Cadence
Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

83 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
[redacted]

McFsC

578 posts

181 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
I've done a few experiments just to prove the facts. I tried 'sprinting' for 300y and riding soft for a mile. This took me 51 minutes to get home.

I then tried to keep my legs spinning at a steady 65/70 RPM. I got home in 46 minutes.

A strong, steady pace works so much better than riding hard at specific points.

Notice Wiggins didn't sprint at the end of his time trial but was much quicker than everyone else, there's a reason.

FleshMechanic

3,997 posts

205 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
Yeah, he had a radio in his ear saying that he was 42 seconds ahead. ;-)

McFsC

578 posts

181 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
Considering he wasn't the last to finish and didn't know he had won when he sat down the fact still remains. It is much, much better for cycling effiency to maintain a constant, high speed than to have one burst of a few hundred metres.


dangerousB

1,701 posts

219 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
McFsC said:
A strong, steady pace works so much better than riding hard at specific points.
That's not strictly the case fella. It depends very much on the course you're riding.

A steady power output will only work for you on a pan flat course. Bung in hills or inclines and a uniform power output is not the way to go.

You've basically got to "ride hard whilst the pace is slow" or to put that in plain English, nail the climbs and recover on the descents.

The hillier the course, the greater the time payback if you adopt this approach . . . I can show you the maths if you're not convinced, but believe me, it's true biggrin

McFsC

578 posts

181 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
Agreed. Case been discussed here is commutes to work ie, farely flat routes with very little climbing. If you start adding 300m+ worth of climbing, several times, then things start to change.

Good subject though with some interesting strategies which is why I had to try it myself on my commute, even though it cost me 5 minutes over 12.5 mile.

Mr E

23,041 posts

288 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
FleshMechanic said:
Yeah, he had a radio in his ear saying that he was 42 seconds ahead. ;-)
No radios in the Olympics I thought? (or was that the smilie?)

Jimbo.

4,219 posts

218 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
Mr E said:
No radios in the Olympics I thought?
'ruddy great megaphones stuck onto the bonnet of the support car!

GBDG

896 posts

183 months

Thursday 2nd August 2012
quotequote all
Mr E said:
No radios in the Olympics I thought? (or was that the smilie?)
No radio in road race, but they had them in the TT

MadDad

3,835 posts

290 months

Friday 3rd August 2012
quotequote all
Back on the topic of cadence, I took advice from a cycling coach about 18 months ago who told me to focus on cadence; speed and power would follow - but as a novice I needed to get used to spinning my legs at high speed. 18 months ago I used to grind along feeling as if I was pushing hard, but would struggle to better 17/18 mph on a 20 to 30 mile ride, at the time I was spinning between 70-85 rpms.

I adjusted my riding style and stance, I now typically spin between 95-105 rpm, on the flat sit forward in the saddle, and on climbs am at the back of the saddle, I regularly average 20-22 mph on almost any ride. I am not super human, I ride almost always solo, I am not a strong sprinter (although I am working on that at the moment), but focussing on spinning rather than grinding has totally transformed my ride.

I also believe that applying the same principal to climbs has made a big difference. Rather than fight with hills and inclines I simply get my head down, dig in and spin, don't get me wrong - my cadence drops but is still much higher than my previous 'out of the saddle pushing hard' efforts. Tonight that resulted in a number of personal bests on a few local Strava segments - in the past I had been out of the saddle and blowing my lungs and legs apart - tonight I remained seated, dropped to a lower gear and concentrated on spinning - and knocked holes in my previous best times.

Finally, I have also found that I recover much quicker than I used to, in fact at the end of a long climb it is very rare that I need to stop to recover or have a drink, which is quite nice on a Sunday morning on a popular climb - nice to spin past others who are busy poking their lungs back into their mouths!

Don't get me wrong, I am not an expert, I don't race (yet), I am sure that for people with legs like ham out of the saddle pure power grinding works - but for me high cadence works, and works really well! It felt weird to begin with, but now if I drop below 90 rpm generally speaking I am knackered or have hit a big hill!

Dizeeeee, keep it up - I can see a step-change in your times and average speed! wink

okgo

42,127 posts

227 months

Saturday 4th August 2012
quotequote all
Cadence is really a personal thing. I never monitored mine, the powermeter does measure it (around 90 usually over a ride) but that's not to say its better than being at 80..look at the difference in the pros, Tony Martin has a very low cadence!

With regards to the quickest way to get somewhere it's almost certainly mantaining a constant power up hill/downhill. I've done trainig rides were we nail it up hills and I've done the same ride where I ride threshold the whole way and keep the watts as close to what l know I can do as possible. It's quicker to be steady up a hill and have something in the tank to push on the downhill.

It's natrual to ease off on a down, but you'll cover ground much quicker if you're always pedalling.

Staple Lane is a horrid little road. Lots of then round there. Try Croknorth Rd or Coombe Lane