Do you really use your 11 cog to go faster?
12-02-15, 12:26 PM
#151
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times
in
173 Posts
Like most folks, I get "these ideas" from experience and observation. Of course someone who is practiced can modulate their speed finely from any cadence. It's been my observation that the steadiest wheels around often do maintain a high cadence, but spinners don't have a monopoly on that distinction, and some of the worst yo-yo-ers spin as fast as anyone - that is, when they aren't coasting.
I'm not sure what your example indicates either way, really. The 5 rpm cadence change is 5.5% for the guy starting at 90, 8.33% for the guy starting at 60 - of course it's going to make a bigger difference for the latter. It's also going to be far more noticeable in terms of effort - which gets to my point that, from any given speed, it's easier to accelerate more quickly with a higher starting cadence. Up to a point, the lower the cadence, the more sluggish acceleration tends to be. Anyone who has tried to take off again after slowing down to 5 mph or so while still on 53/11 knows this.
I'm not sure what your example indicates either way, really. The 5 rpm cadence change is 5.5% for the guy starting at 90, 8.33% for the guy starting at 60 - of course it's going to make a bigger difference for the latter. It's also going to be far more noticeable in terms of effort - which gets to my point that, from any given speed, it's easier to accelerate more quickly with a higher starting cadence. Up to a point, the lower the cadence, the more sluggish acceleration tends to be. Anyone who has tried to take off again after slowing down to 5 mph or so while still on 53/11 knows this.
12-02-15, 12:27 PM
#152
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times
in
173 Posts
Exactly my take upon looking at it, too; it gets used.
I honestly don't know which gears I use mostly, when, or what for, so that's why I went down to look at my wheel, and yeah, it looks like I get on it often enough, probably because the rolling terrain out here rewards carrying momentum, and if I have the opportunity to make speed downhill to save me some effort on the next uphill, I do. At 220lbs, it's not hard for me to gather the speed to be able to crank over the 53/11 for a bit down a gradual 6-7% slope before madly dumping gears to hump it up the other side.
I honestly don't know which gears I use mostly, when, or what for, so that's why I went down to look at my wheel, and yeah, it looks like I get on it often enough, probably because the rolling terrain out here rewards carrying momentum, and if I have the opportunity to make speed downhill to save me some effort on the next uphill, I do. At 220lbs, it's not hard for me to gather the speed to be able to crank over the 53/11 for a bit down a gradual 6-7% slope before madly dumping gears to hump it up the other side.
12-02-15, 12:38 PM
#153
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,428
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
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3129 Post(s)
Liked 1,696 Times
in
1,026 Posts
12-02-15, 05:13 PM
#154
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
Not-Mrs-Humbug's old tri coach pushed for low cadence for precisely that reason. Personally, I never liked it (even for tri) and aren't we supposed to be leaning on our cardio, rather than strength, systems as much as possible, since they can be trained to last practically forever?
12-02-15, 05:53 PM
#155
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,745
Bikes: S-Works Roubaix SL2^H4, Secteur Sport, TriCross, Kaffenback, Lurcher 29er
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not-Mrs-Humbug's old tri coach pushed for low cadence for precisely that reason. Personally, I never liked it (even for tri) and aren't we supposed to be leaning on our cardio, rather than strength, systems as much as possible, since they can be trained to last practically forever?
Some of the best pro time trialists do push a huge gear at a relatively lower cadence for time trials -- because they can go faster for that shorter duration event. But they don't use that same setup or strategy for the regular road races/stages.
12-02-15, 06:07 PM
#156
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 4,286
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1096 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Not really, if you are soft pedalling at 17mph@60rpm, you can jump faster from that gear and accelerate than you can from 17mph@90rpm. Its only sluggish if you are in such a high gear that you bog. Which is why when people attack they downshift right before or during the jump. According to your logic they should jump from the same gear.
12-02-15, 06:19 PM
#157
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,745
Bikes: S-Works Roubaix SL2^H4, Secteur Sport, TriCross, Kaffenback, Lurcher 29er
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If someone is soft pedaling, there's no telling what gear he's in, because he's effectively coasting as far as power goes. If the rate at which one is turning the cranks doesn't require the application of force, then yes, of course one will be able to "jump" better. What I was describing was gearing that requires a low cadence for the given speed: indeed, one where lugging is more likely than jumping. Intentionally being in a gear where one is more likely to bog than to jump - because one doesn't want to be jerky - is exactly what I've been trying to describe. There may be better ways of controlling pace (practice, concentration, etc.) but this is something people do.
12-03-15, 06:52 AM
#158
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 878
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Not-Mrs-Humbug's old tri coach pushed for low cadence for precisely that reason. Personally, I never liked it (even for tri) and aren't we supposed to be leaning on our cardio, rather than strength, systems as much as possible, since they can be trained to last practically forever?
