HTupolev

Maybe.

It's not like I'm forced to use the interleaves; they're just there when I want tight shifts, which most of the time is in circumstances where a double-shift isn't clumsy to employ.
It's worth emphasizing that the middle/big front shifts are a lot snappier and less disruptive than on modern wide doubles due to the relatively tight front ratio. So much so that sometimes, when I want a shift that's a little bigger than a 1-cog rear shift, I'll sometimes flick the front shifter instead of using a rear shift.

A multi-range non-interleaved setup with similarly-effective ratio placement and overall range is surprisingly hard to create. Modern doubles have to use quite wide-ratio cassettes to achieve similar range, even in 12-speed.

burnthesheep

There is one thing about this though..........in both bikes and running, cadence tends towards some kind of "norm" or bell curve if you will of folks who cycle or run "really well".

Having the ability in running to have a littler higher cadence allows you to vary your gait less when encountering hills or needed changes to maintain your run power. If you can run at 180 spm then you can vary that an easy 20 or 30 either direction and not change your gait too much. If you run a really slow novice like 100, you don't have as much ability to do so and will have to change your gait a lot more.

I tend to believe the bike cadence norm of "90" comes from half of the normative "performance" run cadence of 180. And follows for harder efforts often to be more spm or cadence and easier ones lower.

We chased things to hunt/eat for a long long time, so figure our bodies adapted to optimize that. Folks who ran better ate better and survived to reproduce. A bike cadence is half because a cycle is left AND right. Running spm is each foot strike.

Run fast to chase your food ----> 180 spm -----> pedaling a bike divided by 2 -----> 90.

Personally I'd argue lots of folks have a mental block going to a compact crank because of some macho thing going on. "Real men ride a full size crank". So they freaking mash the daylights out of totally ridiculous gearing.

Also, good luck with loving that 11 cog so much. Trackies run more teeth front and rear for this reason. You can also have a nicer gear spread with more teeth than fewer for a given speed. 11 teeth is about the least efficient tooth count out there excluding the novel idiocy of axs 10 tooth cogs.

Cadence variability is a talent, one that is part natural and part worked on. Having it provides lots of capability on the bike to immediately adjust to environmental or race demands. Being at 60rpm in an 11t doesn't really provide the same level of immediate speed adjustment.

HTupolev

On what basis is it being assumed that livedarklions lacks cadence variability? Preferring an abnormally low cadence doesn't necessarily imply a narrow range, just that the range is in a lower region than typical.

mstateglfr 

I am 6'5 210# and went from 24.9 old BMI to 23.15 new BMI.
I always thought me being right on the absolute edge of being categorized as overweight is a bit nut at my current weight, but really dont think much of it. I mostly dismiss that BMI metric as pretty worthless, actually.

While I 100% could improve on my fitness and get stronger while also reducing fat, its tough for me to view myself as actually overweight at this weight. So the new calculation tracks in this case.

...or maybe its just an adjustment to make everyone feel slightly better.

burnthesheep

Same ground speed:
1rpm change at 60rpm in 53/11 is about 0.6 mph
1rpm change at 92rpm in 50/16 is about 0.25 mph

That's just how gearing works.

tomato coupe

BMI isn't very useful for tall people. But, it's great if you're really short!

Retro bike fan

On my ss road bike with a coaster brake i use 49-19. on my coaster brake folding bike i use 42-18

tomato coupe

Bad math ...

HTupolev

In this example (presumably assuming a typical 700c road setup), 60->61rpm is somewhere around .36 mph, not .6mph. Also, gearing math requires consideration to proportionality: changing by 1rpm at 60rpm is arguably more like changing by 1.53rpm at 92rpm than 1rpm at 92rpm.

But either way, that doesn't answer my question regarding livedarklions' cadence range.

livedarklions

Yes, I am definitely offended by the word "inability". I don't know if you're trying to sound condescending, but that's definitely how that choice of words comes off. I can spin fine when needed (hills, headwinds and starting from a dead stop), but generally don't do it to cruise flatland because it isn't useful to me.

Like I said above, I start by spinning a relatively low gear, then rapidly shifting up. My acceleration is very good, as are my rods and bearings, which are quite intact and pain free.

I don't know why you feel a need to keep explaining to me that what I do is unusual, that's been my premise all along. Basically, this all started with me commiserating that buying new bikes with high gearing is getting extremely difficult.

livedarklions

His reasoning was so specious overall, I barely managed to read through it.

Nothing like getting wished "good luck" for something I've been doing successfully for years.

burnthesheep

The math was wrong (looked at wrong row in sheet), but you effectively proved my point in the yellow I changed in your quote.

I'm not arguing you can't have any range you want, I'm arguing the effectiveness of such a gearing choice in a practical nature. Folks can pedal from anything over zero to whatever if they want to.

It's simply not as effective to try to vary cadence to vary speed at a really low cadence versus a higher one.

My argument about cadence talent is that if you're at 90, if you have the talent, can vary that from 70 to 110 probably pretty well. If you're starting at 60 can you in good faith argue that person can vary that cadence in an effective manner (not forcing it) by the same 40rpm spread?

