VP Prototype Pedals - Sea Otter Day 3

 Totally wouldn't trust something with an axle that short...

 I can just imagine that stubby little axel just ripping right out of the pedal body. :S

 If a thin pedal is the goal then they should make them out of Chromoly or stainless steel. At least then these super thin pedals will have strength to boot!

 The bearings might develop play without it getting to the breaking point. I think a lot of racers would use them and toss them after a couple races.

 If you didn't write sarcasm at the end, i'd think that you are serious.


/sarcasm

 Well, considering they're considering producing them, lots of people obviously considered it a good idea, so I figure making my sarcasm obvious will help show that I'm not one of them.

 meh
if the people at VP have rated them for downhill they are probably up for it
i personally would not trust something which i would use if i ran out of baking foil

 i know it get ridiculous sometimes but thin pedals give more clearance when pedaling where you are not supposed to on a DH run.

 presumably more pedal clearance / less accidental pedal strikes...

 More ground clearance and a lower center of gravity.

 lower centre of gravity? Does a couple of mm really make that much difference?
i guess less pedal strikes makes sense though

 Because your foot is also closer to the axle centre, you also get a latger amount of power transferr down using a thinner pedal. I could go into the physics of it but I am sure I would just bore loads of you.... so just take it as less chance of pedal strikes and slightly more efficient pedaling. However, you then have the compromise of strength in the even of a strike so there is only so thin that I would run and those just look too thin, a heavy strike and I would be scared of shattering/breaking them.

 Provides a longer pedal stroke. Like getting the ground clearance of a 165mm with the pedal stroke of a 170mm crank. They are also ligther, and every little bit helps. At some point though, durability has to be an issue. It will be interesting to see if the DH-1's hold up to abuse. I think I'll stick with my Point 1 Podiums for now.

 but past a certain point, surely it doesn't make a greal deal of difference, it's just certain companies trying to one-up each other? I didn't notice much difference in terms of platform thickness when i went from my v8's to my superstar pedals, what i felt made the most difference to my riding was platform size and grip (pin position etc)

 Surely they're about 90% bling factor?

 it's going a bit far now I think , pedals are now so thin that your cranks are lower then they are! They would last 5 mins on proper DH trail surely?

 Pedal thickness affects the ride in two main ways: pedal clearance (which is obvious), and pedaling efficiency. The closer your foot (and even more specifically the BALL of your foot) is to the centre of the axle, the more efficient the stroke is. The easiest analogy to explain this is to think of screwing a 4-inch thick block of wood on both sides of your pedal. When you step on the pedal, your foot will inevitably want to roll forward or backwards on the axle. That is of course an extreme example, but should give an idea of how a thinner pedal is advantageous.

 DexterH is right on the money. A good example of the benefits of a REASONABLY thin pedal is remembering back to a few cased jumps or something. Recall your feet blowing off the pedals and rolling the pedal up your calf? Because the bottom of your feet are not ON the centerline of the axle all your weight and momentum are transferred forward instead of down. If your feet could sit lower then your weight transfer would end up on or even behind the axle, depending on your position on the bike. I remember back in the day when all pedals were like 1.5" thick and even just rolling up a curb or something would pop your feet off the peds.

But I do think this has gone too far. Much too far. However we are far past the point of useful products and knee deep in gimmicks now. Id say we are at a neutral point in product development right now. There's still a few "neat" things trickling out, but we really dont need much anymore. Hell, what more CAN we need? Too much focus on PRODUCTS that can make us better riders and less focus on skill and simply riding the bike.

 @Monx, based on the fact that you are 16, I am going to assume that you do not understand the physics beind the pedal fully. Also for you to say that I dont want to explain it because "the only reason you don't explain it in scientifical way is that you don't know how to do it" is bordering on insulting me by saying that I am lying and that I dont understand it, both of which you cannot assertain from my previous post and the fact that you have never met me, nor have you any knowledge as to my qualifications and understanding of physics.

There are two main physical explanations as to why a thinner pedal is scientifically better than a thick one, and because you have so gratuitously called me up on it I shall explain it for you and maybe you will learn something, if not that maners are useful and you could just ask me to explain it instead of saying that I am lying.

 Firstly, the force applied to the pedal turns the crank which in turn pulls the chain to turn the wheel. Measing the torque (the turning force) produced by a force acting on the pedal will show that a thinner pedal will result in a higher torque. The torque is equal to the product of the force and the perpendicular distance from its line of action to the crank spindle, about which the crank will turn. The turning force around the pivot (crank spindle) is called the moment.

The moment of a force can be worked out using the formula: moment = force applied × perpendicular distance from the pivot. If the magnitude of the force is F and the perpendicular distance is D then: moment = FD

A thinner pedal results in D being larger throughout the stroke of the pedal because the foot is closer to the axle of the pedal, therefore, and increase in D will act as a multiplier thus increasing the total moment (turing force). This explains the main reason why thinner pedals result in higher efficiency.

Secondly, based upon the same principles I have outlined above, if your foot is much closer to the axle of the pedal, then the perpendicular distance of your foot to the centre of the axle is smaller. This results in a smaller moment around the pedal axle which can cause you to roll the pedal and slip off.

Now I fell I have schooled you sufficiently so next time, be polite and if you would like it to be explained, just ask, dont go round being rude.

 Here's my pedal gimmick.

Put the pedal up & behind the center of the axle and lock the pedal from rotating forward past 20 degrees so your foot doesn't slip forward.

Throw out the two sided pedals!

 Lol... not sure what to think to that. Are you being sarcastic or is that a serious proposition? :S

 Smikes got er right, putting it into lamens terms. I can't tell you how much I appreciate a thinner pedal, there honestly is a different feel and its exactly how smikes put it. Imagine how stable the pedal would be if it dipped under the axel (one way use). Guess you loose clearance there but it'd feel pretty planted I bet.

 I liked DexterH's explanation, but charvey9, thinner pedals won't give you a longer pedal stroke. you could have a pedal a foot tall and the platform would still spin around in a 340mm diameter circle (with 170mm cranks). it would just be incredibly unstable.

 DexterH, I was kidding... But if we see this pedal on the market, well, I'll buy a pair just to hang on my wall.

 xltrider, i think that charvey was explaing the same thing that I have explained... maybe not as clearly though. As you say it doesnt matter what size the padal is, it will roughly describe a 340mm circle (wont be exact circle due to pedal not being flat throughout the stroke). But, with a thinner pedal, it gives the greatest perpendicular distance for the force acting upon the crank increasing efficiency. Agreed though not by much at all as it is only such a small difference once you take into account the pedals own rotation coupled with the cranks and that the increase in distance is only minimal.

 @Smells: I have thought of pedals that rotate below the axle and it would certainly give a really "planted" feel... at the cost of clearance and two-sided pedals though.

 I hope to explain the 'more efficient pedalling' as mentioned above a little clearer.
The torque applied on the crankshaft (and chainring) is indeed the the perpendicular force on the axle times the radius of the crank. This torque varies throughout the pedal stroke depending on the angle that the crank is at relative to the horizontal. Thats because the force you apply with your feet is predominantly in a vertical direction, i.e. downwards. It follows that the maximum torque will be applied just before the crank reaches the horizontal alignment (Actual angle is dependent on your riding position and leg angle relative to the horizontal). To achieve a more constant torque on the cranks, you need to not only push down, but also push 'foreward'. Because the pedal remains more or less horizontal throughout the pedal stroke, this horizontal force wants to rotate the pedal around its axle.
With a thicker pedal, this horizontal force is applied at a larger distance from the pedal angle. With the example as provided by Smike you can see why a thicker pedal would result in more slipping from the pedals (and getting shins/calfs messed up).
Conclusion: Yes, thinner pedals will provide more efficient pedalling, however the tradeoff against loss of strength and reliability are not worth it in my opinion.

 So how much gained power/performance does this achieve ? in percentage term say?

 Marginally at best with the current differences in dimensions we have. My estimate is 1%-2%, although that figure is unsubstantiated.
More in general with all these developments that we see towards lighter/stiffer/stronger stuff etc., most of it is not something that the average biker that you meet on the trails will benefit much from in actual performance increase. For that group of bikers (roughly 90% of all bikers) the psychological effect of new/stonger/lighter/stiffer stuff will result in increased confidence when riding, which results in increased performance.
For the sub-pro amateurs, and of course the pro riders, the marginal benefits will actually have some effect as the differences in skill between the riders is small and they need to stay ahead of the competition.

But for most riders, their skills are the limiting factor, rather than the equipment they use.

For my part, part durability and idiot-proofness are more important.

 sounds the same as the majority of products we are force fed these days then , the ol' placebo effect

 OMG, so many armchair engineers...
If you want efficiency, you ride clipless! My shimano clipless are thicker (way chunkier) than my platform and yet i can pedal more efficiently on them.