I found the article I was thinking of that lower cadence = lower cost
My World From a Bicycle: The Ideal Cadence for Competitive Bicycling
He reviews the data that 120rpm is the most power output, but lower is more efficient. As power increases, the most efficient cadence increases too.
Here is the takeaway for our discussion:
"Lower cadences are more efficient for the vast majority of normal riders who do not have huge aerobic capacities and can not sustain large power outputs."
To bring this back to gearing, the weekend warrior does not have the aerobic ability to spin 53x12 as fast as a well trained athlete, so may be better served with a 53x11 (assuming the terrain calls for it, ie long downhills). The weekend warrior is not actually "spinning out" his max gear, he is just not trained to hold high cadence for very long, and is not efficient at it.
In my experience, my friend with the 54x11 does seem less tired after a pull than I do with 53x12, and my HR is higher. But that is anecdotal.
12-03-15, 08:31 AM
#159
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,428
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
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3129 Post(s)
Liked 1,696 Times
in
1,026 Posts
I've never met a single person who spun slowly to keep his inner stallion from accelerating with unintentional fury and risked running down the rider in front of him. I guess it's possible that such a misguided soul could exist though. The smoothest group riders I know all typically spin in the 90+ rpm range, and jerkiness is caused by stopping-starting rather than avoiding a normal cadence.
When I'm in a rotating paceline-- with, if local race results and Strava standings mean anything, some of the fastest folks around-- unless I'm at the front on a pull, I'm slowly turning a big gear, at high torque/tension, getting recovery while maintaining speed. I don't know what gear that is most commonly (I don't really pay attention), but maybe it's going at 80-85rpm or something around there; when I hit the front, I kick up the RPM to maintain speed in the face of increased wind resistance, maybe 90-95rpm.
Of course, that's in the context of a fast paceline, moving north of 20mph, which requires a good effort at front to pull. There would be, for me, no point to keeping my leg speed and HR up when I can achieve the same for less fatigue; I can dump that energy to greater effect on a climb, sprint zone, or final push.
But that's me. I can get 240-250w pretty easily at low RPM, low HR, and can punch up higher power easily at moderately high RPM, but I'm never happy spinning extended intervals at 110+ rpm. It's just too taxing for too little return outside short, high intensity efforts. I can get a lot done between 80 and 105rpm, including recovery and L7 power.
12-03-15, 09:18 AM
#161
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
Yes and yes.
I found the article I was thinking of that lower cadence = lower cost
My World From a Bicycle: The Ideal Cadence for Competitive Bicycling
He reviews the data that 120rpm is the most power output, but lower is more efficient. As power increases, the most efficient cadence increases too.
Here is the takeaway for our discussion:
"Lower cadences are more efficient for the vast majority of normal riders who do not have huge aerobic capacities and can not sustain large power outputs."
To bring this back to gearing, the weekend warrior does not have the aerobic ability to spin 53x12 as fast as a well trained athlete, so may be better served with a 53x11 (assuming the terrain calls for it, ie long downhills). The weekend warrior is not actually "spinning out" his max gear, he is just not trained to hold high cadence for very long, and is not efficient at it.
I found the article I was thinking of that lower cadence = lower cost
My World From a Bicycle: The Ideal Cadence for Competitive Bicycling
He reviews the data that 120rpm is the most power output, but lower is more efficient. As power increases, the most efficient cadence increases too.
Here is the takeaway for our discussion:
"Lower cadences are more efficient for the vast majority of normal riders who do not have huge aerobic capacities and can not sustain large power outputs."
To bring this back to gearing, the weekend warrior does not have the aerobic ability to spin 53x12 as fast as a well trained athlete, so may be better served with a 53x11 (assuming the terrain calls for it, ie long downhills). The weekend warrior is not actually "spinning out" his max gear, he is just not trained to hold high cadence for very long, and is not efficient at it.
12-03-15, 09:58 AM
#163
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,922
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,882 Times
in
998 Posts
Here is the takeaway for our discussion:
"Lower cadences are more efficient for the vast majority of normal riders who do not have huge aerobic capacities and can not sustain large power outputs."
To bring this back to gearing, the weekend warrior does not have the aerobic ability to spin 53x12 as fast as a well trained athlete, so may be better served with a 53x11 (assuming the terrain calls for it, ie long downhills).
"Lower cadences are more efficient for the vast majority of normal riders who do not have huge aerobic capacities and can not sustain large power outputs."
To bring this back to gearing, the weekend warrior does not have the aerobic ability to spin 53x12 as fast as a well trained athlete, so may be better served with a 53x11 (assuming the terrain calls for it, ie long downhills).
12-03-15, 09:59 AM
#164
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,428
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
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3129 Post(s)
Liked 1,696 Times
in
1,026 Posts
12-03-15, 11:09 AM
#165
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,745
Bikes: S-Works Roubaix SL2^H4, Secteur Sport, TriCross, Kaffenback, Lurcher 29er
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Speaking from my own experience, I understand what @kbarch is saying, I think, so maybe I can relate it differently.
