Cadence - When do you Lug?
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,765
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6882 Post(s)
Liked 10,871 Times
in
4,636 Posts
Around here, I've ridden grades as steep as 37% - and I am not a very strong climber. So, I am accustomed to slogging away at a low cadence.
To the OP, I suggest that, if you are wondering whether you need lower gearing, you should just get it.
By the way, if you think that a cadence below 70 rpm (or so) is too low, imagine this. Here he is
To the OP, I suggest that, if you are wondering whether you need lower gearing, you should just get it.
By the way, if you think that a cadence below 70 rpm (or so) is too low, imagine this. Here he is
Last edited by Koyote; 08-12-19 at 11:19 AM.
Likes For Koyote:
#52
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
Around here, I've ridden grades as steep as 37% - and I am not a very strong climber. So, I am accustomed to slogging away at a low cadence.
To the OP, I suggest that, if you are wondering whether you need lower gearing, you should just get it.
By the way, if you think that a cadence below 70 rpm (or so) is too low, imagine this. Here he is in action.
To the OP, I suggest that, if you are wondering whether you need lower gearing, you should just get it.
By the way, if you think that a cadence below 70 rpm (or so) is too low, imagine this. Here he is in action.
In the meantime it is going to have to be a 34F/32R. I just bought a new Emonda SL6 and the ease of achieving this gearing (vs trying to do it on my upgraded 1996'ish Bianchi) was one reason (it was my only bike). One other reason was the fact that an attempt to move the nose of my saddle 1/16", resulted in me being without a bike for 5 days (see https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...st-seized.html for the full story).
dave
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,765
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6882 Post(s)
Liked 10,871 Times
in
4,636 Posts
37% is not anything that I have come even close to encountering (or even imagining).
In the meantime it is going to have to be a 34F/32R. I just bought a new Emonda SL6 and the ease of achieving this gearing (vs trying to do it on my upgraded 1996'ish Bianchi) was one reason (it was my only bike). One other reason was the fact that an attempt to move the nose of my saddle 1/16", resulted in me being without a bike for 5 days (see https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...st-seized.html for the full story).
dave
In the meantime it is going to have to be a 34F/32R. I just bought a new Emonda SL6 and the ease of achieving this gearing (vs trying to do it on my upgraded 1996'ish Bianchi) was one reason (it was my only bike). One other reason was the fact that an attempt to move the nose of my saddle 1/16", resulted in me being without a bike for 5 days (see https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...st-seized.html for the full story).
dave
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
I am also convinced that force (too much of it) is the important parameter here. But, even though force is the fundamental measurement being made by my power pedals, that number is not reported to me. But I can see power and cadence and can imply a relative force from those numbers. So power and cadence is how I look at this.
I could have asked 'how many newtons of force can you apply long term to your pedals before you fatigue excessively in long climb', but probably would not have gotten a useful response :-)
dave
I could have asked 'how many newtons of force can you apply long term to your pedals before you fatigue excessively in long climb', but probably would not have gotten a useful response :-)
dave
low cadence is not inherently lugging. If you’re putting out 50W, 40rpm will not make you cross that force threshold that puts you into quick-fatigue territory.
I’ve heard (bro science most likely) that at a certain force threshold, your muscles cannot continuously contract to deliver that force. Instead, they rapidly twitch. This is extremely inefficient and causes huge amounts of fatigue. People here are talking about gearing but that will probably just make you weaker and allow you to go at a slightly greater speed in more comfort. If the goal is to get faster, strength training to specifically increase that force threshold will allow you to deliver more power regardless of the RPM, but it will help most on steep climbs where you are overgeared. And like some people have noted, even a 1:1 gear isn’t enough to spin the ideal 80-90 rpm that we want on all climbs. I have a climb near my home that’s about 3 miles of 10% average. 1 mile is at 12%. 1:1 gearing isn’t enough. You could put a 42 on the back, but those cassettes are heavy and the steps are huge.
also for me personally, I start to lug around 8% climbs. Maybe 6 or 7% if I’m fatigued. I’m comfortable at 80rpm or so but I can’t sustain that on many hills above 5% because I’m fairly unfit and have 34:28 gearing.
#55
Senior Member
This is true at any force. Different fibers cycle through contraction and relaxation. The greater the force, the more fibers are contracting at the same time. Similarly, at any force or tension, all fiber types are activated with the ratio changing based on the force and contraction speed required.
#56
Senior Member
This runs contrary physiology. Strength is never a limiter with any reasonably geared bike. The maximum pedal force is no greater than to step up a single riser on a staircase. Anyone who can't walk up a flight of stairs is severely limited physically and wouldn't be cycling on the road.
