Looking to capitalize on the current trend of making the thinnest pedals possible, Tioga recently unveiled the new MT-Zero flat pedal. For most manufacturers the limiting factor for getting the pedal as thin as possible, has been the the axle of the pedal itself in the center of the pedal. While some companies have gotten around this by switching to bushings, or tiny needle bearings, Tioga is implementing what they call the ZEROaxle. The result: a super thin pedal that measures no more than 7mm thick at the fattest point, that still offers a dual concave shape.

Jump past the break for more on the MT-Zero!

The secret to the MT-Zero’s ability to work without an axle so to speak, is the ZEROaxle bolt that houses the main bearing. ZEROaxle’s cartridge bearing is more than twice the size and capable of handling over five times the dynamic load of typical bearings which is necessary due to the load being placed all at one point, rather than spread across the pedal. The ZEROaxle bolt is fully replaceable as well, so if you damage the actual pedal, or blow out the bearing, you should still be able to rebuild your pedal.

At this point some of you may be thinking, “haven’t I seen this before?” The answer is yes. Sort of.

A while back, what was and still is, the thinnest pedal available was introduced called the FlyPaper pedal. While no doubt serving as a large inspiration for the MT-Zero’s design, the FlyPaper had one major drawback – it required a special crank. Currently, the FlyPaper pedals are sold as a package with a Gravity Crank included that has been modified to run the pedals. The obvious advantage of the new MT-Zero pedals, is that due to their standard 9/16th threaded bolt, you can run the Tiogas on any standard crank.

Unlike the Flypaper pedal, the MT-Zeros retain a concave platform that measures around 4mm in the center and flares to 7mm at the ends. The MT-ZERO’s body is constructed of a one piece, investment-cast chromoly steel platform, that has been tested for anything from XC to all-mountain.Tioga claims the MT-Zero pedals weigh in at 450 grams per pair, and should be available shortly after Interbike at a suggested retail price of US$99.


  1. I can’t help but feel that this design is solving a problem that doesn’t exist. Who is really complaining that their bottom bracket is too high? And are the people buying these products trying to solve a geometry problem, or do they really just like the having the thinnEST, or thinnER than jones’ pedals? With mountain bikes finally adopting a double in the front, the new clearance provided allows a lower bottom bracket, at the very least, the few millimeters that this is altering. Finally, who are these for? DHer’s and BMXers are the only people that should want to spend 100 bucks on a pedal that isn’t clipless, and the BMXers switched back to very light, very well designed Nylon/Chromo pedals for 20 bucks a pair instead of $120 for mag/ti pedals. Fixed gears? Maybe, but I don’t think these would work well with HoldFast or Power Grips. Otherwise, if you’re dropping 100 bucks pedals and you’re still too scared to clip in, put the wallet away and get back on the trail awhile, save the money for a decent pair of mountain bike shoes and start using the other half of your legs, you know the other half of the motor that you’re not using when you pound away on your platforms. Congrats to the engineers, but… why?

  2. “Who is really complaining that their bottom bracket is too high?”

    Scott has just lowered their bb across their ranges since it gives better handling. Obviously the pedal needs to match that move as well, not to mention a great deal of weight savings. I’d buy this product as soon as it comes out even if I haven’t used a flat pedal for more than a year…

    PS: I’ve been in situations where I wished for a higher bb.

  3. I could see this being adopted by road peddal manufacturers leat alone mtb clipless peddal manufactures wanting to get closer to the axel centre.

  4. I have a pair of Dura-Ace Dyna-Drive pedals for the early 1980s that have this. The bearing was actually inside the crank (with a really oversized be hole in the crank). They worked fine until the bearings eventually gave out. Due to the loading, it’s not a very simple application to select a lightweight, durable bearing configuration for.

  5. @georgep: if you don’t see a use for them then fine. But obviously there are those who do.
    If you paid any attention to bio-mechanics of the leg/foot/etc then you would know that getting as close to the axle center as possible is desirable for many reasons, clipped-in or not.
    And so what if it’s just for DH and BMX? (which its not), obviously that isn’t you, but those guys come to this site too.
    “Too scared to clip in”? Who are you to judge? You’ve obviously never ridden with platforms. I’d say its the other way around. Riding clipped-in is quite easy by comparison.

  6. Yeah, I think it’s pretty rad, personally. It’s got nothing to do with bottom bracket height and everything to do with your foot’s stability on the pedal and its tendency to auto-rotate in ways you don’t want it to when you shift your weight. It’s not a big deal until you ride a set of especially heavy or thick pedals, and then you really notice it. I imagine the converse would also be true. These would make for some pretty deluxe commuting pedals, hope the tech trickles down to cheaper price points.

  7. this comment is directed to george p!maybe you should do some home work about mechanics of a bicycle and have some logic behing youre argument.and weither or not someone wants to clip in or ot is strictly there decision in certain aplications i beleive its deff better to clip in (road riding,technical sectons with billy goat type climbs)but thats strictly the riders choice not mine nor youres.and when you go and buy a crankset do u think that the crank arm length is strictly for fit reasons?whats the sense of buying a crank arm thats 172.5 if the peddles 20 mm thick rightfuly youre loosing 10 mm of crank arm length from a thicker peddle correct or no?i think these peddles will improve certain peoples rides in certain aplications without a doubt.and i always try to go with a thinner peddle try simply make the fit on my cycle best for my needs.and its seems logicly if u buy a 175 mm crank ark and the peddle is extremely thin then youre utilizing that 175 mm as apossed to the 165 because the big fat peddles took an actual ten mm off the actual reach.does that make sense?im not being sarcastic bye any means im simply asking if my logic makes sense to any other rider.and second of all they simply look bad azz so yup!!ill be the first in our group to try them out.but in the dynamics of a bicycle a thinner peddle seems to simply make more sense to me,if it didnt then why should crank arm length mean anything?cpmments are very welcome im just stating what seems to be obvious to me,and im bye no means a proffesor of cycling dynamics

What do you think?