cadence

[c2c]

hi chaps, new to the forum but not new to cycling, would love to hear others thoughts on pedaling cadence.. so many of the guys i ride with and have rode with over the years are nearly always on the outer ring, pushing hard and slow. i can stay with them but im mostly never on the outer ring just spinning away merrily on the inner ring. i have always rode like this, and just cant seem to push the bigger gears comfortably, unless im going downhill.

ps i have a bianchi c2c alu 7 veloce about 8 months old, and a trek fuel 90, about 4 years old.. i ride to the pub on the trek, and everywhere else on the bianchi.

 

[mr Mag00]

i have a tendency to spin too. average cadence over 4 hours was 78

 

[Will1985]

Just remember that everyone is different and has a cadence range which suits them. I'm not sure if it relates to your (body) frame size or not, but I notice that smaller riders tend to spin more.

I'm very much in the spinning category - my lumpy 101km ride yesterday averaged 95rpm, while a flat out 40km TT will see me spinning an average of 102rpm.

 

[Franstheman]

i have a tendency to spin too. average cadence over 4 hours was 78

That's interesting. How have you calculated that? Are you riding fixed gear and if so, what gear size?

 

[mr Mag00]

wow will that sounds quite high

Franstheman -cadence meter on the cycle comp

 

[c2c]

Just remember that everyone is different and has a cadence range which suits them. I'm not sure if it relates to your (body) frame size or not, but I notice that smaller riders tend to spin more.

I'm very much in the spinning category - my lumpy 101km ride yesterday averaged 95rpm, while a flat out 40km TT will see me spinning an average of 102rpm.

def agree with that, i always advocate if it feels right it probably is right, but its surprising how many riders bluster away pushing a huge gear looking uncomfortable. i see it all the time.

ps... i didnt fit a cycle computer to my latest bike, it used to speak to me saying come on your not going as fast as yesterday, drove me nuts. im happier now, just slower... i am 49 mind you..

 

[RedBike]

with a 700x23 tyre, 2100mm circumfrence.
Pedalling at 90rpm, in 39x11 (Small, small)

Gear ratio = 3.545
x 90rpm = 319.09 wheel revs / min
= 19145.4 rev / hour
x wheel circumfrence 0.0021km = 40km/hour
= 25mph

More than quick enough to keep up (unless you're going downhill.)

 

[jay clock]

I do around 90-100 and tend to use smaller chainrings than many people for a given speed. On my triple I tend to be on the middle ring 90% of the time (40T) with no problem.... I was cruising at 32kph yesterday whilst on the middle ring

Do what suits you

 

[jimboalee]

with a 700x23 tyre, 2100mm circumfrence.
Pedalling at 90rpm, in 39x11 (Small, small)

Gear ratio = 3.545
x 90rpm = 319.09 wheel revs / min
= 19145.4 rev / hour
x wheel circumfrence 0.0021km = 40km/hour
= 25mph

More than quick enough to keep up (unless you're going downhill.)

Firstly, why are you on Small/Small ?

Secondly, folks who really spin, up at 95 rpm +, invariably only push, and get too used to it. Slower cadence gives you time to exercise the hams and hip-flexors when pulling round the back and over the top.

It is always good policy to do some hams training at a low cadence in a long gear, in preparation for the accels and hill climbing.

Not only but also, rotating slower pulling AND pushing will train the brain. After a few outings concentrating on the whole revolution, you can up the cadence while powering all the way round.

Its just like chord changes on a guitar. Start at a slow tempo and then speed up when you've learned the finger placements.

 

[jimboalee]

PS

There's nothing wrong with a high cadence.

kW = (Nm x rpm) / 9549.

So high rpm and not a lot of torque gives as much as low rpm and a lot of torque.

I prefer the high torque approach, because when I come to a hill, my legs are trained to pedal slow.

 

[bonj2]

There's no real need for cadence - I've never used it.

 

[TheDoctor]

Didn't you once say that about mudguards / drop bars / fixies ?

 

[c2c]

PS

There's nothing wrong with a high cadence.

kW = (Nm x rpm) / 9549.

So high rpm and not a lot of torque gives as much as low rpm and a lot of torque.

I prefer the high torque approach, because when I come to a hill, my legs are trained to pedal slow.

i guess that explains why i can stay with my big gear friends, just our bodies are working differently. ie my heart/lungs are working harder than my legs/knees... vice versa for them, does that make sense. the way i ride suits me i just find it an interesting subject.

 

[jimboalee]

Your body is producing kWatts, which is directly related to kCals/min.

If you are riding at the same speed ( no draughting ) on a similar bike, your power requirement will be similar.

14.32 kCals/min per kW.

Power to accomplish a speed is independent of gear ratio. ( there's an echo in here ).
Its related to Coefficient of drag.

There is a discussion on another thread about whether it is advantageous to share the torque at the crank between pushing and pulling, in undetermined ratio.
I say it is.
Many contend, but I cannot believe 750 Watts can be produced ( 34 mph during the final 25 km of a stage race ) by pushing alone.

 

[yello]

Interesting article about cadence in this months C+. I've only skimmed it as it only arrived this morning but, basically, some bloke (researcher type person) sez that we all have a natural cadence and it is often better to stick to that rather than try to change it, as this natural cadence is also our optimal one. Also, in some circumstances, it's better to have a slower cadence on bigger gears. As I recall, only TTing really benefits from a high cadence.