Dumb question #3 - counting gears

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:27:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

But most cyclists learn by experience that once they train themselves to
do so, they ride longer and faster with less fatigue if they use
cadences closer to 90 rpm.

Some people never do this, of course. Whether it's because they are
biologically different, or because they never give it a fair chance, is
difficult to tell.

I'm still getting to the point on some hills, or 200yds of uphill, with,
say a steeper finish that I'm getting down into the 40 or 50 rpm
(estimating), or slower near the end, even with fairly responsive shifting,
imo. However I'm trying to remain in the saddle. I guess for these
small-to- moderate hills, I don't consider 'em conquered unless I can do
them seated.

Also still having to slalom a little, but well within my lane (very few
cars).

Good thing, though, is that recovery seems rapid, and in some multiple
hillocks, I'm even able to accelerate at the end of several short steeps.

So should I try to gear down to easier gears to bring this up to 60, or
should I gut it out for the next few days? I'm about to run out of gears in
the middle chainring.

-B

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:41:35 GMT, "Peter Cole"
wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote

For riders new to this game, the best balance seems to be about 60 rpm.
The main reason is that 60 rpm mimics a typical walking cadence,
something for which we are evolved (or created, if you prefer).

But most cyclists learn by experience that once they train themselves to
do so, they ride longer and faster with less fatigue if they use
cadences closer to 90 rpm.

It's a tradeoff between fatigue and C-V capacity. When you're going for max
sustained power (like climbing) you're C-V limited, and higher rpm is less
efficient. When you're going for long distances (or any time you're not C-V
limited), higer rpm translated into lower peak muscular contraction/force, so
you'll lower fatigue.

Though I've just started doing hills again in my old age, I actually like
them better, in some respects, than the flats.

It takes concentration and incentive to keep up the high cadence spinning
in the flats, whereas when you're climbing the hills, you are so in the
moment, that it's not a matter of decision of how hard to go - you're
-there-. ;-)

-B

Peter Cole wrote:
"Blair P. Houghton" wrote

It's obvious from physics that there's a diminishing return from pedaling
at
high speeds,

It's *suggested* by physics that etc.

Well, to be picky, it's *proven* by physics. Aerodynamic drag dominates at
high speed and follows the cube law, so it takes a lot more power to go just a
little faster. All things being equal, at some point you're better off saving
your energy for a place where it will do more good.

Your muscles won't take the higher output per repetition
at the higher force level.

The only thing proven by physics would be that you actually
have to put out slightly more power per mile at the higher
crank rate. But you will nonetheless be able to maintain it
longer than a slower, higher-force crank rate.

It's obvious from experience that pedalling at higher
speeds will allow you to go farther at the same ground
speed and therefore will be more efficient.

No, that's not obvious at all, you must not race.

I must not have raced in 15 years, you mean.

and that more can be obtained from a good tuck than pedaling on a
reasonably steep descent.

Pedalling is more critical on rises between steeps in
a descent. Maintaining that free speed will improve your
overall time the most.

I have no idea what this means.

It means I agree, on a steep you're not getting much out of
pedalling, but if the steeps are broken by short rises, big
gears will help you keep the speed higher, because you'll
be able to apply force to the wheels at a higher speed.

I'd say the highest gear you need is the one your
most comfortable with under your highest speed pedaling scenarios, for me,
that's a 53x11.

If you got room on your cassette for it, have fun.

I had room for it on a 7-speed.

I couldn't care less if it's your only cog.

--Blair
"Probably not racing for another 15 years..."

Rick Onanian wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:56:19 GMT, Blair P. Houghton wrote:
He's spinning at 84 rpm and you're mashing at 67. You're
both doing 26 mph. You're both putting out the same amount
of power. But you're holding a higher force over a longer
time in each stroke. If you're lifting weight, the heavier
weight can make you train to exhaustion within a few reps,
while you might push a much lighter one at a higher rate
essentially all day.

So what you're saying is that faster is definitely always better,
meaning 84 rpm is nowhere near the best. 150 rpm would be better by
that formula. 250 should be even better. Where does it all end?

At the point that the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum kicks in.

84 rpm is a reasonable long-distance-ride crank rate. 150 is not.

Nope, I've observed that my average speed is higher, my distance
longer, and I feel better if I do 60 to 70 rpm. I spent a few years
trying to train my cadence up, and it was only when I realized that
I can pedal a slower cadence that my output finally became useful
for riding with others.

You're going to get beat. So am I, but for different reasons.

Human bodies are not all the same. One size does not fit all. (Is
anybody tired of reading that yet?)

A 30% variation in crank rate isn't "same" in any way.

--Blair
"Man. I'd love for 60 rpm to be hard-core."