Gear on Tri Labs | Data & Endurance

Cervelo P5 Refit: Finding the Balance Between Aero and Comfort

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000

I had bike fits done in Taiwan before and after buying the Cervelo P5. A year had passed since the last one, and I’d been tweaking small things on my own, so I decided to get a fresh professional assessment. I found an English-speaking fitter through the Triathlon in Tokyo website — Sun Merit Bike Fit Studio in Yokohama.

Fitter Makito Fushimi has solid credentials: IBFI Level 4, Retül Master Level, former Retül official instructor, years of experience supporting UCI professional road teams, and a long track record with competitive triathlon athletes. The session ran about three to four hours.

What I Came In With

The main thing I told Makito going in: find the balance between aero, comfort, and power output for long efforts (5–6 hours). The current situation was shoulder and neck discomfort starting around the 3–4 hour mark, plus saddle discomfort.

How the Fit Worked

He started with video observation — watching me ride without preset numbers in mind, to see what was actually happening. No Retül capture at this stage, intentionally, to avoid getting anchored to numbers too early and missing other details. After the assessment, the key conclusion was: saddle is too high, and the overall position can be pushed further forward.

Then came the physical assessment: flexibility, core strength, upper body strength, hip range of motion. After that, repeated rounds of ride, observe, adjust, ride again. Finally, markers, Retül 3D motion capture, report output — and only then comparing numbers before and after, with an explanation of what each number means.

Physical Assessment: Right Quad Tighter Than Expected

The Thomas Test flagged right quad flexibility as compromised — “Right Quad is very tight” in the notes. I knew I was tight there, but hadn’t realized how much it was capping the position. On a TT bike this matters — an aggressive aero position keeps the hip flexors in a shortened position for a long time, and a tight right quad on top of that affects pedaling efficiency and comfort.

Everything else — core strength and upper body strength — came back adequate, within range for an aggressive aero position.

Before vs After: The Numbers

Measurement	Before	After	Change
Saddle Height	763 mm	740 mm	−23 mm
Saddle Setback	−26 mm	−1 mm	+25 mm
Arm Pad Drop	−38 mm	0 mm	+38 mm
Arm Pad Stack BB	710 mm	729 mm	+19 mm
Handlebar Reach	528 mm	504 mm	−24 mm
Eff. Seat Tube Angle	79°	80°	+1°

The two main changes: saddle dropped 23 mm (confirming it was too high), and the overall position was pushed forward — setback moved from −26 mm to −1 mm, arm pads raised and brought in closer.

The difference is immediately obvious in the photos: the back angle after the fit is noticeably lower and flatter, the head is lower, and the transition from head to back is smoother. The aero position is substantially more solid than before.

This position is already at the limit of what the current hardware allows — both the saddle and cockpit are maxed out. If I swap parts later, there’s room to push the effective seat tube angle further forward; the 80° here was limited by the existing setup.

Three Detail Adjustments

3 mm Leg Length Shim on the Right

Measurement showed the right leg is shorter than the left, so a 3 mm shim was added under the right shoe cleat. Without it, the pelvis rocks during pedaling and power output becomes uneven.

Verus Wedge on the Left Shoe

The left forefoot has a natural angulation. A wedge — thicker on one side, thinner on the other — was added so the pedal contact surface follows the foot’s natural angle, reducing lateral knee stress.

Both Cleats Moved Back

On Rearward Cleat Placement

Makito added FORM Cleat Extender Plates to both shoes, moving the cleat position back.

His reasoning: rearward cleats reduce calf recruitment, keeping the calves fresher through the bike leg, which helps on the run.

The mechanics: As shown above, a traditional cleat aligned with the first metatarsal head creates a longer lever arm from the ankle joint to the cleat. The calf muscles (gastrocnemius and soleus) have to work harder to stabilize the ankle. Move the cleat back 10–20 mm to shorten that lever arm, and calf demand drops — pedaling force shifts to the quads and glutes, which are larger and more fatigue-resistant, and are also the muscles you rely on during the run. The calves and Achilles tendon act more as stabilizers than primary force producers in this setup. As a side effect, the shortened ankle lever also reduces the tendency to point the toes down while pedaling, slightly narrowing the frontal profile for a small aero gain.

What the research says: Millour et al. (2020), testing under simulated sprint-distance triathlon conditions, found rearward cleat placement reduced running energy cost by ~5.9% and medial gastrocnemius activation during the run by 25%, with clear benefits during steady-state cycling. Evans et al. (MDPI Sensors, 2021) tested in real outdoor conditions and found a significant drop in perceived exertion (RPE) during the post-bike run, with an effect size of 0.9. A 2025 biomechanics study (SportRxiv) found rearward cleat placement significantly reduced Achilles tendon strain, with implications for long-term tendon health.

One caveat from the same Millour et al. study: at sprint efforts (>100% MAP), rearward cleats actually increased activation in the calf, vastus lateralis, and hamstrings. So the benefits are clearest for the long steady-state efforts that define triathlon; if the ride involves a lot of sprinting or standing climbs, the picture gets more complicated — though triathlon riding is almost always long steady-state power, so this is less of a concern.

Joe Friel (Triathlon Training Bible) has advocated for this setup since 2007; Daniela Ryf and Jan Frodeno both use rearward cleat placement. For standard three-bolt shoes, FORM Cleat Extender Plates or PatroCleats are the common options. Getting to a true mid-foot position requires shoes with extra drilled holes or triathlon-specific footwear.

Real-World Test: Kasumigaura + Kitaura, 180 km

After the fit I did a loop around Lake Kasumigaura and Lake Kitaura — 180 km, about six hours.

The difference was noticeable: same power output felt faster, and the aero position felt more solid. No wind tunnel, but the before/after side view tells the story clearly enough. Some shoulder and neck fatigue by the end — normal for a long TT bike effort — and noticeably better than before the refit. The 3–4 hour breakdown that used to show up didn’t happen.

Was It Worth It

This refit confirmed two things.

First, the saddle really was too high. Twenty-three millimeters doesn’t sound like much, but saddle height directly affects hip angle, pedaling efficiency, and saddle comfort over long efforts. My old position was probably forcing the pelvis to over-compensate on every pedal stroke — most likely the root cause of the saddle discomfort after hour three or four.

Second, the Thomas Test confirmed the right quad issue. I knew I was tight there, but hadn’t connected it to the ceiling on how aggressive a position was actually sustainable. This fit made it clear: hardware adjustments and body limitations need to be worked on together — numbers alone only go so far. That flexibility still needs work — I’ve been doing some stretching before bed most nights, and hope to see improvement over time.

TT bike fitting is different from road bike fitting — different factors, different tradeoffs. If you have a tri bike and haven’t done a TT-specific fit, it’s worth doing.

Reference

Sun Merit Bike Fit Studio: https://bikefitting.jp
Millour et al. (2020), Journal of Science and Cycling: https://www.jsc-journal.com/index.php/JSC/article/view/521
Evans et al. (2021), MDPI Sensors: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/17/5899
SportRxiv (2025), Achilles tendon strain & cleat position: https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/562
Joe Friel on cleat position (2007): https://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2007/01/cleat-position.html
Triathlete.com, Midsole Cleat Placement: https://www.triathlete.com/gear/bike/midsole-cleat-placement/

ASICS Superblast 3 Review: Better Than Megablast?

Sun, 08 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000

ASICS Superblast 3 — FF LEAP on top, FF BLAST+ underneath

I’ve been running in the Megablast and Superblast 2 for the past several months. The Megablast is fun but too fast-biased for easy days — I kept drifting above Z2 without meaning to. When the Superblast 3 came out with a new foam setup and more stack, I wanted to see if it could handle more of my training volume without that problem.

After a threshold run and a 2.5-hour progression long run, I think it can. The Superblast 3 is softer, more cushioned, and more versatile than both the Superblast 2 and the Megablast. It’s not the most exciting shoe in the ASICS lineup, but it’s the most practical one.

That’s the short version. Here’s everything else.

Specs and Comparison

	Superblast 3	Superblast 2	Megablast
Price (USD)	$210	$200	$225
Price (JPY)	¥26,400	¥24,200	¥27,500
Price (TWD)	NT$5,980	NT$5,980	NT$6,680
Weight	239 g	249 g	230 g
Stack height (heel)	46.5 mm	45 mm	45 mm
Drop	8 mm	8 mm	8 mm
Foam	FF LEAP + FF BLAST+	FF Turbo + FF BLAST+	FF Turbo²
Best for	Z2–Z3, long runs	Z2–Z3 steady	Z3–Z4, racing

ASICS lists the weight at around 239 g in US9. My pair came in at 233 g right and 231 g left. 10 g lighter than the Superblast 2 despite more stack — and it feels that way on foot.

Before even running, one thing was obvious: the Superblast 3 feels soft just walking around in it. The 1.5 mm stack increase is real, and you notice it immediately.

Fit and Sizing

True to size for me. Same size across all my ASICS shoes except the S4, where I go half up.

The fit is more trainer than race shoe. Lockdown is solid, no heel slip. The toe box has noticeably more room than the Megablast, which I appreciate. The Megablast rubs my toenail on longer runs — sometimes enough to damage socks. No sign of that in the Superblast 3 so far.

Upper feels premium. Tongue padding is excellent, no hot spots. Can’t comment on breathability yet — all my testing has been in winter.

More trainer-like fit compared to the Megablast — roomier toe box, solid lockdown

Ride Feel: Softer, Bouncier, More Cushioned

The biggest change vs. the Superblast 2 is how it rides.

The Superblast 3 is noticeably softer and bouncier, driven by the FF LEAP layer on top. On landing, it compresses quickly — you can clearly feel the softness at first contact. Then the firmer FF BLAST+ underneath provides structure and keeps the platform from going vague.

That layered behavior is easy to notice during the run. The Superblast 2 is firmer and more straightforward. The Superblast 3 has more cushioning, more energy return, and a more forgiving character overall.

Compared to the Megablast, it’s not as explosive. The Megablast has more pop and feels more speed-biased. But the Superblast 3 is easier to control, especially when the goal isn’t pushing every step.

One thing worth noting: at higher speeds, the dual-layer character fades — not because the shoe disappears, but because shorter ground contact time means less time to notice each layer separately. What you get instead is just the ride.

Stability: Slightly Less Than Superblast 2, Still Very Good

Because it’s softer, the Superblast 3 is a bit less stable than the Superblast 2. But overall stability is still very good.

Straight-line running is completely fine. Cornering is fine too, though if you’ve spent a lot of time in the Superblast 2, you’ll notice it feels slightly less planted. Not problematic — just softer.

For reference, I weigh around 73 kg fasted in the morning. The shoe holds up well at that weight. Heel strikers and slightly heavier runners should have no issues, as long as they’re not expecting the firmer SB2 feel.

Outsole pattern similar to Superblast 2 — wet grip expected to be good

Long Run: 2.5 Hours, Z2 to Z3 Progression

This was the real test.

My first run in the Superblast 3 was 3 × 15 minutes at threshold, averaging around 4:20/km. The long run the next day was 5 × 30-minute progression blocks with 2-minute rest, hitting 5:36 / 5:23 / 5:17 / 5:04 / 4:48. The shoe handled both ends of that range comfortably.

After 2.5 hours:

Cushioning still felt protective and alive as fatigue set in
Still able to accelerate and hold pace in the final 30-minute block — that matters
Bounce and stability stayed consistent throughout, no sign of foam flattening
Quads felt noticeably better than after similar efforts in the Megablast — the extra cushioning is doing real work
Toe box stayed comfortable even as feet swelled over distance

The quad difference surprised me. It’s not just a softer feel at the start — the Superblast 3 genuinely protects the legs better over long efforts.

Superblast 3 vs Megablast

Superblast 3 (left) vs Megablast (right) — similar silhouette, very different ride character

Top-down comparison — the roomier toe box on the Superblast 3 is easier to see here

This is the comparison most people want.

The difference is straightforward:

Megablast is speedier, bouncier, and more race-oriented
Superblast 3 is more cushioned, more forgiving, and more versatile

The Megablast wants to go fast. That’s fun, but it makes Z2 runs tricky — easy to drift faster than intended. The Superblast 3 is still lively but much easier to keep honest on controlled runs.

Fit-wise, the Megablast is more race-fit with a narrower toe box. The Superblast 3 feels like a premium trainer.

If you want one shoe for training and racing and care about your best race result, the Megablast has the edge.

If you already have a dedicated race shoe, or you want your daily trainer to be comfortable rather than fast, the Superblast 3 makes more sense for most runners.

There’s real overlap. If you already own a Megablast, the Superblast 3 doesn’t replace it cleanly. But it gives you a more comfortable option for the bulk of daily training.

Superblast 3 vs Superblast 2

For me, the Superblast 3 is a genuine upgrade, not just a different direction.

Softer, more cushioned, more lively, while still stable enough across a wide range of paces. The added comfort makes longer runs easier on the legs.

That said, if your favorite thing about the Superblast 2 was its firmer, more planted feel, the Superblast 3 may not be what you hoped for. It clearly moves toward a softer character. Both shoes are stable, but they feel meaningfully different.

For me, the Superblast 3 is the better overall shoe.

Who Should Buy It

Good choice if:

You want one premium trainer that handles Z2, Z3, long runs, and even race day
You already have a dedicated race shoe and want your daily trainer to be comfortable
You found the Superblast 2 a bit too firm
You do a lot of aerobic volume and want your legs to recover better
You want the most versatile shoe in the current ASICS super trainer lineup

Not ideal if:

You want the most race-biased trainer and don’t care about daily comfort
You loved the Superblast 2 specifically for its firm, stable feel
You don’t have a dedicated race shoe and need one shoe to maximize race performance

Cons

The Superblast 3 is very good, but there are real trade-offs:

Price increase on an already expensive shoe (exception: TWD pricing held flat vs SB2)
Slightly less stable than the Superblast 2, noticeable on corners
Significant overlap with Megablast if you already own both
May feel too soft for runners who preferred the firmer SB2 character
Not the best race option if you don’t have a dedicated race shoe

Verdict

The Superblast 3 is the most complete shoe in the current ASICS super trainer lineup for everyday training. Softer, more cushioned, and more forgiving than the Superblast 2, while still lively and stable enough for a wide range of paces.

It’s not as exciting as the Megablast. But it’s easier to recommend.

After a threshold run and a 2.5-hour long run progression, my conclusion is simple:

Want more speed and a better race tool? Buy the Megablast. Want more cushioning, more control, and a daily trainer that’s easier on the legs over the long haul? Buy the Superblast 3.

For my current rotation, the Superblast 3 fits better — and the long run confirmed it.

My Current Rotation

Superblast 3 — Z3 and below, long runs
Old racing shoe — Z4+ training sessions
Race shoe — race day