St8line and Sunline (or any solid DH platform that will not shatter in the rocks) pedals are not the thinnest but i guarantee your feet will not come off the pedal with the appropriate shoes (five10).

Thinner pedals give you more clearance and are generally lighter, THAT'S IT!

 Even clipless pedals benefit from thinner pedals. Time road pedals put your foot closer to the axle (by making the cleat not directly on top of the axle) for this very reason. That is also why shoes with thinner soles will perform better too.

Yes, there are a lot of armchair engineers, but that doesn't mean some of them aren't actually correct. And no, more clearance is not the only benefit.

 Indeed ocee246, SPD's are more efficient. The reason that you can actually use the upwards motion of the crank as well for pedaling is a big efficiency winner. Those were however not the subject of the discussion and as smike pointed out, they have the same benefits from slimmer pedals as flats do. If you want we can drag the shoe, pedal and crank assembly rotational mass into the equation as well (lighter stuff requires less energy to move). Bike enthusiastic engineers/physicists have devoted entire studies to the subject of bicycle engineering (pro deo, just for the goal of understanding the principles why stuff works).
But as I pointed out earlier the actual benefit is lost on most riders (myself included) as they simply don't have the skills to appreciate the difference. Simply going out there and ride is still the best way to determine what is best for you.
However, by having a basic understanding of the concepts behind bike mechanics will allow you to appreciate why things feel better, but also make a more informed choice on the items you want to use other than 'they look cool'.

 those comments are too long! i mean really who read those?

 People with an attention span longer than 6 words?

Sometimes it just takes a bit more text to explain something. Read it at your own discretion, but you might learn something from it.

 What is wrong with people these days? If you can't take 3 minutes to read an informative and interesting comment there is something missing in your head sir!

Ahhh now I see !! You have problem with your reading skills , poor baby

 these are diffenaly not for dj use they'd break so easily....

 actually the third ones have good grip and awesome for dirt jumping

 i would rather have the spank spike pedals. haha
http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/6443221/#top

 Assuming the pedal doesn't flex, the torsional / leverage/ shear load is exactly the same to the crank as a pedal with a full axle.

 I like the way that you are thinking. However, you have thought about where the load will be differing wrongly. On a conventional pedal the load is all taken on the same amount of thread as on the 1st pedal here. There will be exactly the same diagonal load tbh (given the pedal is about as wide as a normal pedal).

The big problem will be on the bearings and holding the pedal on the axle because the body of the pedal is only attached at one end. Think of a plank of wood stood horizontally supported at both ends by bricks..... eqaul load at both sets of bricks. The bearings/bushings on a pedal with a full axle (depending on the pedal) take half the load each. Remove the bricks from one end (assume the plank magically doesnt fall down) and now all the weight is only supported on one set of bricks. In this pedal it is the same, all the weight on bearings at one end.

Hope you understand this explanation,

 yeah its hard to believe a bearing can take that much load, its not just going to be 2x the load, but because of the lever action of the pedal a lot more. i would love to see a video of a load test on this pedal vs a normal pedal, if it is the same I would buy this pedal, why not since its so thin, not catching a rock in dh can be the difference between a broken bone or not.

 i am the Brand Manager at VP... myself and our USA designers are hammering away at this pedal right now...

DexterH is totally right about the forces on this pedal...

this is the reason that we are doing the bearing ourselves in-house... if we went with something off the rack, there would be no way to do something reliable... we didint think they would be strong enough...

the lateral retention on this bearing will be very good, Rasterman has a good idea for us to show the tests... we have a really nice test lab and it would be cool to show the pedal getting hammered on.... so i will put that on the list...

 awesome, that would be a huge selling factor, and make some nice marketing on youtube. if you can show people that the pedal is as strong as your competition, many would buy it for the added safety of not catching a rock or root.

 And no custom crank to boot!

 i'm not sure they will, the pedal goes right up to the crank, whereas there's usually about 10-15mm of exposed axle for spanner flats etc, so there's probably not much in it

 yeah, you're right, lads, my bad.

 oh and one more thing...first one...not for dh...

 Have you ridden the bottom two? I have not, but they look like sturdy pedals that would be up to some abuse. As for the top one, I think it looks pretty rad. I'm not sure on how the hex head of each pin sticks up on the opposite side so proudly. That may not help traction, but they look rad!