Bicycles Network Australia - Australian Cycling Forums

by **brentono** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:14 am

True words from both you guys

This style of correctly learning how to pedal, is very involved, takes a long time to perfect,
and it begins when you first start to ride. And after a period it becomes second nature,
and later, you just do it subconciously, just like maintaining your balance on your bike.
Being able to maintain it, you then move on to being able to maintain it a higher cadence.
Having gone through this process (basically having it drummed in from childhood) it works.
I could devote a whole Training Topic, just on how to get there, but that would be a task.
And to expect someone to go through the process would be an ask. Hard work.
Life's too short.

by **BNA** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:06 pm

by **twizzle** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:06 pm

ft_critical wrote:
twizzle wrote:I've always wondered about the 'perfect circle', 'one legged drills' etc., but I think AS is correct in that it's all about pushing the pedal harder. Given that hip flexors pull on the lower spine (back pain) and have little endurance... probably better to not try and turn circles.

I don't think it's circles, maybe that is where some of the confusion is. It is migrating from stomping to peanuts to sausages. Not a circle. A guy at work was just telling me that Velofix (bike store who do spin classes etc.) have an application that shows you the picture of how you are pedalling. I think they use Wattbikes.
https://wattbike.com/us/guide/cycling_tests/pedalling_technique_test/what_the_polar_view_shapes_mean

When they publish the graphs from a selection of pro's rather than "their interpretation" of what is good & bad, I'll be more interested. I'd also want to know what power level they were performed at, as I would expect there to be a vast difference in how you would pedal when riding endurance, when riding at VO2Max and when sprinting in the saddle.

by **auswi2** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:15 pm

I believe if you are learning to ride or wanting to ride with the least amount of effort then cadence is great to understand. I ride 40k each Sat and my avg cadence is around 80rpm. On Hills it drops way to much (My Weakness).

Ride at the rpm and the gearing you fell comefortable with. Fo me it is the smallest cog on the front. Hardly ever use the large front cog. My averge spped is 24.5kph over 40ks spinng at 80rpm.

thanks

auswi2

by **Nobody** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:35 pm

auswi2 wrote:Ride at the rpm and the gearing you fell comfortable with. For me it is the smallest cog on the front. Hardly ever use the large front cog.

Tests have shown the larger cog on the front (with the same overall ratio) to be more efficient.

"The first factor was sprocket size," Spicer says. "The larger the sprocket, the higher the efficiency we recorded." The sprocket is the circular plate whose teeth catch the chain links and move them along. Between the front and rear sprockets, the chain links line up straight. But when the links reach the sprocket, they bend slightly as they curl around the gear. "When the sprocket is larger, the links bend at a smaller angle," Spicer explains. "There's less frictional work, and as a result, less energy is lost."

http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home9 ... /bike.html

by **brentono** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:42 am

Retro-rule-of-thumb
Small chainrings allow slightly faster acceleration, big chainrings roll better.
:mrgreen:

by **foo on patrol** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:19 pm

^^ X2 ^^

Foo

by **waramatt** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:26 pm

I'm a big chainring guy. I have 53/39 on my road bike and I'm too bloody lazy to drop to the little ring unless I'm on some sort of monster hill. Since I don't do too many monster hills, I can go weeks without using the 39 ring. A guy in a bike shop I spoke to when my daughter bought her bike reckons we're all either spinners or grinders. If that's true and I had to choose, I'd say I'm more of a grinder.

Cadence? No idea, except when I'm riding SS (I have 3 of them) so I kinda know when I'm cruising along at 28-30 that my cadence is sort of 85-90 and that feels right for me.

I tend to get all excited with new gear like HRMs, GPS, bike computers and smart phone apps, so I have to take a reality check every now and then and remember that:

1. I'm not training for Paris-Roubaix - I don't even do any competitive riding at all and
2. I ride for the sheer enjoyment of it, and as a healthy way to commute to work (I was gonna add "cheap" but that's a damn lie). :mrgreen:

Each to their own. Some days I take the bike computer off and go native......

by **mateyboi** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:52 pm

I'm pretty much a spinner. Most of the time spin between 90-100rpm.

Feels easier to spin then grinding gears for me.

The faster you the spin the higher the heart rate and the more fluids you would require. Cause i drink a bucket load of water every time. I can drink 2 700ml water bottles for a 50km ride at around 30kph+ pace.

The whole science behind it is that you have fast twitch and slow twitch muscles. Fast twitch muscles are like matches, when you use them, they burn out and take a longer time to recover. Grinding and sprinting would exhaust these muscles.

While your slow twitch muscles are endurance muscles which can last for a very long time and recovers quite easily. Super spinnnnnnnnnnnnn ftw!

by **brentono** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:46 pm

Come in.... Spinner!

by **Xplora** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:25 pm

My cadence SUCKS.

Actually took a metronome with me today on the commute, was lucky to get up to 100 except on cruising flats 3 times in 20kms... I think I'm averaging something like 85-90 on a quicker spin... horrifying...

confirms I need my 12-23 10 speed cassette, I spend most of the time around 17-19 and an extra gear would be swoit :wink:

by **vander** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:57 pm

85-90 is not terrible. Most pros sit between 80-90 (some under 80), 100ish for hard efforts from the data files I have looked at. As stated above there is a large band for optimal cadence and what you normally do is usually your optimal cadence.

by **Xplora** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:09 pm

Yeah but the big efforts really don't translate so well over the distance, plus I noticed today that if you ease off then your speed plummets because you aren't pushing a big enough gear. The speed from 16/50 might be the same as 19/50 at a different cadence but it seems easy to muscle through.

by **Xplora** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:25 am

Rode home doing a solid 100rpm, got there without much muscular distress, but it's just not as fun to spin fast. Not as fun at all... it's easier, but the endorphins get running from the horsepower, not the speed.

Interestingly, it's REALLY hard to do a big push if you've been pushing an easy gear. Something physiological needs to be triggered to get the power down, and it just isn't there if you're spinning the easy gears :shock: