Cycling Biomechanics

NJD Sports Injury Clinic

Cycling Biomechanics

Based in the North West of England, we offer a unique and comprehensive BIKEFIT PACKAGE (Testimonials).  Our unique Bikefit Package is designed to improve your cycling biomechanics (pedalling symmetry). Poor pedalling symmetry predisposes the cyclist to overuse injuries, knees especially, and can result in power loss. A crucial part of cycling biomechanics (pedalling symmetry) is the area we like to refer to as the Foot/Pedal interface which includes (foot type, foot alignment, leg alignment, leg-length differences, shoe design, shoe insert type and design, pedal and cleat system and cleat position).

Consequently, unlike many Bikefitting sources, we allocate considerable amounts of time and effort during the Bikefit process towards correcting common problems associated with the Foot/Pedal interface. Often neglected by many Bikefitter, the foot/pedal interface is arguably the 'cornerstone' of effective Bikefitting.

We always recommend our unique Bikefit Package rather than a simply stand-alone Bikefit. The reason is our Pre-Bike Musculoskeletal Screening enables us to identify problems at the foot/pedal interface, many of which can only be found through head-to-toe musculoskeletal screening.


The Foot / Pedal Interface - crucial areas to consider

Leg Alignment Foot Alignment Shoe, Pedal & Cleat  Design Cleat Position Cycling Insert


Foot/pedal interface

The foot/pedal interface is arguably the 'cornerstone' of effective bikefitting. The foot/pedal interface dictates how effectively pedal forces are transmitted down to the cranks, and potentially, how deleterious forces are transmitted upwards through the kinetic-chain. Problems at the foot/pedal interface can cause potential power-loss and overuse injury. Overuse injuries are likely to occur at the weakest link in the kinetic-chain e.g. knee, hip, pelvis, lower back and neck.


The slightest amount of misalignment can reduce power output

From the conception of the bicycle in the 19th century through to the modern-day race cycle, cycling has been a marriage between man machine. Cycling is very repetitive; during 1 hour of cycling, a rider may average up to 5,000 pedal revolutions. The slightest amount of misalignment, whether it be anatomical, biomechanical, mechanical or otherwise, at the foot/pedal interface (forefoot tilt) can lead to injury and reduced performance - measured as power output in our own research.


Modern carbon equipment exacerbates alignment and forefoot problems

  Rigid carbon wheelsets

While never alluded to in the literature, it’s highly likely modern technology exacerbates the problem of foot dysfunction. Carbon frames, wheels, cranks, pedals and shoes have all advanced and become significantly stronger and stiffer. However, the human foot remains unchanged. Jarboe and Quesda (2003) demonstrated that carbon-fiber shoes are 42% stiffer in longitudinal bending and 550% stiffer in three-point bending compared with plastic cycling shoes.  As a direct consequent, there is little scope for any flex, thus energy cannot dissipate.

      Rigid carbon soled shoes

The combination of rapid technological advancements in carbon components and ever-increasing levels of strength enable the rider to transfer more power to the pedal, thus placing greater loads / pressure on the structures of the foot. Increased forefoot pressures cause forefoot problems and  cause the foot to collapse inwardly, which in turn increases pronation (24-26).


Efficient, injury free cycling relies on rider symmetry throughout the entire pedal revolution. Strength and balance in the muscles situated in and around the pelvis are prerequisite to symmetry and paramount to efficient cycling, whether road, track or mountain biking. Symmetry represents a stable, level pelvis, with minimal pelvic motion (no rocking) and sound core stability. Similarly, there should be minimal sideways movement of the knee when pedalling. Excessive aberrant motion of the knee means the knee must travel further than is necessary through each pedal revolution - as depicted in the image by red arrows. This extra, but unwanted knee motion constitutes wasted energy and is potentially destructive on the structures of the kinetic-chain (foot, ankle, knee, hip, back and neck).

Power loss

Our own unique research carried out in 2010 at Manchester Metropolitan University found a strong correlation between power output and cyclists with varying amounts of forefoot varus. Interestingly, those with the highest levels of forefoot varus demonstrated increased mean peak power outputs of approximately 10% while performing 30 second maximum anaerobic effort. Considering the high prevalence of forefoot varus (87%) found amongst cyclists, these findings may have implications across the cycling population. In summary, cyclists presenting with higher levels of forefoot varus potentially have the most to gain.

                      Abnormal knee motion

What is the cause of asymmetry?

The foot/pedal interface is the mechanical link between the leg and the cycle, and consequently, the point at which asymmetry most often arises. Less than (<) 10% of the population has a neutral foot (2-5). When translated into cycling terms, < 10% of cyclists have a perfect foot position when placed on the pedal (5,6). Reduced cycling performance and overuse injuries, particularly knee related, are frequently linked to the anatomic structure of the foot (i.e. excessive pronation). This is because the structure and function of the foot dictate how effectively pedal forces are transmitted via the foot/pedal interface down to the cranks, and potentially, how deleterious forces are transmitted up the kinetic-chain – impacting on the knee, hip, pelvis, lower back and neck. During one hour of cycling, a rider may average up to 5,000 pedal revolutions. The smallest amount of misalignment at the foot/pedal interface, whether anatomic, biomechanical or mechanically related, creates asymmetry – which often leads to overuse injury and impaired performance. In support of these claims, studies demonstrate excessive foot pronation can compromise core and pelvic stability and/or create postural issues (7-14).

Case Study      

   Anatomic LLD of 30mm

Leg-length differences (LLD)  can be clased as either anatomic or functional.  Anatomical differences are true LLDs, and represent an actual anatomic shortening of one or more of the bones of the lower extremity. Whereas, functional LLD are not  true leg-length differences. Functional LLD are often associated with muscular weakness or inflexibility at the pelvis or foot and ankle complex.

Studies have demonstrated the prevalence of anatomic LLD affect approximately 90% of the population (15,16). We use a battery of tests to establish LLD. The image on the left shows a cylist with an anatomic LLD of approximately 30mm. The image on the right shows how we  built-up the shoe to compensate.

    Built-up shoe 15mm

What is pronation?

Pronation is when the foot rolls inwards and is considered a normal and necessary motion for efficient gait. Excessive pronation is when the foot rolls in too far, which can result in knee problems (17-22), pelvic and core problems (7-14), and reduced cycling performance (23-26). Excessive pronation can be unilateral (one foot) or bilateral (both feet).

       Forefoot varus

Forefoot varus and tibial varum are considered to be the two most common causes of excessive pronation. Forefoot varus is a forefoot-rearfoot alignment problem; the 1st MTP joint (big toe) is elevated from the pedal with the rearfoot in a neutral position - image on the left. Tibial varum (bowlegged) is represented by the natural bowing of the lower third of the tibia - image on the right. Both these two conditions necessitate the foot to roll inwards to enable effective contact with the pedal surface. The greater the levels of forefoot varus and/or tibial varum, the greater the level of pronation.

        Tibial varum

The evolution of clipless pedal systems

In 1984, the French-based ski binding manufacturer (Look) first tested a rigid float-less clipless pedal with the help of professional cyclist Bernard Hinault. This clipless system was introduced to the market in 1986. However, this rigid float-less system placed undesirable stress on the knees. In 1987, Jean Beyl invented the Time pedal system, known as Bioperformance, which allowed free rotational float and some lateral motion of the foot. At first the Bioperformance system received much criticism from competing pedal manufactures, alleged claims of power loss due to float were proved incorrect after research studies demonstrated otherwise. Professional cyclist quickly adopted the system, and subsequently most manufactures modified their pedal systems to include varying degrees of rotational float (37).

Some riders need more float


Most modern-day clipless pedal systems (e.g. Shimano, Time, and Look) use spring loaded devices which employ a self-centering mechanism which allows varying degrees of rotational motion (typically 4° to 8°) against increasing resistance. This design system brings the shoe back to the preset neutral alignment.  We believe self-centering pedal systems are suitable for the majority of riders, i.e, riders with small amounts of anatomical or biomechanical misalignment. However, in a minority of cases where a rider presents with greater levels of misalignment a system with more rotational float may be required.  Speedplay pedal offers 0° to 15° of free float rotational motion. Speedplay can offer two benefits; more rotational float, and free float – meaning the foot does not have to work against spring loaded resistance.

Free rotational float


Back to Top of page



1. Brailsford, D. (2008). David Brailsford, British Cycling Team Performance Director. Outstanding performances. In CoachLines Newsletter 191.
2. Whitney, K.A. (2003). Foot deformities Part II. Journal of Clinics in Podiatric Medicine & Surgery, 20(3), 511-526.
3. Cornwall, M.W. (2000). Common pathomechanics of the foot. Journal of Athletic Therapy Today. 5,10-16.
4. Agosta, J. (2001). Biomechanics of common sporting injuries. In P. Brukner & K. Khan (Eds.). Clinical sports medicine (2nd ed. pp. 43-83). Sydney: McGraw-Hill Companies.
5. Millslagle, D., Rubbelke, S., Mullin, T., Keener, J., & Swetkovich, R. (2004). Effects of foot-pedal positions by inexperienced cyclists at the highest aerobic level. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 1074-1080.
6. Garbalosa, J.C., McClure, M.H., Catlin, P.A., Wooden, M. (1994). The frontal plane relationship of the forefoot to the rearfoot in an asymptomatic population. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 20, 200-206.
7. Rothbart, B.A. & Estabrook, L. (1988). Excessive pronation: a major biomechanical determinant in the development of chondramalicaia and pelvic lists. Journal Manipulative Physiol Therapy, 5, 373-379.
8. Cobb, S.C, Tis, L.L., Johnson, B.J., & Higbie, E.J. (2004). The effect of forefoot varus on postural stability. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 34, 79-85
9. Rothbart, B.A. (2006). Relationship of functional leg-length discrepancy to abnormal pronation. Journal of American Podiatric Association, 96(6), 499-507.
10. Brantingham, J.W., Gilbert, J.E., & Shaik, J. (2006). Sagittal plane blockage of the foot, ankle and hallux and foot alignment-prevalence and association with low-back pain. Journal of  Chiropractic Medicine, 4(5), 123-127.
11. Rothbart, B.A., Hansen, K., Liley, P., Yerratt, K. (1995). Resolving chronic low back pain: the foot connection. American Journal of Pain Management, 5(3), 84-90.
12. Cibulka, M.T. (1999). Low back pain and its relation to the hip and foot. Journal Orthop Sports Phys Therapy, 10, 595-601.
13. Cote, K.P., Brunet, M.E., Gansnedert, B.M., & Shultzs, S.J. (2005). Effects of pronated and supinated foot postures on static and dynamic postural stability. Journal of Athletic Training, 40(1), 41-46.
14. Tsai, L.C., Yu, B., Mercer, V.S., & Gross, M.T. (2006). Comparison of different structural foot types for measures of standing postural control. Journal Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 36(12), 942-953.
15. Knutson, G. A. (2005). Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: A review (Part 1). Chiropractic & Osteopathy, 13(11):
16. Knutson, G.A. (2005). Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: A review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part 2, the functional or unloaded leg length asymmetry. Chiropractic & Osteopathy, 13;12
17. Callaghan, M.J. (2005). Lower body problems and injury in cycling. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 9, 226-236.
18. Holmes, J.C., Pruitt, A. L., & Whalen, N.J. (1994). Lower extremity overuse in bicycling. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 13(1), 187-203.
19. Mellion, M.B. (1991). Common cycling injuries: Management and prevention. Sports Medicine, 11(1), 52-70.
20. O’Brien, T. (1991). Lower extremity cycling biomechanics: a review and theoretical discussion. Journal of American Podiatric Medical Association, 81(11), 585-592.
21. Sanner, W.H., & O’Halloran, W.D. (2000). The biomechanics, etiology, and treatment of cycling injuries. Journal of American Podiatric Medical Association, 90(7), 354-376.
22. Asplund, M.D., & St Pierre, P. (2004). Knee pain and bicycling. The Physician and Sports Medicine, 32, 23-30.
23. Hice, G.A., Kendrick, Z., Weeber, K., & Bray, J. (1985). The effect of foot orthoses on oxygen consumption while cycling. Journal of American Podiatric Medical Association, 75, 513-516.
24. Moran, G.T., & McGlinn, G.H. (1995). The effect of variations in the foot pedal interface on the efficiency of cycling as measured by aerobic energy cost and anaerobic power. Biomechanics in Sport, 12, 105-109.
25. Anderson, J.C., & Sockler, J.M. (1990). Effects of orthoses on selected physiologic parameters in cycling. Sports Medicine, 80, 161-166.
26. Hennig, E.M., & Sanderson, D.J. (1995). In-shoe pressure distributions for cycling with two types of footwear at different mechanical loads. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 68-80.
27. Jarboe, N.E., & Quesada, P.M. (2003). The effects of cycling shoe stiffness on forefoot pressure. Foot Ankle Int., 24(7), 784-788.
28. Hinds, S. (2005). A balancing act for cyclists. SportEX dynamics, 6, 6-9.
29. Apt, J.P., Smoliga, J.M., Brick, M.J., Jolly, J.T., Lephart, S.M., & Fu, F.H. (2007). Relationship between cycling mechanics and core stability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1300-1304.
30. Gregerson, C.S., Hull, M.L., & Hakansson, N.A. (2006). How changing the inversion / eversion foot angle affects the nondriving intersegmental knee movements and the relative activation of the vastii muscles in cycling. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 128(4), 391-398.
31. Wheeler, J.B., Gregor, R.J., & Broker, J.P. (1995). The effect of clipless float design on shoe/pedal interface kinetics and overuse knee injuries during cycling. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 119-141.
32. Wolchok, J.C., Hull, M.L., & Howell, S.M. (1998). The effect of intersegmental knee movements on patellofemoral contact mechanics in cycling. Journal of Biomechanics, 31, 677-683.
33. Wanich, T., Hodgkins, C., Columbier, J.A., Muraski, E., & Kennedy, J.G. (2007). Cycling injuries of the lower extremity. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 15, 748-756.
34. Taimela, S., Kujala, U.M., & Osterman, K. (1990). Intrinsic risk factors and athletic injuries. Sports Medicine, 9(4), 205-215.
35. Hreljac, A., Marshall, R.N., & Hume, P.A. (2000). Evaluation of lower extremity overuse injury potential in runners. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(9), 1635-1641.
36. Ruby, P., Hull, M.L., Kirby, K.A., & Jenkins, D.W. (1992). The effect of lower-limb anatomy on knee loads during seated cycling. Journal of Biomechanics, 17(2), 1195-1207.
37. Gregory, R.J., & Wheeler, J.B. (1994). Biomechanical factors associated with shoe/pedal interfaces. Sports Medicine, 17(2), 117-131.
38. Ruby, P., Hull, M.L., Kirby, K.A., & Jenkins, D.W. (1992). The effect of lower-limb anatomy on knee loads during seated cycling. Journal of Biomechanics, 17(2), 1195-1207.
39. Faria, E.W., Parker, D.L., & Faria, I.E. (2005). The science of cycling: Physiology and training - Part 1. Sports Medicine, 35, 285-312.
40. Ruby, P. & Hull, M.L. (1993). Response of intersegmental knee loads to foot/pedal platform degrees of freedom in cycling. Journal of Biomechanics, 26, 1327-1340.
41. Boyd, T., Neptune, R.R., & Hull, M.L. (1997). Pedal and knee loads using a multi-degree-of-freedom pedal platform in cycling. Journal of Biomechanics, 30, 505-511.
42. Davis, R.R., & Hull, M.L. (1981). Measurement of pedal loading in bicycling: analysis and results. Journal of Biomechanics, 14(12), 857-872.
43. Farrell, K.C., Reisinger, K.D., & Tillman, M.D. (2003). Force and repetition in cycling: possible implication for iliotibial band friction syndrome. The knee, 10, 103-109.
44. Sznajderman, T., Smorgick, Y., Lindner, D., Beer, Y., & Agar, G. (2009). Medial plica syndrome. The Israel Medical Association Journal, 11(1), 54-57.
Griffith, C.J. & LaPrade, R.F. (2008). Medial plica irritation: diagnosis and treatment. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 1(1); 53-60.


Bolgla, L.A. & Keskula, D.R. (2003). A biomechanical approach to evaluating and treating lower leg dysfunction. Athletic Therapy Today, 8, 6-12.
Brukner, P. & Khan, K. (2001). Clinical sports medicine (2nd ed., pp. 9-18). Sydney: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Burke, E.(2002). Serious Cycling (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Burke, E., & Pruitt, A.L. (2003). Body position for cycling. In, Burke (Ed.), High-Tech cycling (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Cornwall, M.W. (2000). Common pathomechanics of the foot. Journal of Athletic Therapy Today. 5, 10-16.
Koning, J., & van Soest, K. (2002). Biomechanics. In, Jeukendrup (Ed.), High-Performance cycling . Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Peterson, L. & Renstrom, P. (2001). Sports Injuries, their prevention and treatment (3rd ed.). London, Martin Dunitz.
Sanderson, D.J., & Black, A. (2003). The effect of prolonged cycling on pedal forces. Journal of Sports Science, 21, 191-199.
Whiting, W. C., & Zernicke, R. F. (2008). Biomechanics of musculoskeletal injury (2nd ed, pp. 1-16). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics


Back to Top of page