Data on things

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

My cadence has increased, which is an effect of aging -- and knees that are nearing replacement.
I was a low-cadence grinder for decades, and now I'm paying the price. Diminished quad strength
also demands lower gears and higher cadence. Higher cadence -- unfortunately -- requires greater
cardio-pulmonary output. And then you die. It's all fu***** sunshine and rainbows from hear on out.

-- Jay Beattie.

The Friel book goes into detail on what happens as you go through your 60's and 70's. It's depressing.

Wjbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 9:50:01 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/11/2021 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 12:42:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:

I think it is personal but the general consensus is that spinning is
something around 100 rpm.
For me that is difficult and I would change gear before that. I'm very
comfortable between 80-90
rpm and when I have the idea that I'm in my comfort zone and I look on
my display I am around 85 rpm.

Lou

It depends on the riding style, but that's about correct for a
recreational/touring cyclist, Lou. Competitive riders tend to ride at a
higher cadence, an average is about 95 for us. I personally tend to
average around 100, though as I'm getting older it's been dropping.
These past few years have seen fewer and fewer rides in the high 90's.
I still do high cadence workouts though, it's useful for sprinting.
My cadence has dropped over the decades. I wonder if this is a normal
effect of aging?

But I'll note, I have a cadence readout on only our tandem, where
cadence is a compromise between me and my lower-cadence wife. We usually
crank low 70s.

On other bikes, my only cadence readout is/was to count revs for six
seconds and multiply by ten. But I used to be mostly low to mid 80s,
except about 95 for time trials.

My cadence has increased, which is an effect of aging -- and knees that
are nearing replacement. I was a low-cadence grinder for decades, and
now I'm paying the price. Diminished quad strength also demands lower
gears and higher cadence. Higher cadence -- unfortunately -- requires
greater cardio-pulmonary output. And then you die. It's all fu*****
sunshine and rainbows from hear on out.

-- Jay Beattie.



Yeah jay but you’re a mountain goat. Seriously it has a lot to do with
what gearing you use. I’m on a mid compact and my comfort spinning range
is mostly the same as Lou. We have mostly moderate hills around here
though. Anything over 15% and I’m struggling.

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 4:23:09 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
Wjbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 9:50:01 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/11/2021 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 12:42:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:

I think it is personal but the general consensus is that spinning is
something around 100 rpm.
For me that is difficult and I would change gear before that. I'm very
comfortable between 80-90
rpm and when I have the idea that I'm in my comfort zone and I look on
my display I am around 85 rpm.

Lou

It depends on the riding style, but that's about correct for a
recreational/touring cyclist, Lou. Competitive riders tend to ride at a
higher cadence, an average is about 95 for us. I personally tend to
average around 100, though as I'm getting older it's been dropping.
These past few years have seen fewer and fewer rides in the high 90's..
I still do high cadence workouts though, it's useful for sprinting.
My cadence has dropped over the decades. I wonder if this is a normal
effect of aging?

But I'll note, I have a cadence readout on only our tandem, where
cadence is a compromise between me and my lower-cadence wife. We usually
crank low 70s.

On other bikes, my only cadence readout is/was to count revs for six
seconds and multiply by ten. But I used to be mostly low to mid 80s,
except about 95 for time trials.

My cadence has increased, which is an effect of aging -- and knees that
are nearing replacement. I was a low-cadence grinder for decades, and
now I'm paying the price. Diminished quad strength also demands lower
gears and higher cadence. Higher cadence -- unfortunately -- requires
greater cardio-pulmonary output. And then you die. It's all fu*****
sunshine and rainbows from hear on out.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yeah jay but you’re a mountain goat. Seriously it has a lot to do with
what gearing you use. I’m on a mid compact and my comfort spinning range
is mostly the same as Lou. We have mostly moderate hills around here
though. Anything over 15% and I’m struggling.

Most of the damage was done years ago before the mid-compact and low gear craze. I had a post-college roommate who had a Stella and a triple who was always going on about saving his knees. He had an old soccer injury -- and a really dramatic hockey-stick scar from an old-fashioned meniscectomy. Anyway, he was into spinning, and I should have listened to him. I bought into to the super-macho corn-cobb thing because I was a racer. I have no idea how I turned those gears. Now I've got a 50/34 compact and a 28t cog.. That works for most things around here . . . at my current age. Maybe not next year.