When I'm in a rotating paceline-- with, if local race results and Strava standings mean anything, some of the fastest folks around-- unless I'm at the front on a pull, I'm slowly turning a big gear, at high torque/tension, getting recovery while maintaining speed. I don't know what gear that is most commonly (I don't really pay attention), but maybe it's going at 80-85rpm or something around there; when I hit the front, I kick up the RPM to maintain speed in the face of increased wind resistance, maybe 90-95rpm.
Of course, that's in the context of a fast paceline, moving north of 20mph, which requires a good effort at front to pull. There would be, for me, no point to keeping my leg speed and HR up when I can achieve the same for less fatigue; I can dump that energy to greater effect on a climb, sprint zone, or final push.
But that's me. I can get 240-250w pretty easily at low RPM, low HR, and can punch up higher power easily at moderately high RPM, but I'm never happy spinning extended intervals at 110+ rpm. It's just too taxing for too little return outside short, high intensity efforts. I can get a lot done between 80 and 105rpm, including recovery and L7 power.
When I'm in a rotating paceline-- with, if local race results and Strava standings mean anything, some of the fastest folks around-- unless I'm at the front on a pull, I'm slowly turning a big gear, at high torque/tension, getting recovery while maintaining speed. I don't know what gear that is most commonly (I don't really pay attention), but maybe it's going at 80-85rpm or something around there; when I hit the front, I kick up the RPM to maintain speed in the face of increased wind resistance, maybe 90-95rpm.
Of course, that's in the context of a fast paceline, moving north of 20mph, which requires a good effort at front to pull. There would be, for me, no point to keeping my leg speed and HR up when I can achieve the same for less fatigue; I can dump that energy to greater effect on a climb, sprint zone, or final push.
But that's me. I can get 240-250w pretty easily at low RPM, low HR, and can punch up higher power easily at moderately high RPM, but I'm never happy spinning extended intervals at 110+ rpm. It's just too taxing for too little return outside short, high intensity efforts. I can get a lot done between 80 and 105rpm, including recovery and L7 power.
Riding at too low a cadence is just a recipe for opening a gap.
12-03-15, 01:10 PM
#167
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,428
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
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3129 Post(s)
Liked 1,696 Times
in
1,026 Posts
12-03-15, 02:29 PM
#168
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
Seems like a reasonable strategy for a triathlon. Riding the bike leg of a tri (or a time trial) is usually a fairly short duration event compared to the most common recreational riding formats, outside of Ironman competitions. Tax the muscles you won't need and give the cardio system a bit of recovery for the run.
Some of the best pro time trialists do push a huge gear at a relatively lower cadence for time trials -- because they can go faster for that shorter duration event. But they don't use that same setup or
strategy for the regular road races/stages.
Some of the best pro time trialists do push a huge gear at a relatively lower cadence for time trials -- because they can go faster for that shorter duration event. But they don't use that same setup or
strategy for the regular road races/stages.
12-03-15, 02:30 PM
#169
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: La La Land (We love it!)
Posts: 6,301
Bikes: Gilmour road, Curtlo road; both steel (of course)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 273 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
What if the 11 cog is a SRAM Red?
Everyone knows red bikes are the fastest...
Everyone knows red bikes are the fastest...
__________________
Today, I believe my jurisdiction ends here...
Today, I believe my jurisdiction ends here...
12-03-15, 02:47 PM
#171
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
12-03-15, 03:03 PM
#172
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,244
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8258 Post(s)
Liked 8,980 Times
in
4,451 Posts
12-03-15, 03:18 PM
#173
Gold Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 1,313
Bikes: Pinarello Dogma F8, Pinarello Bolide, Argon 18 E-118, Bianchi Oltre, Cervelo S1, Wilier Pista
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
12-03-15, 03:35 PM
#174
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
12-03-15, 03:45 PM
#175
Serious Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: RVA
Posts: 9,308
Bikes: Emonda SL6
Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5721 Post(s)
Liked 261 Times
in
99 Posts
@PepeM, you get better power transfer by having a slightly longer crank arm on the drive side, say 175 vs 165 for the NDS.
Think about it, it's simple physics. The side with the spiky bits gets pushed in bigger circles because that's the circle that moves the little metal belt thing that makes you not stop.
I think it's safe to say that IF you're spinning out in your 12t, you should probably go to a longer drive side crankarm before upgrading to an 11t.
Think about it, it's simple physics. The side with the spiky bits gets pushed in bigger circles because that's the circle that moves the little metal belt thing that makes you not stop.
I think it's safe to say that IF you're spinning out in your 12t, you should probably go to a longer drive side crankarm before upgrading to an 11t.