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
This is true at any force. Different fibers cycle through contraction and relaxation. The greater the force, the more fibers are contracting at the same time. Similarly, at any force or tension, all fiber types are activated with the ratio changing based on the force and contraction speed required.
This runs contrary physiology. Strength is never a limiter with any reasonably geared bike. The maximum pedal force is no greater than to step up a single riser on a staircase. Anyone who can't walk up a flight of stairs is severely limited physically and wouldn't be cycling on the road.
But the main point of my statement was that a stronger muscle is more efficient at a given force level than a weaker one. So if you’re going to be delivering a certain amount of force regardless, and that force is in the “inefficient” territory, strength training can allow one to expand the “efficient” territory to include that amount of force. I’m sure some of this is bro science, so I’m curious to know more.
#58
Senior Member
You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. There is plenty of data from power meters in the field and under controlled laboratory conditions showing that for geared bicycles the maximum pedal force is quite low. You can look up the references in PubMed or Google.
#59
Senior Member
This is not true in the proper meaning of efficient (work done per energy consumed), I doubt it's true in whatever context you mean here (less fatiguing, more comfortable, what?) as well.
#61
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
This runs contrary physiology. Strength is never a limiter with any reasonably geared bike. The maximum pedal force is no greater than to step up a single riser on a staircase. Anyone who can't walk up a flight of stairs is severely limited physically and wouldn't be cycling on the road.
Ask me to do the same speed on the same incline (therefore same power) in a 52/11, I doubt that I could do that for more than a minute (although I have never tried such a thing - on purpose anyway). This would be a tad under 20 rpm, BTW.
So force (as small as it might be relative to body weight/gravity) does matter (a lot). I assume that the average force on the pedals for a crank revolution is far different than the peak force. I wonder if that is an issue here?
dave
#62
Senior Member
#63
Senior Member
Don't confuse force with strength (the maximum force or tension a muscle or muscle group can produce). I don't think any knowledgable person would dispute that performing at much higher than self-selected force (lower cadence) will result in very rapid fatigue, but that has nothing to do with strength.
#64
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
Here are some numbers. Assume a 65 kg rider (143 pounds). If he/she puts out 250 watts on a 170mm crank, this is 156 Newtons of force (35 pounds). Drop the cadence to 20 rpm and the resulting required force is 702 Newtons. This person weighs 637 newtons, BTW.
To take the steps thought experiment, assume that the steps are a 45 degree incline (pretty steep steps). This required 450 Newtons And the force required to basically go up a ladder at a constant velocity is body weight (637 newtons) and continual ladder climbing is probably tiring.
So this all kind of makes sense, whether or not maximum (as defined by strength) is a factor or not. I will say that now that I am doing a lot more low cadence pedaling as training, I get the sense that some work on a 45 degree incline sled would be helpful (could be wrong, of course).
dave
ps. I am assuming that I did the high school physics stuff right - 1966 was a long time ago.
To take the steps thought experiment, assume that the steps are a 45 degree incline (pretty steep steps). This required 450 Newtons And the force required to basically go up a ladder at a constant velocity is body weight (637 newtons) and continual ladder climbing is probably tiring.
So this all kind of makes sense, whether or not maximum (as defined by strength) is a factor or not. I will say that now that I am doing a lot more low cadence pedaling as training, I get the sense that some work on a 45 degree incline sled would be helpful (could be wrong, of course).
dave
ps. I am assuming that I did the high school physics stuff right - 1966 was a long time ago.
#65
Senior Member
I don't have a climber (and probably sprinter) build. I am about 6' and usually over 200 lbs. I have big thighs, 23.5" circumference. In '75 while training for a cross country ride with my older brother, I noticed on a good climb (12 miles, 2200 feet climb) the first day I used a low gear and was way behind my brother, couple days later on same climb I used a higher gear and dropped him. Of course this is relative to how he was doing both days. I notice that if I have lower gears I'll use them, but I don't think it makes me climb faster, as I'll be roughly at the same cadence, I guess, as some say, my engine mimics a diesel, constant cadence no mater what I throw at it, so for speed I might as well use the higher gears as I have the strength to push them. Note you can get the same power out with high force * low cadence or low force * high cadence.
To each his own.
Last edited by phillman5; 08-12-19 at 08:21 PM.
#66
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,002
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3335 Post(s)
Liked 3,436 Times
in
1,737 Posts
Once again, the main purpose of a higher cadence is simple — to delay muscle fatigue.
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse
#67
Kit doesn't match
#68
Senior Member
Yes, you can. But only when you're working well below your maximum. As the effort increases, pedaling with high force/low cadence will fatigue your muscles much more quickly than low force/high cadence.
Once again, the main purpose of a higher cadence is simple — to delay muscle fatigue.
Once again, the main purpose of a higher cadence is simple — to delay muscle fatigue.
