Watts/Cadence
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,496
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Liked 8,298 Times
in
3,298 Posts
Hmmm. I don't. I think riders sometimes prefer to keep their cadence in roughly the same range while modulating power with torque, sometimes they prefer to keep their torque roughly around the same while modulating their cadence, sometimes they change both, in varying amounts, depending on the conditions of the ride.
Likes For tomato coupe:
#27
Senior Member
from what I’ve seen, the fast people tend to go for big gears, high torque, on rolling hills. That’s one of the times where you care about getting big power much past your average over an hour. There have been multiple times where I’m falling behind on a hill and people are telling me to shift up.
Likes For LarrySellerz:
#28
Perceptual Dullard
I'm not sure "prioritizing" is the right word. I think they're jointly determined, depending on what the rider is facing, and what the rider wants to do. I do think some riders lean a little bit more toward modulating their power with cadence, others lean a little bit more toward torque, but everyone is adjusting both, all the time.
Likes For RChung:
#29
Grupetto Bob
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,947
Bikes: Bikey McBike Face
Liked 6,608 Times
in
3,342 Posts
And whether you can be arsed to shift chainring
e.g. on Sunday morning 80km of 85km in, with a hangover, soaking wet, covered in spray grime as well as blood from a 30km nosebleed that came from nowhere and wouldn’t stop, I picked the vertical (even up and 45° left) line for the last couple of short inclines to avoid changing into the small ring. The dotted lines in this example were about 300 and 450W and all I could think about was getting home to a hot shower 😆
e.g. on Sunday morning 80km of 85km in, with a hangover, soaking wet, covered in spray grime as well as blood from a 30km nosebleed that came from nowhere and wouldn’t stop, I picked the vertical (even up and 45° left) line for the last couple of short inclines to avoid changing into the small ring. The dotted lines in this example were about 300 and 450W and all I could think about was getting home to a hot shower 😆
I too jive between 82 and 92 outdoors and will shift often to maintain my preferred output. The two exception are when climbing 5%+ when I drop down and when ZWIFTing I can find myself at 105 at times.
__________________
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Likes For rsbob:
#30
Senior Member
Likes For choddo:
#31
I'm not sure "prioritizing" is the right word. I think they're jointly determined, depending on what the rider is facing, and what the rider wants to do. I do think some riders lean a little bit more toward modulating their power with cadence, others lean a little bit more toward torque, but everyone is adjusting both, all the time.
Talking about a “preferred” cadence has more meaning for me with steady state power efforts. If I’m doing a 20 min sweet spot interval in ERG mode I will revert to my “preferred” cadence at that constant power. As I mentioned earlier, my “preferred” steady state cadence will tend to creep up at higher power levels. However, for steady state climbing I tend to prefer a slightly lower cadence than on the flat at the same power.
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1
Liked 1,125 Times
in
559 Posts
Yeah, that sounds like you have a fixed "preferred torque" level.
I think I gravitate towards a preferred power level, but it's grade dependent. I have no trouble maintaining power uphill, but it takes lots of concentration to keep the same power going on flat terrain. Shifting to a higher gear doesn't seem to make a difference -- the flat road power just doesn't seem to be there. Maybe I'm just "neuro-muscular" adapted to riding uphill.
I think I gravitate towards a preferred power level, but it's grade dependent. I have no trouble maintaining power uphill, but it takes lots of concentration to keep the same power going on flat terrain. Shifting to a higher gear doesn't seem to make a difference -- the flat road power just doesn't seem to be there. Maybe I'm just "neuro-muscular" adapted to riding uphill.
Plus the limitations of gearing with my power output & weight. My cadence is slowed to a crawl when climbing 7%+ - if I'm grinding up a climb at 220w - I may be turning 70 rpm in my easiest gear. That 220w on the flats can be at just about any combo of torque/cadence.
I find that doing a spirited flat ride, I can vary from 200-300w+ at will without any real sense of blowing up. Staying in the lower range with surges into the higher ranges, even much higher ranges - no real issues.
If I try that when climbing, even minor surges, everything goes to crap.
As for preferred cadence ranges - 87 seems to be my average number, regardless of the ride type (except climbing). Intervals are similar to others here - threshold 85-92, VO2 92-100 - peak sprint power comes in at 120.
Likes For Jughed:
#33
For me that point is around 8-9% slope for a prolonged road climb, which makes me think that I could be more efficient climbing with a lower gear range. I currently have a 35/33 low gear, but I would like to try a 33/36. That is going to be one of my winter experiments on my Kickr Bike where I can simulate both ratios back-to-back on a long climb.
Last edited by PeteHski; 12-06-23 at 06:29 AM.
#34
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,803
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Liked 1,931 Times
in
1,162 Posts
Oh man, that’s cool! Much more comprehensive and informative compared to the old school gear-inch chart scrutinizing! I should get a smart trainer bike like that…
#35
Senior Member
#36
It’s pretty cool. The software has presets for all the major group sets and shift ergonomics. Or you can use custom settings for anything else. I can also adjust crank length from 165-175 mm in 2.5 mm steps. Along with all the QRs for stack, reach and saddle height/setback, it’s like having your own shop fitting bike!
#37
Likes For PeteHski:
#38
Senior Member
A mate had one go badly wrong recently but it’s now repaired (for free, wahoo are good for that) and it’s an impressive bit of kit.
#39
Perceptual Dullard
For me that point is around 8-9% slope for a prolonged road climb, which makes me think that I could be more efficient climbing with a lower gear range. I currently have a 35/33 low gear, but I would like to try a 33/36. That is going to be one of my winter experiments on my Kickr Bike where I can simulate both ratios back-to-back on a long climb.
#40
I will have a look. I presume the Kickr is broadcasting power and cadence to Zwift at whatever frequency, but I think Zwift has "sticky" Watts if you suddenly stop pedalling ie. it holds your power for a second or two before dropping to zero.
#41
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,803
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Liked 1,931 Times
in
1,162 Posts
That’s using the Chart slider after selecting Power Summary. There’s also a Power Curve box that offers insights on peak power for preset time periods.
So, for example, on a particular 1.3hr ride where I averaged 191w at 82rpm and 16.4ft-lb torque, I can also see that my peak 10min power was 229w at 83rpm and 19.5ft-lb, peak 2min power during the ride was 271w at 85rpm and 22.5ft-lbs, and my 10sec peak 506w at 81rpm and 44.1ft-lb.
I’m not saying those numbers mean anything, not wven to me, because I don’t monitor torque in particular anymore— I used to, like 10 years ago when using CycleOps PowerAgent software to analyze stationary rides, because it was graphed with the rest of the data— but it is readily available in the Wahoo app if anyone would like to understand how torque, cadence, and power relate.
#42
Perceptual Dullard
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2023.2288435
#43
This paper's study subjects are world class and elite track athletes (so not really relevant to us) but what's interesting is that "field-derived" (i.e., velodrome) and "laboratory-derived" (i.e, on a stationary bike) cadence and max power were different. This means that the "load characteristics" of the stationary bike and the velodrome track were also different. World-class track athletes are an edge case but it suggests that "freely chosen" cadence and torque may not be directly transferrable between lab to road.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2023.2288435
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2023.2288435
#44
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,803
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Liked 1,931 Times
in
1,162 Posts
This paper's study subjects are world class and elite track athletes (so not really relevant to us) but what's interesting is that "field-derived" (i.e., velodrome) and "laboratory-derived" (i.e, on a stationary bike) cadence and max power were different. This means that the "load characteristics" of the stationary bike and the velodrome track were also different. World-class track athletes are an edge case but it suggests that "freely chosen" cadence and torque may not be directly transferrable between lab to road.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2023.2288435
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2023.2288435
I didn't have time to dig bag in ancient files from the PowerTap (going back to 2011) to compare torque values, but maybe I'll try to do that some day. I don't have a computer with PowerAgent anymore, but my coach has one in the studio, so it should be possible.
#45
Senior Member
Is that full rotation average? That's only about 80Watts at 90 cadence unless I've missed something.
#46
Perceptual Dullard
Relatedly, and perhaps interestingly, the ride data I posted upthread was an outdoor ride, while on Wednesday, I did a stationary ride on the old PowerTap 300Pro (or Pro 300; I forget) and looked at the PowerAgent data, including torque. I was just doing 5min blocks of L3 and L4 (so Tempo and Threshold) alternating cadence from 80-85, 90-95, 85-90rpm and back, so it was easy to see to torque values. As it does, PowerAgent reports in Nm, but I was seeing values like 7.5Nm-8nm (L3 and L4 respectively, ~250w and ~300w) which convert to only around 5.9ft-lbs. It seems either like something is way out of whack in either one or both of the readings, or it's an extreme example of the paradigm proposed in the report.
#47
IIRC, PowerAgent reported torque not at the crank but rather reported torque at the hub -- so if you're used to thinking about torque as crank torque, you would need to multiply the hub torque by whatever gear ratio you were using to convert it to the units you're used to seeing. So if you were pedaling, say, a 52x13 gear, you'd need to multiply the hub torque by 52/13 = 4 to get crank torque.
#48
From a very quick test riding for a couple of mins in my flip-flops I can already see that the reported wheel speeds are going to differ by quite some margin in certain situations, especially when descending at high speed. But they look close when riding steady on the flat.
From my quick test on the Yahoo app, it reported 210 W @ 85 rpm and torque 23.5 Nm, which is consistent with the power and cadence. Wheel speed was reported at 30 kph on the flat, which seems slow.
Last edited by PeteHski; 12-08-23 at 06:41 PM.
Likes For PeteHski:
#49
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,803
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Liked 1,931 Times
in
1,162 Posts
IIRC, PowerAgent reported torque not at the crank but rather reported torque at the hub -- so if you're used to thinking about torque as crank torque, you would need to multiply the hub torque by whatever gear ratio you were using to convert it to the units you're used to seeing. So if you were pedaling, say, a 52x13 gear, you'd need to multiply the hub torque by 52/13 = 4 to get crank torque.
#50
Senior Member
I’ve been off the bike with flu this week, but I did confirm that I can pair my Kickr Bike with the Yahoo app and Zwift simultaneously, So I will record some data over the weekend and see how they compare.
From a very quick test riding for a couple of mins in my flip-flops I can already see that the reported wheel speeds are going to differ by quite some margin in certain situations, especially when descending at high speed. But they look close when riding steady on the flat.
From my quick test on the Yahoo app, it reported 210 W @ 85 rpm and torque 23.5 Nm, which is consistent with the power and cadence. Wheel speed was reported at 30 kph on the flat, which seems slow.
From a very quick test riding for a couple of mins in my flip-flops I can already see that the reported wheel speeds are going to differ by quite some margin in certain situations, especially when descending at high speed. But they look close when riding steady on the flat.
From my quick test on the Yahoo app, it reported 210 W @ 85 rpm and torque 23.5 Nm, which is consistent with the power and cadence. Wheel speed was reported at 30 kph on the flat, which seems slow.