What is your optimum Cadence Range whilst out on the road ?

JimmyK

Its taken me a while to ascertain what suits me best, but I am now 99.9% sure I cycle at my optimum in the cadence range 94 -98 rpm. Below the 94 rpm and I start to feel it in my thighs and if I edge over the 100 rpm mark, then fatigue will set in at a quicker rate..........in my optimum range of approx 94-98 rpm, I feel like I could go on all day.

I went out tonight on a coastal route of 30 miles which has lots of up and down and there was a breeze to contend with. I stuck to my game plan of 94-98 rpm all the way and I crossed the finishing point with legs still strong and an average of 18.7 mph for the trip.

I have on my trek 1000 8 speed , double front ring racer a rear cassette which is 12-28 and Im wondering if the 12-27 may be just more beneficial , or would you say it would be of negligible difference ? I previously removed the 12-23 the bike came with because some of the hills were ardous to climb using that cassette and I think 12-25 may just be more of the same.

Jimmy

redddraggon

JimmyK wrote:

I have on my trek 1000 8 speed , double front ring racer a rear cassette which is 12-28 and Im wondering if the 12-27 may be just more beneficial , or would you say it would be of negligible difference ? I previously removed the 12-23 the bike came with because some of the hills were ardous to climb using that cassette and I think 12-25 may just be more of the same.

Can't see what you're trying to ask here? Do you have a compact double or standard double? If you are happy with what you have, why change?

I don't really have an optimum cadence range. I think I choose the gear first and then pedal at what feels right.

I climb at 60-70, whatever the gear, be it 39-23, 39-25, 34-21, 34-23. I have tried to climb with lower gears 34-25 and it seems to knacker me out quicker for some reason

On the flat I tend to chose a gear say 53-17 (or similar), and pedal @90rpm if I'm going flat out, but I'd still use the same gear if I was taking it easy and pedal @70rpm.

cydonian74

I agree with the high(er) cadence way of riding. I read a long time ago that for alot of people, their muscle's perform best and release most of their (our) power potential at a higher cadence, whilst clearing out the lactic and fatiguing the muscles less over a given distance compared to pushing and slogging on a higher gear. My rides average out at around 90-95 rpm.
A good example of cadence riding can be seen by Contador today at the tour of italy mountain time trial; compared to everyone he really pedalled it and although he came fourth, about 22 seconds down, lets remember, he has a cracked elbow and was lying on a beach a week before he got the call up!!
For me, its high(er) cadence everytime.

JimmyK

cydonian74 wrote:

I agree with the high(er) cadence way of riding. I read a long time ago that for alot of people, their muscle's perform best and release most of their (our) power potential at a higher cadence, whilst clearing out the lactic and fatiguing the muscles less over a given distance compared to pushing and slogging on a higher gear. My rides average out at around 90-95 rpm.
A good example of cadence riding can be seen by Contador today at the tour of italy mountain time trial; compared to everyone he really pedalled it and although he came fourth, about 22 seconds down, lets remember, he has a cracked elbow and was lying on a beach a week before he got the call up!!
For me, its high(er) cadence everytime.

do you consider 90+ rpm to be "higher" cadence then ?

In my mind, I had thought higher cadence was the 110+ rpm riding style . I tried riding at 110 rpm over a 30 mile distance once and about two thirds of the way into it, my legs had nothing left and I tremble to think what my heart rate must have been beating at !!!!

Jimmy

cydonian74

JimmyK wrote:

cydonian74 wrote:

I agree with the high(er) cadence way of riding. I read a long time ago that for alot of people, their muscle's perform best and release most of their (our) power potential at a higher cadence, whilst clearing out the lactic and fatiguing the muscles less over a given distance compared to pushing and slogging on a higher gear. My rides average out at around 90-95 rpm.
A good example of cadence riding can be seen by Contador today at the tour of italy mountain time trial; compared to everyone he really pedalled it and although he came fourth, about 22 seconds down, lets remember, he has a cracked elbow and was lying on a beach a week before he got the call up!!
For me, its high(er) cadence everytime.

do you consider 90+ rpm to be "higher" cadence then ?

In my mind, I had thought higher cadence was the 110+ rpm riding style . I tried riding at 110 rpm over a 30 mile distance once and about two thirds of the way into it, my legs had nothing left and I tremble to think what my heart rate must have been beating at !!!!

Jimmy

Yes i do, over 100rpm is obviously very high cadence. I used to time time trial at about 100-105 prm average (19.37 pb 10 miles, sub 51 minute 25 mile tt), i was never a big gear masher. Judging by what i witness whilst training with my local peers, 90 rpm plus is a higher cadence and effective.

JimmyK

thats some serious pace there dude.

the no 1 honcho in the local club has stats for 10 mile TT averaging out around 25 mph . what kind of TT bike are you getting those monster averages on ?

James

cydonian74

JimmyK wrote:

thats some serious pace there dude.

the no 1 honcho in the local club has stats for 10 mile TT averaging out around 25 mph . what kind of TT bike are you getting those monster averages on ?

James

I will send you a pic in private messages, like i said, i used to, it was a few years ago now! Let me know what you think of the bike.

Andrew

John.T

I agree that 90 rpm is considered a high cadence by some but I consider it to be normal. I ride at around this most of the time. JimmyK does need to widen his range more though as it is not always possible to maintain such a small one especially with an 8sp wide ratio cassette. It is best not too worry about cadence but to ride at what you feel most comfortable.
Back in the 1960s I rode a 25 mile TT in 61min riding a 71" fixed gear. This is averaging 115 rpm on an undulating course. The winner was under the hour. 'Fast' cadence is nothing new. We could not measure it then so just got on and rode. The only bike I have a cadence sensor on now is the winter one so I have some idea what folks are talking about on here.

GeorgeShaw

Doesn't it depend a lot on circumstances? On flat or rolling terrain, if I'm riding at a good tempo, then I'll be in the high 80s, low 90s. But if it's a longer, therefore by necessity a more relaxed, ride then I'll drop by about 10rpm. When I'm tired at the end of a longer ride, however, then I'll be maybe 10rpm higher. On a hill, it will generally be lower, but it will also depend on the gradient and whether I'm in or out of the saddle.

JimmyK

with bike computers these days telling you everything from calories burned to ozone depletion in the antarctic and a host of other readings i have no cycling use for , can I ask, can you get a wired monitor which only displays your cadence in large unmissable numerals , as its the only one I am interested in keeping check on .

Jimmy

simbil1

DennisN posted a nice article about cadence a while back and it looked at lots of studies and suggested that high cadence is efficient when coupled with high power but not when riding with lower power.
So if you are riding at your all day pace and cranking 90-100 rpm you are probably not at your most efficient and should be down at more like 60rpm.
The evidence does suggest that your cadence should be 90+ when climbing or time trialling i.e. when your power output is high.
I'm sure there are many other factors too and its worth experimenting to find out what works best for you.

redddraggon

JimmyK wrote:

with bike computers these days telling you everything from calories burned to ozone depletion in the antarctic and a host of other readings i have no cycling use for , can I ask, can you get a wired monitor which only displays your cadence in large unmissable numerals , as its the only one I am interested in keeping check on .

Jimmy

Yes, the Cateye Strada Cadence, it's the one I use on my winter bike actually:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.a ... id=Frogoog

blorg

JimmyK wrote:

with bike computers these days telling you everything from calories burned to ozone depletion in the antarctic and a host of other readings i have no cycling use for , can I ask, can you get a wired monitor which only displays your cadence in large unmissable numerals , as its the only one I am interested in keeping check on.

I read somewhere about someone using a (very cheap) regular cycle computer for this purpose, just needed a back-wheel sensor (so the wire would be long enough) and to work out the right "circumfrence" that it displayed RPM. Alternatively I imagine most cycle computers with cadence will have an option to display it as the main display (I don't have a cadence one but Cateyes generally let you put anything you want on the "big" numbers.)

My "natural" cadence when I'm not really pushing it would be around 80 RPM and I have the gearing to sustain this climbing. I can go faster (low 90s) for a sustained period if I am making the effort or with a group but anything over 100 I find too much, it's as if there isn't enough resistance from the pedals and I start rocking from side to side. If I was tired I would probably drop to around 70 climbing.

JimmyK

simbil1 wrote:

DennisN posted a nice article about cadence a while back and it looked at lots of studies and suggested that high cadence is efficient when coupled with high power but not when riding with lower power.
So if you are riding at your all day pace and cranking 90-100 rpm you are probably not at your most efficient and should be down at more like 60rpm.
The evidence does suggest that your cadence should be 90+ when climbing or time trialling i.e. when your power output is high.
I'm sure there are many other factors too and its worth experimenting to find out what works best for you.

60 rpm , you gotta be kiddin me

Im not a TT biker at all and I just do it for the sheer enjoyment of riding, plus it keeps me in good shape. I think of my 94 - 98 rpm pace as my equilibrium as I can just keep soldiering on without corpsing myself and walking on rubber legs for the next 2 days LOL !! .

Jimmy

redddraggon

JimmyK wrote:

60 rpm , you gotta be kiddin me

Nothing wrong with 60RPM

a_n_t

my average is usually around the 75 mark. 90+ feels waaaay too quick for me!!

simbil1

JimmyK wrote:

60 rpm , you gotta be kiddin me

Im not a TT biker at all and I just do it for the sheer enjoyment of riding, plus it keeps me in good shape. I think of my 94 - 98 rpm pace as my equilibrium as I can just keep soldiering on without corpsing myself and walking on rubber legs for the next 2 days LOL !! .

Jimmy

No kidding - if I had to bike say 200 miles in one go, I would (take a lot of food and) pedal with hardly any force at 60 rpm. It's the equivalent of 'walking' on your bike.
At the other end, when I do a 20km TT I will be around 85-95.
Sometimes I will go 120+ if I am sprinting.
There is no magic number, it all depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Lance Armstrong has popularised high cadence, but it is only worth doing if you are putting out the watts, otherwise you may be spinning for the sake of it.

Here is the science if you fancy a long read:

http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

JimmyK

simbil1 wrote:

JimmyK wrote:

60 rpm , you gotta be kiddin me

Im not a TT biker at all and I just do it for the sheer enjoyment of riding, plus it keeps me in good shape. I think of my 94 - 98 rpm pace as my equilibrium as I can just keep soldiering on without corpsing myself and walking on rubber legs for the next 2 days LOL !! .

Jimmy

No kidding - if I had to bike say 200 miles in one go, I would (take a lot of food and) pedal with hardly any force at 60 rpm. It's the equivalent of 'walking' on your bike.
At the other end, when I do a 20km TT I will be around 85-95.
Sometimes I will go 120+ if I am sprinting.
There is no magic number, it all depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Lance Armstrong has popularised high cadence, but it is only worth doing if you are putting out the watts, otherwise you may be spinning for the sake of it.

Here is the science if you fancy a long read:

http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

thanks for the link, i will definitely read it.

this 60 rpm cadence ..................my 94-98 rpm technique is my goal for the ENTIRE journeys, I select gears so as I can achieve this, there is no dropping rpm`s by 10 or increasing by 10 etc , if its uphill or downhill i simply select the gear which puts me in 94-98 rpm range and i find it to be very effective indeed for me. say you set out with the gameplan being to use 60 rpm cadence .............on declines you would end up pushing right into the end of the higher gears , similarly, if you came to sharp incline would you not either be pushing a real light gear at about 50% percent capacity to sustain your 60 rpm cadence and not take the steam outta your thigh muscles or ...............be grunting and shoving in a heavier gear and risk doing damage to your knees ?

i really want to know , tell me what you think .

Jimmy

redddraggon

Grand Tour riding is a different kettle of fish to normal riding. Higher Cadences are more taxing in a cardiovascular sense, if you have the fitness to pedal at the high cadences you'll fresher for the next day because it will take less recovery time for the muscles.

For us amateurs with lower cardiovascular fitness, and don't need to be able to ride another stage of the Tour the next day, lower cadences may actually be better. I can easily manage to sustain 90rpm, but I find it just as easy to shift up a few gears and pedal at a lower cadence for long durations. When I climb hills I'm generally doing it at my limit, but I can last longer at a lower cadence pushing a higher gear.

simbil1

Jimmy,
Yes, you can go along at any cadence you like and find the gear to match depending on how hard you want to push.
In my extreme example of cycling for 200 miles at 60rpm, you would probably want mountain bike gears so you could go up the hills in a very low gear still turning lightly at 60rpm. As for the downhills, you just gear up as much as necessary to pedal lightly at 60rpm and then coast when you run out of gears.
You make a good point about your knees - you do not want to have cadence down at 60rpm when you are putting all your weight through the pedals as it could annoy your knees. That kind of links back to my earlier point of matching cadence with power - powerful climbs require a higher cadence anyway if you want to be most efficient.
redddragon makes a good point about recovery - but that relates more to pushing hard at lower cadences like some TT'ers do.
Next time you ride try gearing down so you are spinning 95rpm and doing around 15mph on the flat. Then try gearing up so you are turning 60rpm and still doing 15mph. Then think which state you would want to be in if you were in the saddle for 8 more hours. It's a good experiment - I've no idea which is right for you but it is good to compare. You can do similar comparisons up hill - grinding versus spinning. Grinding isn't popular these days, but it works best for some riders. Careful of those knees though

Not Another Hill

my 94-98 rpm technique is my goal for the ENTIRE journeys, I select gears so as I can achieve this, there is no dropping rpm`s by 10 or increasing by 10 etc , if its uphill or downhill i simply select the gear which puts me in 94-98 rpm range and i find it to be very effective indeed for me.

Can you maintain 94 - 98 rpm on steep (12% and upward) hills? That's impressive. On 34/25 I struggle to turn even 60rpm. Me thinks more training required.

Mettan

a_n_t wrote:

my average is usually around the 75 mark. 90+ feels waaaay too quick for me!!

+1

Fully agree.

On the flat I typically float around 70-80 - on hills it varies. On a current training route I've got a 2 mile climb - nice start, as ever 3-5 % at around 70 - on the steeper bits that gets dropped considerably.

C-S-B

When I first started out with a cadence monitor 5 months ago, I used to pedal at around 75, but that soon went up to about 90, and now on a flat with no wind, I usually pedal at around 95-110. Great thing is im still using the same gears as before, so Im going plenty faster :P

For hills, if theyre very short I sprint up them (ie increase cadence), but for longer ones I grind up at 70-ish. On steep hills Ive seen cadence drop to 50 tho!