#69
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
Pedaling cadence is a personal thing. Lance started spinning after training proved it worked better for him. Ulrich was a diesel engine and wouldve probably blown up if he tried to spin. They were both amazing riders. My very good friend and riding buddy had a cadence of about 40 max. I always wanted to tell him that he was doing it all wrong, but I never could catch him!
#70
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,002
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3335 Post(s)
Liked 3,436 Times
in
1,737 Posts
But any individual, regardless of their amount of type 1 fibers, benefits from lifting the cadence when the effort is high enough.
Nobody time trials at a 60 cadence.
#71
Senior Member
See post right above yours by balesmachine and his friend that had a cadence of 40. Many Time Trialists have a 56 tooth large chain wheel, and they are not doing 90 rpm with that.
#72
Senior Member
Terry,
See post right above yours by balesmachine and his friend that had a cadence of 40. Many Time Trialists have a 56 tooth large chain wheel, and they are not doing 90 rpm with that.
See post right above yours by balesmachine and his friend that had a cadence of 40. Many Time Trialists have a 56 tooth large chain wheel, and they are not doing 90 rpm with that.
Last edited by asgelle; 08-13-19 at 09:21 AM.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked 206 Times
in
125 Posts
In principle I will be taking on some long and steep climbs in a couple of months. And the question of gearing is still on my mind.
In my case it seems to me that, assuming that I am putting out power somewhere in the range of my ftp, that a cadence down in the 70 to 75 range is where things start to become inefficient. I think that I could pedal at 80 rpm or 95 rpm (at around my ftp) without making a huge change in physiological effort. But somewhere in the 70 to 75 rpm range and (at the same power output) I will find that the time that I can spend at roughly ftp is going to go down. And things go downhill (as in harder to maintain) pretty quickly in a very small rpm range. E.G., there seems to be a huge difference between 67 and 72 rpm.
What have others found about this in their riding. I am just curious. A new RD (or not) for my bike is driving this question.
Thanks.
dave
ps. It is a difficult experiment to run in my case because I just don't have any climbs that are long enough to test this (everything around here is up and down constantly, so constant power/rpm is not something that I can achieve on our roads).
dave
In my case it seems to me that, assuming that I am putting out power somewhere in the range of my ftp, that a cadence down in the 70 to 75 range is where things start to become inefficient. I think that I could pedal at 80 rpm or 95 rpm (at around my ftp) without making a huge change in physiological effort. But somewhere in the 70 to 75 rpm range and (at the same power output) I will find that the time that I can spend at roughly ftp is going to go down. And things go downhill (as in harder to maintain) pretty quickly in a very small rpm range. E.G., there seems to be a huge difference between 67 and 72 rpm.
What have others found about this in their riding. I am just curious. A new RD (or not) for my bike is driving this question.
Thanks.
dave
ps. It is a difficult experiment to run in my case because I just don't have any climbs that are long enough to test this (everything around here is up and down constantly, so constant power/rpm is not something that I can achieve on our roads).
dave
#74
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,002
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3335 Post(s)
Liked 3,436 Times
in
1,737 Posts
The measured average cadence for a pro cyclist in a flat time trial is 92.4 ± 1.3 rpm (Lucia et al 2001). The lowest measured cadence was 86 rpm.
Lucia et al also measured an average speed in a time trial of 47.3 kph. At 92 cadence, that's about a 56/15 gearing. So yes, I think that the best time trialists can pedal a 90 cadence with a 56 chain ring.
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse
Last edited by terrymorse; 08-13-19 at 10:07 AM. Reason: typo correction
#75
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pinehurst, NC, US
Posts: 1,716
Bikes: 2020 Trek Emonda SL6, 90's Vintage EL-OS Steel Bianchi with 2014 Campy Chorus Upgrade
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 452 Post(s)
Liked 162 Times
in
110 Posts
Are you sure they're not pedaling a 90 cadence with a 56 chain ring? Because I think they are — at least the best ones are.
The measured average cadence for a pro cyclist in a flat time trial is 92.4 ± 1.3 rpm (Lucia et al 2001). The lowest measured cadence was 86 rpm.
Lucia et al also measured an average speed in a time trial of 47.3 kph. At 92 cadence, that's about a 56/15 gearing. So yes, I think that the best time trialists can pedal a 90 cadence with a 56 chain ring.
The measured average cadence for a pro cyclist in a flat time trial is 92.4 ± 1.3 rpm (Lucia et al 2001). The lowest measured cadence was 86 rpm.
Lucia et al also measured an average speed in a time trial of 47.3 kph. At 92 cadence, that's about a 56/15 gearing. So yes, I think that the best time trialists can pedal a 90 cadence with a 56 chain ring.
dave
Likes For DaveLeeNC: