyclists (and triathletes) have severe gear envy and love to spend their money.

$250 is nothing. Even a mid-level bike like the Trek Emonda SL 6 Pro sets you back $3500 before pedals ($250 minimum) and race wheels ($2000 minimum). You can easily pay 2-3x this for the bike, and double for the wheels.

Then don't forget the $300+ helmet, power meters and Zwift-compatible "Smart" trainers that easily add $2000+ to your budget.

At least it's cheaper than sailboat racing.

notpossible wrote:

0/10 because you really can't be this dumb.

well...... wrote:

Aside from the obvious, that cycling shoes last a very long time, competitive cyclists (and triathletes) have severe gear envy and love to spend their money.

LOL Triathletes bring it to a whole new level over cyclists (who are pretty awful on their own). Which is super weird to me because you would think needing to train for 3 separate events would make people value training and dedication over gear but they are just the opposite.

Woke wrote:Expensive cycling shoes are a gimmick anyway. They have conducted studies and not even been able to prove that 'clipping in' is helpful.

Expensive anything is a gimmick. Clipping in is not. Cycling, especially racing, is a lot more dynamic than putting out the same constant power for a given time on an indoor turbo trainer. Racing cyclists have been using foot retention for a long, long time. Clipless pedals just make it easier.

Joe Jackson wrote:

Woke wrote:Expensive cycling shoes are a gimmick anyway. They have conducted studies and not even been able to prove that 'clipping in' is helpful.

Expensive anything is a gimmick. Clipping in is not. Cycling, especially racing, is a lot more dynamic than putting out the same constant power for a given time on an indoor turbo trainer. Racing cyclists have been using foot retention for a long, long time. Clipless pedals just make it easier.

What ?