I did a couple of Death Rides on my then super-duper low of 39/25. https://www.tourofcalifornia.org/200...eath-ride.html I could still do that on my wife's ebike.

Speaking of the wife, we were riding at lunch -- up to Council Crest https://www.alltrails.com/explore/ma...eferrer=gpsies (parts and laps around Fairmount). I'm lumbering up the hill, and my wife is playing coy, knowing that I'll pout if she motors by me. And some guy on a non-ebike sprints by at a million miles per hour. I was so ****ed that my wife didn't crush him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJET...alizedBicycles She just lacks the killer ebike instinct, although she has no problems dumping me. This is another test of the marriage, like the tandem. Tips for wives: (1) don't idly chat with your husband while he is struggling up a hill on the verge of cardiac arrest, and (2) don't tell your husband he is doing a good job and is still strong -- while riding away. This should be in the Specialized owner's manual.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 3/11/2021 9:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Speaking of the wife, we were riding at lunch -- up to Council Crest https://www.alltrails.com/explore/ma...eferrer=gpsies (parts and laps around Fairmount). I'm lumbering up the hill, and my wife is playing coy, knowing that I'll pout if she motors by me. And some guy on a non-ebike sprints by at a million miles per hour. I was so ****ed that my wife didn't crush him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJET...alizedBicycles She just lacks the killer ebike instinct, although she has no problems dumping me. This is another test of the marriage, like the tandem. Tips for wives: (1) don't idly chat with your husband while he is struggling up a hill on the verge of cardiac arrest, and (2) don't tell your husband he is doing a good job and is still strong -- while riding away. This should be in the Specialized owner's manual.

Vaguely related: When one of our kids was 12 years old, we did a week
long tour using the tandem. I was struggling for oxygen with aching
thighs on a steep hill when I heard singing from the back seat. I had to
make a new rule: "No singing on uphills."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/11/2021 9:11 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 5:49:39 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/7/2021 12:43 PM, Mark cleary wrote:
Last 2 rides outside both 51 and then 52 miles I used my Garmin Speed sensor and the cadence sensor. I have never used a cadence sensor at least outdoors off the trainer. The data has me wondering about what they call average cadence.

I assume overall average cadence is the strokes you took and then divide by the time spent riding? I am not sure but on Garmin Connect my average cadence was 73 and on Strava and Ride With the GPS is was 79. That is a pretty big difference. Today is was 70 on Garmin Connect and 77 on Strava and Ride with GPS. Not sure what strava reads but not Garmin Connect whichI thought would take precedence.

My overall average speed as 16.7 for the 51 mile ride and 16.6 for the 52 mile ride. I did not stop during the ride or even unclip both rides. There was no wind really but I froze and ass off at 28 degrees. Not complaining but it drains you for any kind of real speed. I always thought I was pretty much a spinner. I don't wear chains out fast or am hard on the drive train. I guess I coast to much or I just think I am a spinner.
Deacon Mark

I'm pretty sure my Garmin Edge computer has a setting to average cadence
only over time that I'm pedaling, so to omit coasting downhill, for
example. This seems a sensible option to me; I want to know how fast
I'm spinning *when* I'm pedaling, not a calculation affected by how much
of my ride is coasting.

I'm sure that the Garmin's detection of coasting is a bit fuzzy, also.

Mark J.

If you have a method of detecting cadence, detecting coasting really shouldn't be fuzzy. If you're moving and not pedaling, you're coasting. Crank-based meters will always be able to detect coasting. Bottom Bracket models maybe less so, but even a rear hub power meter (like a powertap) can detect pedaling dynamics and come up with a number. It might be be very accurate, but it can tell whether you are pedaling or coasting. T

I agree that with power-meter based cadence, coasting detection is
simple: zero power. PM-based cadence has its own issues, though - mine
gives occasional wild spikes when I'm soft-pedaling, ?since the power
microsurges get harder to detect? because power is uniformly very low?

So I set my computer to pair with a frame-mounted magnet-based cadence
sensor. Spikes are gone. But cadence detection is now limited to
discrete signals of around 1.5 Hz. When coasting, if you turn the crank
half a turn to switch which foot is down, and it's the half of a turn
that fires the sensor, does that count as pedaling? What if you're
doing a downhill "slalom" on a windy road and switch down-pedals every
few seconds? Granted, these are not big effects, but there are
scenarios where the computer will get mildly confused about what to count.

Mark J.

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 12:38:10 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/11/2021 9:11 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 5:49:39 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/7/2021 12:43 PM, Mark cleary wrote:
Last 2 rides outside both 51 and then 52 miles I used my Garmin Speed sensor and the cadence sensor. I have never used a cadence sensor at least outdoors off the trainer. The data has me wondering about what they call average cadence.

I assume overall average cadence is the strokes you took and then divide by the time spent riding? I am not sure but on Garmin Connect my average cadence was 73 and on Strava and Ride With the GPS is was 79. That is a pretty big difference. Today is was 70 on Garmin Connect and 77 on Strava and Ride with GPS. Not sure what strava reads but not Garmin Connect whichI thought would take precedence.

My overall average speed as 16.7 for the 51 mile ride and 16.6 for the 52 mile ride. I did not stop during the ride or even unclip both rides. There was no wind really but I froze and ass off at 28 degrees. Not complaining but it drains you for any kind of real speed. I always thought I was pretty much a spinner. I don't wear chains out fast or am hard on the drive train. I guess I coast to much or I just think I am a spinner.
Deacon Mark

I'm pretty sure my Garmin Edge computer has a setting to average cadence
only over time that I'm pedaling, so to omit coasting downhill, for
example. This seems a sensible option to me; I want to know how fast
I'm spinning *when* I'm pedaling, not a calculation affected by how much
of my ride is coasting.

I'm sure that the Garmin's detection of coasting is a bit fuzzy, also.

Mark J.

If you have a method of detecting cadence, detecting coasting really shouldn't be fuzzy. If you're moving and not pedaling, you're coasting. Crank-based meters will always be able to detect coasting. Bottom Bracket models maybe less so, but even a rear hub power meter (like a powertap) can detect pedaling dynamics and come up with a number. It might be be very accurate, but it can tell whether you are pedaling or coasting. T

I agree that with power-meter based cadence, coasting detection is
simple: zero power. PM-based cadence has its own issues, though - mine
gives occasional wild spikes when I'm soft-pedaling, ?since the power
microsurges get harder to detect? because power is uniformly very low?

So I set my computer to pair with a frame-mounted magnet-based cadence
sensor. Spikes are gone. But cadence detection is now limited to
discrete signals of around 1.5 Hz. When coasting, if you turn the crank
half a turn to switch which foot is down, and it's the half of a turn
that fires the sensor, does that count as pedaling? What if you're
doing a downhill "slalom" on a windy road and switch down-pedals every
few seconds? Granted, these are not big effects, but there are
scenarios where the computer will get mildly confused about what to count..

Mark J.

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 12:38:10 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
I agree that with power-meter based cadence, coasting detection is
simple: zero power.

It's a bit more complicated than that. It's extrapolated from a sinusoidal waveform, rather than 0 power. An extremely low cadence while coasting could easily be interpreted by the firmware as 0 cadence if the variations across the waveform period don't reach the threshold for the cadence function to read. However, giving the same coasting speed, increasing the cadence at some point will create enough deviation to be read. Accuracy at that point would likely be highly suspect.

PM-based cadence has its own issues, though - mine
gives occasional wild spikes when I'm soft-pedaling, ?since the power
microsurges get harder to detect? because power is uniformly very low?

Yes to both, per my response above.


So I set my computer to pair with a frame-mounted magnet-based cadence
sensor. Spikes are gone. But cadence detection is now limited to
discrete signals of around 1.5 Hz. When coasting, if you turn the crank
half a turn to switch which foot is down, and it's the half of a turn
that fires the sensor, does that count as pedaling?

Inexpensive cadence monitors can't tell the difference. All they know is that the sensor was triggered, they aren't sensitive to direction. The better monitors use accelerometers that can be set up to 'learn' which direction is forward, and will ignore movement in the opposite direction.

What if you're
doing a downhill "slalom" on a windy road and switch down-pedals every
few seconds? Granted, these are not big effects, but there are
scenarios where the computer will get mildly confused about what to count..

This is true, but true of any sampling-based system.

Am 11.03.2021 um 19:47 schrieb :
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 1:18:06 PM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 11.03.2021 um 18:55 schrieb :
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:40:00 PM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel
wrote:
Am 11.03.2021 um 18:00 schrieb :
On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 12:42:50 PM UTC-5,
wrote:

I think it is personal but the general consensus is that
spinning is something around 100 rpm. For me that is
difficult and I would change gear before that. I'm very
comfortable between 80-90 rpm and when I have the idea that
I'm in my comfort zone and I look on my display I am around
85 rpm.

It depends on the riding style, but that's about correct for
a recreational/touring cyclist, Lou. Competitive riders tend
to ride at a higher cadence, an average is about 95 for us.
I personally tend to average around 100, though as I'm
getting older it's been dropping. These past few years have
seen fewer and fewer rides in the high 90's. I still do high
cadence workouts though, it's useful for sprinting.

On the recumbent, I used to average well over 100, on the
gravel bike it's significantly less.

Interesting, I would have thought the opposite because of how
you're always pushing against the seat back on the recumbent, but
I've never really looked into it.
Well, there's no weight on the legs, I can move them without moving
the upper body at all. On the upright, you typically have some hip
movement during pedalling.

hmmm... there's no real weight on the legs on a road bike either when
you're seated. The greater hip movement is more likely from the lack
of the seat back. I'm thinking it has more to do with the
biomechanics involved with the relationship between the hips, knees,
and bottom bracket. On a road bike it's easier to spin when you're
forward on the seat, effectively opening up the hip angle.

I've had a semi-voluntary spinning test: my son broke the gear change
mechanism of my gravel bike.
So I was cycling home from work in 34/18 (at home I calculated this
means 36 km/h or 10 m/s gives 147 rpm), a sight tail wind ensured that
spinning comfort rather than lack of enery was the limiting factor all
the time.

I was cycling along comfortably without thinking at 22 km/h or 90 rpm.

Pushing at 24/25 km/h or 100 rpm required focus and triggered the wish
to shift up. Upper body movements interfered with smooth pedalling.

Locking my arms to keep the upper body straight allowed me to up the
pace to 28 km/h or 110 rpm even on a short gentle climb to a bridge, so
I tested what was possible on the "downhill" behind the bridge.

Shortly before coming home, there is a "power dip": a relatively steep
downhill (3-5% for 3m altitude) followed by a similar climb. Switching
to maniac mode, I managed to reach 36km/h at the bottom and maintained a
speed of 35 km/h (or 140 rpm) for 300m or 30s.
https://www.strava.com/activities/4949599170/analysis

Conclusion: you can spin on a road bike as well as on a recumbent but on
the road bike I need the extra effort of holding the upper body still
while this happens naturally on the recumbent.

Additionally, on the recumbent you naturally power over short hills like
bridges by spinning whereas on the road bike it's more natural to power
over short hills by increasing leg power.

Rolf

On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 2:21:53 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 11.03.2021 um 19:47 schrieb :
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 1:18:06 PM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 11.03.2021 um 18:55 schrieb :
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:40:00 PM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel
wrote:
Am 11.03.2021 um 18:00 schrieb :
On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 12:42:50 PM UTC-5,
wrote:

I think it is personal but the general consensus is that
spinning is something around 100 rpm. For me that is
difficult and I would change gear before that. I'm very
comfortable between 80-90 rpm and when I have the idea that
I'm in my comfort zone and I look on my display I am around
85 rpm.

It depends on the riding style, but that's about correct for
a recreational/touring cyclist, Lou. Competitive riders tend
to ride at a higher cadence, an average is about 95 for us.
I personally tend to average around 100, though as I'm
getting older it's been dropping. These past few years have
seen fewer and fewer rides in the high 90's. I still do high
cadence workouts though, it's useful for sprinting.

On the recumbent, I used to average well over 100, on the
gravel bike it's significantly less.

Interesting, I would have thought the opposite because of how
you're always pushing against the seat back on the recumbent, but
I've never really looked into it.
Well, there's no weight on the legs, I can move them without moving
the upper body at all. On the upright, you typically have some hip
movement during pedalling.

hmmm... there's no real weight on the legs on a road bike either when
you're seated. The greater hip movement is more likely from the lack
of the seat back. I'm thinking it has more to do with the
biomechanics involved with the relationship between the hips, knees,
and bottom bracket. On a road bike it's easier to spin when you're
forward on the seat, effectively opening up the hip angle.
I've had a semi-voluntary spinning test: my son broke the gear change
mechanism of my gravel bike.
So I was cycling home from work in 34/18 (at home I calculated this
means 36 km/h or 10 m/s gives 147 rpm), a sight tail wind ensured that
spinning comfort rather than lack of enery was the limiting factor all
the time.

I was cycling along comfortably without thinking at 22 km/h or 90 rpm.

Pushing at 24/25 km/h or 100 rpm required focus and triggered the wish
to shift up. Upper body movements interfered with smooth pedalling.

Locking my arms to keep the upper body straight allowed me to up the
pace to 28 km/h or 110 rpm even on a short gentle climb to a bridge, so
I tested what was possible on the "downhill" behind the bridge.

Shortly before coming home, there is a "power dip": a relatively steep
downhill (3-5% for 3m altitude) followed by a similar climb. Switching
to maniac mode, I managed to reach 36km/h at the bottom and maintained a
speed of 35 km/h (or 140 rpm) for 300m or 30s.
https://www.strava.com/activities/4949599170/analysis

Conclusion: you can spin on a road bike as well as on a recumbent but on
the road bike I need the extra effort of holding the upper body still
while this happens naturally on the recumbent.

Additionally, on the recumbent you naturally power over short hills like
bridges by spinning whereas on the road bike it's more natural to power
over short hills by increasing leg power.

Rolf
A couple of years ago I went with a group that intended to make a strange climbing ride - from a town east of the bay area up to the top of one of the passes in between the bay area and the central valley. When we got to the starting point the wind was blowing pretty good. We rode up past a motorcycle park (Carnegie Park I think it's called) from that point we began climbing and the higher we climbed around mid-morning the harder the wind was blowing including heavy gusts. As we were approaching the top of the pass, the guy in front of me couldn't ride into the wind and dismounted and pushed. I couldn't pass him and had to get off and push also. As I came around a corner a gust hit me so hard that the bike was blown horizontal to the ground. The rest of the group was stopped at the top and they saw this. As that gust subsided I was able to remount and continue up to them. Now I don't think that they really knew the rest of the route very well because it was actually pretty easy for the rest of the loop. They decided to turn back. This gave them a tailwind. They had used a rather complicated way onto that road and after then took off I was riding drag so that the three slower people weren't left behind. Well that was a bad choice because I got in the lead past Carnegie and they knew all of those twists and turns and I didn't and they turned off while i continued straight. When I realized that I was all alone and had no idea of how to return to the start, I opened Google Maps and set it for my car. Then I was riding downwind in a 53 in the 12 at a cadence that started out at about 70 but as my legs loosened up, doubled that.. I was catching up with cars and could have passed them if they didn't turn off onto a freeway. I followed the Google Maps voice into town and right up to my parked car. As I was loading my bike up all of the rest of that group came in not knowing how the hell I could have beat every one of them back into town. As I approached the town I had to go through a residential area where I had lost the tailwind so I must have really been flying on the road out of the canyon.

Since this thread seems to be about cadence. Back in 1992 I rode the loaded touring bike all around Europe. 4000 miles over the summer. I had a Cateye computer with cadence. I almost always kept the cadence number right at 90 rpm for the whole summer. 175mm cranks and half step plus granny gearing (50-45-24). I thought 90 was a good spinning cadence. 100 was getting up a bit too high. Anything less than 80 meant it was time to change gear..