Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Cadence when climbing

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Cadence when climbing

Old 12-20-19, 07:09 PM
  #51  
BengalCat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brentwood WLA
Posts: 326

Bikes: 50/34, 11-40, 11 Speed

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 52 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
You, I believe, are a Cat 1. I am not, nor AFAIK is anyone else in this thread. Maybe that's the difference? You might compare yourself to Lance instead of to us duffers. Lance TTed at 110 or so, even though he could maintain the same power at 80 for the same distance? I mean really . . I don't think that's true. You're saying that cadence doesn't matter to physiological stress. Lance didn't think so. But you can ride your FTP for an hour at any cadence.
As you may know, Lance didn't ride all of his prime career years with what's now his trademark high cadence on climbs. At a certain point in time he experimented in the lab the effect on his heart rate and lactic threshold by raising or increasing his cadence for extended periods such as a climb. It was shown that his HR only went up two beats and there wasn't a negative effect on his lactic threshold. Consequently, he changed his style to the higher cadence that he maintained throughout the rest of his career. When he was winning those TDFs most of his main rivals maintained lower cadence which compared to today was also lower. Now, of course, high cadence is the big deal on the climbs in the grand tours.

Cadence is a very specific personalized individual inherited determined trait after proper training. The majority of fit riders be they recreational or professional fall mostly fairly close to each other, especially in the pros, but some folks do better at a rate outside the majority range. (In Lance's day, Jan Ullrich definitely a low cadence guy AND rarely climbed out of the saddle while on the other hand Armstrong did a lot of climbing out of the saddle.
BengalCat is offline  
Old 12-20-19, 07:47 PM
  #52  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Try using a calculator.
Oh, those are giving you on-the-fly speed readings now? You keep a calculator app pulled up on your phone that you access and provide input to while riding?
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 12-20-19, 07:54 PM
  #53  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
You, I believe, are a Cat 1. I am not, nor AFAIK is anyone else in this thread. Maybe that's the difference? You might compare yourself to Lance instead of to us duffers. Lance TTed at 110 or so, even though he could maintain the same power at 80 for the same distance? I mean really . . I don't think that's true. You're saying that cadence doesn't matter to physiological stress. Lance didn't think so. But you can ride your FTP for an hour at any cadence. Wow!

Or perhaps you simply left the word "maximum", or better, the phrase "maximum power output for the length of the climb" out of your first sentence? Yes, it's true, I can maintain zone 1 power for a long time at almost any cadence. Well, not any. 10 is too slow and 120 is too fast. For most folks, that 10-120 range gets smaller and smaller as the power goes up. But not for you! Does anyone here train in erg mode?

More to the point, are you saying that the OP's question is nonsensical? I thought that "best cadence to produce maximum power output for the length of the climb" would be a good way to put it. And IIRC it was you who pointed me to the article about the fellow training to win the Mt. Washington climb and how he found a 95 cadence worked best for him. That was very informative.
No, category has nothing to do with it. And no, there's a bigger gulf of talent between a cat 1 and a world tour pro than there is a cat 1 and a cat 5 (i.e., anyone that wants to race).

I'm saying that your entire premise is nonsense.

Cadence varies, just like power output. Unless you're on a fixed gear on a track (and even then, there are variations on the turns), a rider will vary their cadence repeatedly throughout an effort. They will stand, they will sit, they will shift up, and they will shift down.

You're clearly not getting much out of your powermeter if you've been using it for this long and still can't maintain a given wattage output through a range of cadences.

20+ min climb over ftp. Cadence (top green line) compared to power (yellow line). From stretches of 70 rpm to over 105 rpm, targeting a specific average wattage output.



And another from a different year. Cadence all over the place again, but max effort at max power.

Last edited by rubiksoval; 12-20-19 at 09:30 PM. Reason: pic
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 12-20-19, 07:54 PM
  #54  
colnago62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times in 230 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Try using a calculator.
Speed has so many variables that effect it. Average speed on a 10% climb is different than average speed on 5% climb. Add in variables as wind, road surface and ride position, it makes speed not the most accurate way to determine max output.
colnago62 is offline  
Old 12-21-19, 03:26 PM
  #55  
canklecat
Me duelen las nalgas
 
canklecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,522

Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel

Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4559 Post(s)
Liked 2,798 Times in 1,798 Posts
And as if GCN wasn't already reading our minds, today's tech video...

canklecat is offline  
Old 12-21-19, 04:45 PM
  #56  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by colnago62
Speed has so many variables that effect it. Average speed on a 10% climb is different than average speed on 5% climb. Add in variables as wind, road surface and ride position, it makes speed not the most accurate way to determine max output.
Of course you are correct. But say you are on a steady gradient and have a PM. You increase power - yup, speed goes up. Speed is a function of power. Before I had a PM, I did my hill repeats on steady grades and simply held my speed steady. It's the same as doing it with power. I didn't have power, but I did have HR and a tested LTHR. So I'd do hill repeats at a steady speed and a speed at which my HR would be at some percentage of LTHR by the end. That worked well for intervals which were 3 minutes or longer.

Now that I have a PM, I do them at a percentage of tested FTP. But what do you know, my HR behaves in exactly the same way as when I used speed and HR to gauge effort. The difference is that with power I have a much better idea of my starting effort and better control over not going too hard at the start.

In the same way, if one were trying to find out one's best climbing cadence, one would hold either speed or power steady, depending on whether or not one had a PM, and vary the gear and thus cadence to see what cadence put the least strain on one's system, i.e. notice HR and breathing during one particular steady climb.

Let us not forget that runners, skiers, swimmers, and many other athletes train by speed, HR, and breathing, not by power. They seem to do OK. Runners discuss speed and cadence a lot. Power is just another convenient measurement.which is available to cyclists, not an end-all and be-all..
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 12-21-19, 06:37 PM
  #57  
colnago62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times in 230 Posts
I never said anything about not being able to train with other systems and many sports have no other choice. It is true that being able to measure power is more accurate in a situation where one is training on a road bike. If somewhat close is okay for what you are trying to achieve, your system would absolutely be acceptable. It will never be the most accurate approach for road cycling.
colnago62 is offline  
Old 12-21-19, 10:00 PM
  #58  
RedBullFiXX
Senior Member
 
RedBullFiXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: SoCal USA
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked 41 Times in 33 Posts
I have yet to encounter a steady gradient riding outdoors ?
Perhaps this exist, just not in my experience
RedBullFiXX is offline  
Likes For RedBullFiXX:
Old 12-21-19, 10:19 PM
  #59  
BengalCat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brentwood WLA
Posts: 326

Bikes: 50/34, 11-40, 11 Speed

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 52 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy

I thought that "best cadence to produce maximum power output for the length of the climb" would be a good way to put it.
IMO an accurate concept or model well stated.
BengalCat is offline  
Old 12-21-19, 11:15 PM
  #60  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by canklecat
And as if GCN wasn't already reading our minds, today's tech video...

https://youtu.be/iU_q7_pHq9Q
Thanks for that vid. Exactly what I've been talking about here over the years. Nice to have some backup.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 03:26 AM
  #61  
Racing Dan
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1332 Post(s)
Liked 316 Times in 214 Posts
Originally Posted by Amt0571
I have started to use a cadence sensor. I read that an ideal reference cadence is around 90rpm. I've been looking at my cadence and found that I can easily ride at 90rpm (and higher) when descending with little effort. On the flats, at normal speeds, I seem to pedal more around 80rpm, only reaching 90rpm when I want to push myself and go faster than usual.

However, when climbing any meaningful slope (10%, for example) I found I'm totally unable to pedal at 90rpm. I feel really uncomfortable at that cadence, and end doing most of the climbs between 70 and 80, and, sometimes, even falling down to 65rpm if it's a really steep slope (16 - 18%).

What is a usual cadence for such climbs?
16% or more is very steep and you need ultra low gears to maintain a reasonable cadence.

Im betting your inability to maintain a any more than 65 rpm is the result of a too high bottom gear.

a 34/32 bottom gear at 60 rpm is about 5 mph. 5 mph on a 16% incline is ~340W (!) if you are 175 + 20 lbs. Thats a lot.

a 34/32 bottom gear at 90 rpm is about 7.6 mph. 7.6 mph on a 16% incline is ~520W (!) if you are 175 + 20 lbs. Now you are into mutant power territory ...

What is you bottom gear?

Last edited by Racing Dan; 12-22-19 at 03:31 AM.
Racing Dan is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 03:28 AM
  #62  
Amt0571
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Catalonia
Posts: 956

Bikes: Canyon Grand Canyon AL SL 8.0, Triban RC520 Gravel Ltd, Btwin Ultra 520 AF GF, Triban Road 7, Benotto 850

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 402 Post(s)
Liked 215 Times in 137 Posts
Originally Posted by Racing Dan
16% or more is very steep and you need ultra low gears to maintain a reasonable cadence.

Im betting your inability to maintain a any more than 65 rpm is the result of a too high bottom gear. a 34/32 bottom gear at 60 rpm is about 5 mph. 5 mph on a 16% incline is ~340W (!) if you are 175 + 20 lbs.

What is you bottom gear?
My bottom gear is a 34/32. I replaced the stock 32/28 just to be able to tackle such climbs more comfortable. I wanted a 34/34, but the Rival RD can't take it, at least officially.

Last edited by Amt0571; 12-22-19 at 03:07 PM.
Amt0571 is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 03:56 AM
  #63  
Racing Dan
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1332 Post(s)
Liked 316 Times in 214 Posts
As noted before, your bottom gear is much too high to maintain a high cadence. Even 60 rpm takes substantial power if the slope is 16%. Id suggest a 30/34 or 30/36 bottom gear rather than 34/32.
Racing Dan is offline  
Likes For Racing Dan:
Old 12-22-19, 07:04 AM
  #64  
bruce19
Senior Member
 
bruce19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,456

Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1722 Post(s)
Liked 1,272 Times in 734 Posts
IMO climbing cadence is highly dependent on the type and length of climb and your body type.
bruce19 is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 07:31 AM
  #65  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Of course you are correct. But say you are on a steady gradient and have a PM. You increase power - yup, speed goes up. Speed is a function of power. Before I had a PM, I did my hill repeats on steady grades and simply held my speed steady. It's the same as doing it with power. I didn't have power, but I did have HR and a tested LTHR. So I'd do hill repeats at a steady speed and a speed at which my HR would be at some percentage of LTHR by the end. That worked well for intervals which were 3 minutes or longer.
That's just wrong and everyone knows it.

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Now that I have a PM, I do them at a percentage of tested FTP. But what do you know, my HR behaves in exactly the same way as when I used speed and HR to gauge effort. The difference is that with power I have a much better idea of my starting effort and better control over not going too hard at the start.
..
Your hr behaves in that it starts at a much lower rate than it finishes, and that later efforts have a higher hr than earlier efforts! A bit of a silly way to try to gauge something when you have a much more precise and immediate measure of effort at all times.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 07:33 AM
  #66  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444

Bikes: bikes

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times in 711 Posts
Originally Posted by RedBullFiXX
I have yet to encounter a steady gradient riding outdoors ?
Perhaps this exist, just not in my experience
And one in a vaccuum. And one with perfectly consistent pavement.
rubiksoval is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 02:45 PM
  #67  
BengalCat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brentwood WLA
Posts: 326

Bikes: 50/34, 11-40, 11 Speed

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 52 Posts
Originally Posted by Racing Dan
As noted before, your bottom gear is much too high to maintain a high cadence. Even 60 rpm takes substantial power if the slope is 16%. Id suggest a 30/34 or 30/36 bottom gear rather than 34/32.
Other than an injury or bike damage while riding your bike the worst experience in cycling is to "run out" of gears. I'm fit, old, and heavy with impaired calve function and about a year and a half ago I went from a 32t to a 40t on my Domane road bike. I now need a 40t on grades where four years ago I would use a 28t.

