It’s a universal frustration for cyclists: gear failure. That moment when a crucial piece of equipment gives way, leaving you reliant on the limited stock of your local bike shop to avoid extended downtime. This exact scenario unfolded for me recently when the buckle on my trusty Specialized mountain bike shoes decided to break. Armed with an annual rebate and a 20% discount coupon from REI, I ventured out, hoping to find a suitable replacement.
Settling for the Shimano ME3
My options were surprisingly limited. Among the “serious” MTB shoe selections in my size at REI, the Shimano ME3 was the only viable choice. While the design raised some initial concerns, the allure of a discounted price – bringing a $120 pair of shoes down to a mere $40 after rebates and coupons – was too tempting to resist. Leaving the store, I felt a sense of satisfaction with what seemed like a smart purchase.
Shimano ME3 Cycling Shoe
A close-up of the Shimano ME3 mountain bike shoe, highlighting its sleek black and grey design.
Unfortunately, that initial satisfaction proved to be short-lived. My experience with the Shimano ME3 mountain bike shoes has been largely disappointing.
Design Flaws in the Shimano ME3 Mountain Bike Shoe
Two significant design issues plague the ME3, detracting from its overall performance and user experience. The first problem, noticeable even in the store, is the unconventional, inverted buckle design at the top of the shoe.
Traditional cycling shoe buckles, like those on my Specialized road shoes, typically feature the ratchet mechanism on the shoe’s side. A plastic tab extends from the upper, crossing the foot and inserting into the buckle – a straightforward “Tab A into Slot B” system. This tried-and-true design allows for easy, one-handed closure, even while riding.
A traditional cycling shoe buckle
A standard cycling shoe buckle design, showcasing the typical placement and mechanism for easy fastening.
Shimano, however, opted for a reversed approach with the ME3. The buckle is attached to the shoe’s upper, and the tab is on the side. This inversion creates a cumbersome fastening process. Instead of effortlessly inserting a tab, you’re now maneuvering the buckle to meet the tab. The buckle flops around, making alignment difficult and requiring significantly more concentration – akin to threading a needle while trying to balance on one leg. This “Slot B to Tab A” approach feels unnecessary and counterintuitive.
Shimano ME3 Cycling Shoe buckle
A detailed view of the Shimano ME3’s inverted buckle system, demonstrating the less intuitive design.
Shimano ME3 Cycling Shoe buckle
Another angle of the ME3 buckle, emphasizing the awkwardness of the reversed fastening mechanism.
While the buckle issue is merely an inconvenience, the second design flaw is a more significant functional problem, and in my opinion, a major oversight.
Beyond the buckle, the ME3 incorporates two Velcro straps, a standard feature in many cycling shoe designs. However, Shimano deviates from convention with the middle strap’s closure direction. Unlike most shoes where this strap closes outward, away from the bike, the ME3’s middle strap closes inward. This inward closure becomes problematic when the strap is cinched tightly, a common preference for cyclists seeking a secure fit. The end of the strap then protrudes inward, directly into the path of the crank arm with every pedal stroke. This constant rubbing is not only irritating but also a clear design flaw that becomes apparent from the very first ride. This isn’t a problem that develops after wear and tear; it’s an immediate issue. In fact, I’m contemplating resorting to scissors to trim the strap end, a drastic measure for a brand-new pair of shoes.
See how the end of the Velcro strap hits the crank arm?
An illustrative shot showing how the inward-closing Velcro strap on the Shimano ME3 can interfere with the crank arm during cycling.
Having to modify a new piece of cycling kit to make it functional is, for me, unacceptable. Had I not already dirtied the shoes on their inaugural ride, they would have been promptly returned.
Both of these issues suggest a design philosophy prioritizing novelty over practical functionality. It seems like Shimano aimed for differentiation without thoroughly considering the real-world impact of these changes on the rider’s experience.
Despite these shortcomings with the ME3, I remain a long-time admirer of Shimano cycling components. Even dating back to my early cycling days, when Campagnolo was the undisputed king of high-end components, I recognized Shimano’s commitment to functionality and reliability. With few exceptions throughout the years, Shimano gear has consistently delivered superior performance.
Regrettably, the Shimano ME3 mountain bike shoe appears to be one of those rare exceptions that falls short of the brand’s typically high standards.
Exploring Shimano Mountain Bike Shoe Alternatives
Given my disappointing experience with the ME3, if I were to make the purchase again, I would opt for the more basic and less expensive Shimano ME1 shoe. The ME1 features a straightforward two-Velcro strap design, eliminating the problematic buckle altogether. Crucially, both straps close outwards, avoiding the crank arm interference issue of the ME3. Sometimes, simplicity is indeed better.
Beyond Shimano, the PEARL iZUMi X-Alp Divide presents another compelling alternative in a similar price range to the ME3. The X-Alp Divide utilizes an innovative three-strap design, effectively using only two straps to secure the foot, offering a different approach to closure systems that may be worth considering.
When choosing mountain bike shoes, it’s essential to look beyond brand names and price tags. Careful consideration of design features and how they translate to real-world riding experience is paramount. In the case of the Shimano ME3, design missteps overshadow the brand’s reputation, leading to a less-than-ideal experience on the trail.
