The Logbook
Colby Pearce: Lore vs. Bont Power Test
Last week, Colby Pearce conducted a controlled, back-to-back field test in Boulder: three maximal hill efforts in Lore Watts, three in custom-modified Bonts, alternating each rep.
Across successive efforts, Lore output trended upward.
Across successive efforts, Bont output trended downward.
Under fatigue, the difference widened.
This suggests not simply higher peak performance, but greater repeatability and resilience- the ability to reproduce high force outputs without degradation. In competitive settings, that quality often matters more than a single maximal number.
Subjectively, Colby reported a more complete connection through the pedal stroke in Lore. Power captured across a broader range of motion, particularly under load. The data reflected that impression.
The early signal is clear:
Performance is not only about peak output.
It is about how well power endures.
You can watch Colby's test in entirety on YouTube or read the summarized transcript below:
Shoe test: Lore vs. Bont (hill reps + power data)
It’s a lovely day in Boulder and I’m going to do some shoe testing today. I’m going to do Lore versus Bont shoes.
Here’s the plan: I’m going to get warmed up in my Lores (the Watts), then do a one-minute effort ripping up a hill. Then I’m going to come home and put on my custom-modified Bonts (with grip tape on the toes), and switch back and forth a few times. Total of three efforts in each shoe—six efforts total. I’ll switch every effort and just look at the data and see if it teases anything out.
I’ve got Wahoo power pedals on, my Roam 3 on the bars. Everything’s paired and ready to rock. We’ll see what happens. Stay tuned for some tasting of blood.
Quick notes mid-test: back-to-back differences show up fast
After a couple efforts, I’m going to do another lap with the Lore. I might need to extend my recovery window a bit because I made a crucial error in my calculations: I forgot that at 3:30 is pickup on Thursdays, which means our entire street becomes annihilated with moms and dads and kids and doors and dogs and scooters and all the things. So I’m going to do a little jumbo recovery loop.
So far I feel like things are going pretty well. I was a little concerned because it’s not like I do this type of training that much these days. I’m not a track guy anymore. This stuff was pretty common when I was trying to win world championships on the track, but I’m 53 now, live at altitude, and I’m not doing a lot of this right now.
One practical note: if you get the Lore Watts (the high-top version) and you try to get them on without a shoehorn, you can do it, but it’s like putting on a really aggressive alpine ski boot. It takes about 45 seconds of wriggling. The shoehorn lets you slide the heel right in. Total game changer.
Then I put the Bonts on back to back and the differences are immediate.
My shoe-fit philosophy (and why back-to-back matters)
I tell people all the time in my fit studio: when they ask me what shoe they should buy, the answer is the one that fits you the best. I don’t know which brand that is because your foot is not my foot.
The best way to figure it out is to try on as many shoes as possible, ideally back to back in the same session. Put in whatever insole you actually use (assuming it fits properly), and try them all on back to back. The differences become really clear.
It’s like shopping for gray paint. At first they all look similar, but if you stare at them for 60 to 90 seconds, the nuance comes out—the undertones come out. That’s what you’re trying to do with a cycling shoe: figure out how well the heel cup fits, where the boas are hitting you, whether the tongue is a wrap design or a centralized tongue. Those have different impacts on fit. For me, a wrap tongue is definitely better. For some people, a centralized tongue is better. Depends on who you are and what your foot is like.
The test conditions and how I rode the efforts
I’m not really looking at power during these efforts. I’m not looking at metrics or trying to game metrics at all. I’m just going up this hill.
It’s a very smooth street. No wind at all—zero—and barely a cloud in the sky. Pretty stunning, and a little frightening for February. I’m lighting it up from the crosswalk to the top of the hill every lap. I start them at the same crosswalk. My approach speed has been quite similar. I stand up, then sit, then stand at the end when cadence starts to bog because the grade ramps up. It’s a nice little ramp to infinity.
I’m not trying to pace these except to be consistent. Honestly, I’m kind of just pacing these like an idiot: hit the button, rip it, front-load the effort, and go as fast as I can without much thought for pacing.
What the numbers showed (and the pattern that surprised me)
When I sat down and looked at the files, the overall power differences were small at first—close enough that you could call one a tie. But what got interesting was the trend.
Looking at the three Bont efforts, the numbers went down each time—something like 481, then 474, then 464. Losing roughly 10 watts each rep.
Looking at the three Lore efforts (not counting the warm-up), the numbers went up each time—something like 484, then 492, then 496.
So that’s fascinating: I got better every time I used the Lores. I got worse every time I used the Bonts, in every consecutive effort. I’m looking at this data for the first time and thinking out loud as I say this.
And I think this is indicative of how people should think about performance gains. People usually think: I put on a new thing—shoes, saddle, fit change—and my power over a duration goes up. That’s possible. But a more subtle and real improvement can be durability: better repeatability of high intensity over the stretch of a race or event.
In this case, the data suggests a step beyond that. Not only were the efforts more repeatable with the Lores, they actually got better. My best effort of the day was late in the session, which is interesting.
Now, it’s a tiny data set. N of one. Bro science, basement science. So take it for what it is. But it’s interesting that as I fatigued, the Bont looked less productive, while the Lore output held and even improved.
A fair concern: “last rep effect” and how I’d test it next
One thing occurring to me is the “last rep effect.” You get to the last rep and you’re like, “All right, I’m done with the workout. I can dig deeper because I know there’s nothing after this.” That’s how the human psyche works, even if we try to avoid it.
So the next logical step would be to swap the order. Next time, start with the Bonts and finish with the Lores—or finish with the Bonts—so if there’s a last-rep push, it doesn’t automatically favor one shoe.
Also, I’ll have some natural compensation next time because I’ll have more confidence doing six reps like this without exploding.
What I think is happening (subjective feel + mechanics)
Subjectively, the Lore feels like it helps capture power in more parts of the pedal stroke. It feels like I can connect with the pedal with less effort. It captures power across a broader range of degrees, both in the saddle and out of the saddle.
And to be clear: some people think a cuffed shoe is going to prevent dorsiflexion—kicking your toes up. That’s not what’s happening. The cuff captures energy here and here so you have freedom to dorsiflex, but you drive over the front of the pedal stroke without interfering with the tendons moving the way they’re supposed to.
We want to capture the force produced at the foot without restricting movement. That’s tricky. It requires knowing where to capture and where to allow movement—and that’s where I think the shoe shines.
To see the full video:
