Hi @John Fulton. I'm a bike fitter in Australia and the first thing I'd look at is the width of your shoes and the overall volume in the forefoot area. If your shoes are too narrow or otherwise compress your foot in the area of your metatarsals it can lead to 'hot foot' and numbness. There are a lot of delicate nerves and blood vessels that run around and between the metatarsals and when compressed it can disrupt blood flow and significantly irritate the nerves. The other thing I'd try if the shoes were OK, and maybe even as well as ensuring correct shoes size and width, is to move the cleats rearward under the shoe. Depends on where the cleats are located currently in relation to the knuckle/centre of the first metatarsal (big toe). Moving the centre of pressure created by the cleat further behind (hopefully it's already at least a few mm behind) the knuckle of the first metatarsal can provide relief. That will put the centre of pressure beneath a stronger and more stable part of your foot. If you do move your cleats back you may need to move your saddle forward by the same amount. That will ensure that all joint angles (hip, knee and ankle) remain the same throughout the pedal stroke. See how you feel before messing around with your saddle though to avoid potentially unnecessary hassle and a change in weight distribution.

@John Fulton Hi John. I'm a G8 partner and Lake dealer so I know both brands very well. I also use CX238 X (wide) shoes and G8 2620 insoles and have done for many years. G8 recommend replacing your 2620 insoles every 9 to 12 months, but I advise customers that anything up to a few years is usually OK depending on frequency and type of use. Eg, they will wear out more quickly if you use them in everyday shoes. The insole itself can last many years unless you have foot issues that create significant wear in specific/focused areas of the insole. The arch support piece, however, does tend to soften over time and you should compare it to new ones that you got with your insoles every 6 months or so to see if it feels comparable. I usually get a couple of years out of my arch pieces with a few thousand outdoor and maybe 5 to 7,000 indoor kms a year. Assuming you still have all the arch support pieces that came with the insoles you can use the next lower arch height in place of a flogged out arch piece. A new, lower arch piece will provide more support than the flogged out one of correct height. Going to the next higher arch piece is also a possibility, but you may not tolerate the extra pressure under your arch. Worth trying though to squeeze a bit more life out of them. How far back are the cleats in relation to the joint of your first metatarsal? That's the measurement that matters. You may need more cleat setback than the shoe holes allow and that would mean looking at cleat extender plates like ones from FORM or Midfoot Cycling. The cleat holes on the CX238 are pretty well positioned for most people I think, but I've used cleat extender plates for about three years now to help control my left heel that otherwise seems to drop lower than horizontal. The other thing to note with cleat setback is that arch length and foot length as measured on a Brannock device aren't always the same. So if you have short arches relative to foot length, for example, you might need to have your cleats a lot further rearward that you'd expect. Short arches and long toes or vice versa is something that I'm always mindful of when fitting shoes and cleats.

Hi @Giulio Granata I'm a bike fitter in Australia and having both your right leg and right foot shorter than the left is challenging to work with. The most important thing in this scenario is to find out whether it is the femur (upper leg bone) or tibia (main lower leg bone) that is shorter on the right. Maybe it's both bones shorter than the left, but it matters because it changes the way I'd approach it. If it's the tibia on the right leg that's shorter it's easier to deal with. Shim the right shoe to account for between half and the full leg length difference. Note that not everyone needs the shorter leg shimmed to be exactly the same as the longer leg so it's worth experimenting. When the client and I are happy that we have the right amount of shims we would then consider cleat position under each shoe. If it's the femur that's shorter in the right leg then I would look at cleat fore/aft position instead of, or maybe in conjunction with shims. The reason I would focus on cleat fore/aft is because the left leg is projecting further forward than the right and you may need to account for that to ensure a more symmetrical pedal stroke. A shorter femur on the same side as a shorter foot creates some conflict between cleat position adjustment to account for the leg length difference and cleat position to account for the difference in foot size. When positioning cleats for foot size/length difference, normally you would want the positioning mark on the cleat (all cleats have a mark that indicates the centre of the pedal axle) maybe 5 to 10mm behind the knuckle of the first metatarsal (big toe) on each foot. That's a rough starting point. That would mean that the cleat on the right shoe would be further back than the cleat on the left shoe. Doesn't have to be the full 6mm as per your foot length difference. Sometimes half the difference is enough. Positioning the cleats like that should make it feel like the centre of pressure beneath your foot is in the same position under both feet. So cleat position should be set relative to the foot's anatomy, not the shoes mounting holes. That should make your brain and central nervous system happy. It likes a feeling of symmetry if it can achieve it.

Hi @Elmer Feick Jr.. I'm a bike fitter in Australia and I use the balance method as a guide to determining ideal saddle setback with most road cyclists. Stronger cyclists or those seeking a more extreme aero position may be exceptions. But I still wouldn't ever use KOPS. KOPS has never had any basis in science. It's merely cycling folklore. Someone used it once and it kinda worked and was then accepted as quick and dirty way to assure customers that their saddle position was 'about right'. It will work for some people, but it's luck, not science. Just like ball of foot over pedal spindle, which places the centre of pressure under the shoe beneath a sensitive and anatomically unstable part of the foot. Keith Bontrager, no less, shot the KOPS myth down nearly 30 years ago, but it refuses to go away, and is often perpetuated by bike shops and some bike fit 'systems'. This article on the old Sheldon Brown website contains Keith's thoughts The Myth of K.O.P.S. Regardless of the method used, femur length, torso and arm length, upper body weight, range of motion restrictions, injury, quads versus glute and hamstring engagement, etc, all need to be considered when determining ideal saddle fore/aft position. The key benefits of the balance method are to ensure a more appropriate weight distribution that can benefit handling, and help to reduce pressure on the hands. Once established, I ask clients about quad versus glute and hamstring engagement and look at torso, shoulder and arm posture to refine setback in conjunction with changes to the front end of the bike to adjust reach where necessary.

@Ren Renner I'm glad KOPS works for you, but it's pure luck. There is no science or biomechanical reasoning behind it. It's just cycling folklore. Finding the optimal fore/aft position for any rider requires a lot of external observation in conjunction with feedback from the rider. There is a lot of nuance to it.

The balance test isn't suitable for outside. It would be very unsafe with a high likelihood of losing control of the bike.

Hi @Andrea Tore. I'm a bike fitter in Australia and I'll start by saying that it's very difficult to identify the root cause of issues remotely, but I'll offer advice or suggestions if I can. You've provided a LOT of info, which is great, but it's also a lot to digest without the benefit of actually seeing you on the bike. 10-20 seconds of video from each of both sides, front and rear is ideal. There is no substitute for seeing a client in person, but video is better than static photos. Keeping it simple to begin with, I agree that you should return the saddle height to the previous 5mm higher position. Then ensure the front portion (first 12cm from the nose as you've measured it) of the saddle is horizontal/0deg as the ideal starting point. That makes sense to me given the side profile of the Power Evo. What is your saddle to bar drop out of interest? Depending on the characteristics of a particular saddle, a little bit of nose down may be required to comfortably facilitate the kind of position you seem to be using. If you have a digital angle gauge try nosing down from 0deg by a half a degree at a time. I'd probably stop at -2deg if measuring along the front portion. What you don't want is the nose down so much that you feel like you're slipping forwards and/or you have more pressure on your hands from bracing against forward movement. If you find an angle that seems to work, or at least work better than the current angle, then try that at different saddle heights to rule out the potential for further improvement that way. You could then return again to the original saddle height with the new angle and test adjustments to fore/aft to make sure you have enough saddle beneath you to be properly supported, but not so much that your legs are rubbing on the edge of the saddle's wings. I have to declare that I'm not a fan of the Power saddles. It has a very slow taper, which means that from the rear to the nose, they stay very wide for a very long time. This can subconsciously force riders forward onto the nose to avoid their thighs clipping the leading edge of the saddles wings.