In practical terms, if you have hills in the area where you ride your road bike and you like to climb be very liberal when you choose what the gear is on the top of your cassette.
BengalCat is offline  
Likes For BengalCat:
Old 12-22-19, 02:47 PM
  #68  
BengalCat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brentwood WLA
Posts: 326

Bikes: 50/34, 11-40, 11 Speed

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 52 Posts
Originally Posted by Racing Dan
As noted before, your bottom gear is much too high to maintain a high cadence. Even 60 rpm takes substantial power if the slope is 16%. Id suggest a 30/34 or 30/36 bottom gear rather than 34/32.
Other than an injury or damage to your bike while riding, the worst experience in cycling is to "run out" of gears. I'm fit, old, and heavy with impaired calve function and about a year and a half ago I went from a 32t to a 40t on my Domane road bike. I now need a 40t on grades where four years ago I would use a 28t.

In practical terms, if you have hills in the area where you ride your road bike and you like to climb be very liberal when you choose what the gear is on the top of your cassette.

Last edited by BengalCat; 12-28-19 at 12:51 PM.
BengalCat is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 03:10 PM
  #69  
Amt0571
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Catalonia
Posts: 956

Bikes: Canyon Grand Canyon AL SL 8.0, Triban RC520 Gravel Ltd, Btwin Ultra 520 AF GF, Triban Road 7, Benotto 850

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 402 Post(s)
Liked 215 Times in 137 Posts
Originally Posted by BengalCat
Other than an injury or bike damage while riding your bike the worst experience in cycling is to "run out" of gears. I'm fit, old, and heavy with impaired calve function and about a year and a half ago I went from a 32t to a 40t on my Domane road bike. I now need a 40t on grades where four years ago I would use a 28t.

In practical terms, if you have hills in the area where you ride your road bike and you like to climb be very liberal when you choose what the gear is on the top of your cassette.
What road RD accepts a 40t? My Rival 22 accepts a 32 at most. Unofficially probably a 34.
Amt0571 is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 03:21 PM
  #70  
canklecat
Me duelen las nalgas
 
canklecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,522

Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel

Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4559 Post(s)
Liked 2,798 Times in 1,798 Posts
I'm not sure any short cage rear derailleur can handle more than a 32T big cog. I've used 28T cogs with short cage RDs from Shimano and Suntour (older bikes).

But when I switched my 1993 Trek 5900 to an 11-32 cassette I replaced the short cage Dura Ace RD with an older Shimano Deore LX long cage. Works fine. Heavier but that's okay.
canklecat is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 03:32 PM
  #71  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,691

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7287 Post(s)
Liked 2,365 Times in 1,382 Posts
Efficiency is greater at lower cadences. (Surprise!) The problem is that turning a low cadence with a lot of force can damage your knees. That's one big reason it's not recommended. But how slow is too slow? There's no easy answer. I started having knee problems when I was 24, and I'm 58 now. I still climb at a low cadence, and I think I'm not harming my knees, at least not too much. I think my cadence is 90 or more on the flats, but I don't measure.

You can condition yourself to increase your cadence, and maybe you should, but don't worry that you're doing something terrible currently.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 04:27 PM
  #72  
BengalCat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brentwood WLA
Posts: 326

Bikes: 50/34, 11-40, 11 Speed

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 52 Posts
Originally Posted by Amt0571
What road RD accepts a 40t? My Rival 22 accepts a 32 at most. Unofficially probably a 34.
I put a Shimano XT CS M8000 cassette and a Wolf Tooth Tanpan Inline 11-speed Conversion component on the bike.

My RD was a Shimano 105 midsize. As I recall I could with the Tanpan component have used the 105 RD but I chose instead to swap out the 105 RD for a Shimano Deora XT with a clutch "just to be sure" and for optimal performance.

IIRC I could have gone up to at least a 42 and even possibly a 46. So that adds me a gearing option that I cannot imagine I will ever need. If I can't get up it on a 40t I don't have any good reason to try. But as I degrade, who knows?

Last edited by BengalCat; 12-22-19 at 04:31 PM.
BengalCat is offline  
Old 12-22-19, 11:11 PM
  #73  
canklecat
Me duelen las nalgas
 
canklecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,522

Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel

Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4559 Post(s)
Liked 2,798 Times in 1,798 Posts
Yep, I'm discovering the advantages to a lower cadence than I'm accustomed to, especially for climbing. I just posted something about this to another thread but I'll try to summarize it here.

I naturally seem to prefer spinning right at 90 rpm, like clockwork. But by last year I'd hit a wall in performance. I could sit and spin alongside stronger cyclists mashing up hills, and sometimes pass them, but my heart rate would peg and I'd be gasping for breath. Nothing I did helped in training. And I consulted every credible theory and training technique.

But at my age and physical condition I'd hit an insurmountable wall. That's partly due to lifelong respiratory problems and probable lung damage (exposure to TB as an infant, many bouts of pneumonia, bronchitis, etc.).

Then there's allergies and asthma problems. Besides that, I also have a deviated septum from amateur boxing. I'm not sure how much it hinders my breathing but it must have some effect. And my nostrils and sinuses always feel congested no matter how much decongestant, Flonase, saline wash, etc., I use. I can rarely smell anything milder than a garbage dump or animal carcass along the road. Maybe once a month my head clears up enough to smell ordinary stuff, which reminds me how much I'm missing. And I can actually breathe on those rare occasions.

That's one reason why I'm switching from high spin to low cadence pedaling. I've read all the theories and lab tests applied to pros. I've tried both methods myself. There are advantages to high cadence but only for folks with really good cardio and respiratory systems. When I try seated spinning on some climbs my heart rate is pegged and I'm gasping for air.

But when I practice high gear, low cadence, seated and standing, on my own, my heart rate stays much lower and I'm not strangling from lack of oxygen. I just needed time to work on adapting to a new technique, including more leg strengthening with squats, lunges, moderate weights, etc. My body resisted the change for awhile and my legs would cramp and burn out quickly. But now I can stand to pedal for up to a half-mile at a time if I'm careful to monitor my effort.

Since the spring I'm mostly riding a '93 Trek 5900, one of their early monocoque carbon fiber frames. Nice bike for what I paid, much lighter than my steel bike. It came with non-original components and a Biopace chainring setup, which I'd been wanting to try. Like some other folks who've ridden Biopace I found it felt more natural at a lower cadence, around 80 most of the time and 60-70 on climbs, even lower when standing to stomp up climbs, around 40-50 rpm. So over the year I've consciously modified my cadence and leg strengthening. Just the past month on good days it seems to finally be coming together.

But I'll need a cadence meter on the Trek to be sure. I have sensors on my steel bike, which mostly sits on the trainer. I ordered one this weekend, should be here in a day or so. It'll put some numbers to my impressions about whether a slower cadence and harder gears is working for me. I do know my average climbing speed is the same but my heart rate is lower and I'm not out of breath. So while I was comfortable with spinning at moderate effort, it wasn't working for me when I had to crank up the effort. And I'm comfortable using both techniques as appropriate.
canklecat is offline  
Old 12-23-19, 12:19 AM
  #74  
Hermes
Version 7.0
 
Hermes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,101

Bikes: Too Many

Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1327 Post(s)
Liked 2,442 Times in 1,427 Posts
My self selected climbing cadence is around 75 rpm.
Hermes is online now  
Old 12-23-19, 12:36 PM
  #75  
colnago62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times in 230 Posts
What studies found in the sprint world was that only a small selection of riders could produce their best wattage at very high cadence. There has been a change to larger gears in sprinting with many guys aiming for 140 rpm. I wonder if this might also apply to high cadence climbing?
colnago62 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.