You can argue the person starting at 90 could be 60 to 110 if including standing on a climb. So 30rpm under 60 is 30. C'mon, can you in good faith argue that? 30?

HTupolev

Based on what you wrote below, I don't think you understood the yellow.

You wouldn't need to. A 40rpm spread at 90rpm is comparable to a 26.7rpm spread at 60rpm, namely 46.7rpm to 73.3rpm. And similarly...

90rpm->60rpm is comparable to 60rpm->40rpm, not 60rpm->30rpm.

If someone is actually effective cruising the flats at 60rpm, then using my modified ranges, sure, I don't see why it's a crazy position. Highly unusual, but not obvious-on-its-face ridiculous.

GhostRider62

My preferred cadence depends on power and varies from 68-72 rpm at randonneuring speed to 92-94 RPM at TT efforts.

I run a 56/39 rings with 11,12,13,14,15,17,19,22,25,28,32 cassette

livedarklions

I'm not saying this makes me equivalent to the fastest cyclists out there, it does however seem to make me the fastest cyclist I'm capable of being.

I'd comment more about my range, but since I don't measure it, I don't have any real numbers. But why are you assuming that my range is bell shaped curve? It could easily have a much longer right-hand tail than left. You're making a bunch of assertions based specious assumptions. But hey, 90 is half of 180 must mean something, right?

livedarklions

More to the point, if my normal cadence is about 60 RPM, why would I need to go down to 40? My variability could be to go above and not below my normal.

burnthesheep

Fair for converting 60 to 40. But my personal opinion is that since this is BF, you can’t discount folks posting stuff like LDL just to rattle the cage.

Get is to argue the outlier for fun instead of writing it off as the not very useful datapoint.

Apply this same concept to run cadence and it gets a bit silly. Go try to run at 80 spm. You look like a long jumper striding to the sand pit.

I’m done taking the troll bait on this one. Mash away. But if we ever go on a run I expect no less than a half marathon worth of long jump strides to go with the 40rpm bike cadence. If they manage it, we need video as that’ll be an internet sensation.

livedarklions

You do get that gearing is not a thing that exists in running, right? Draw all the stupid analogies you want, I'm not lying.

And I've still got no idea why you think riding at 60 rpm requires me to ride at 40 rpm.

Gonzo Bob

Hey, livedarklions - I'd actually like to see how you gear your bike(s) (I thought that's what this thread was about). For example, do you put on a 55t or 56t big ring (like were used on 650C wheeled triathlon bikes long ago to offset the smaller wheel size, and can you even get those big rings these days or have 10t and 11t cassette cogs essentially made them obsolete)? Do you put on a straight block cassette (can you even get those these days or do you have to "build your own")?

The next club ride on a flat course, I think I'll spin on my 13-18 straight block freewheel

HTupolev

Yes, but this isn't analogous. Running largely doesn't employ gearing, so the idea of maintaining power output while using a slower stride at higher force simply doesn't make any sense. In running, if your drive foot is actuated more slowly relative to your upper body, it means you're moving slower and (if conditions are equal) producing less power. On a bicycle, the relationship of torque and cadence is tunable: if a rider's legs are uncomfortable pedaling rapidly but can push with enormous force, they can select a higher gear than a more typical rider would choose; their resulting pedal stroke would be unusually slow, but otherwise need not be kinematically-whacky in the way that super-low-cadence running would be.

ThermionicScott 

Maybe LDL is a diesel.

livedarklions

I've been called worse.

livedarklions

​​​​​​The two bikes I do most of my riding on are old brifter bikes with 8 speed Shimano 600 Tricolor, and I have 11-28t cassettes, standard issue Shimano. It's 53t in the front, and I forget the size of the small chain ring. I don't think my front derailleurs could handle a bigger chain ring, but I've never actually looked into it.

I do think that people are probably too reluctant to experiment with higher gears because of people claiming certain things are impossible or making grossly exaggerated claims of danger.

livedarklions

I get this nonsense a lot from people like burnthesheep who can't get their minds around someone doing something they can't. All he had to do to make it implausible was to ignore the fact that I'm on an actual bicycle with adjustable gears.

Next, someone will argue that my knees will explode or something.

Branko D

Do you actually measure cadence using a device or no? Self reported cadence without measurement can be quite a bit off. It is like when people talk about power but don't measure it 🤷

Left to their own devices, the legs do some sort of resistance matching. If I'm riding easy my cadence will always be lower because it just feels natural. 60 rpm at 110% of FTP is a miserable experience, but 60 rpm at 60-65% of FTP feels perfectly natural.

Some people train low cadence on purpose, too. My wife's triathlon coach had her do loads of low cadence drills (it's somewhat popular in triathlon, idea is it improves the run I think). So we're on a training ride together, riding at same speed and similar power, same 11-30 cassette and I'm on 50-34 chainrings and she on a 55-42 with a 15 rpm lower cadence. It's trainable, although I don't see why you would.
​​​​​