Best cadence for time trials?
Comments
-
Makes the Hubmeister's obsession with average speed seem positively mainstream.
We need to get Hub to strap a camcorder to his bike and using the slow mo to calculate his average speed between every lamp post on Oxford Road. I hear spending a few hundred quid on a camcorder is much more accurate than buying a Cateye computer.....0 -
Ride fixed. You will soon realise how trivial cadence is.
And buy a cadence computer, cateye do one for £30. Your metronome made from duct tape, blue rope and 3 old inner tubes is not accurate enough.0 -
eh wrote:There's nothing special about these figures...?
Correct because all you've proved is that trying harder makes you go faster!
Oh if people want a cheap cadence meter I recommend a watch with a second hand. Cadence isn't some magically thing it's actually one of the easiest things to measure.
I don't see how this is easy. If I start concentrating on the second hand on the watch then I'm not going to be looking at the road and therefore my natural instinct will be to slow and if I slow and stay in the same gear then my cadence is lower. Sounds easy in theory however I think any measure of cadence in anything but wide open flat roads are likely to be suspect with this method. Let alone any issues of how representative that data capture actually is with respect to the rest of the ride.
Perhaps its just because its hard to even find a flat road round by me that makes me so cynical and well the fact that I've always had cadence on my cycle computers so couldn't imagine not having that info in my downloads 0 -
He could use that for GPS, but not cadence.0
-
Bhima wrote:All numbers are real. :?
I'm sure anyone could replicate what i've done if they get used to training how I train. There's nothing special about these figures...?
Of course I get out of breath at lower cadences, but not as much as the higher ones.
You can't even get the first line right, so what hope is there for you. [/u][/i] 0 -
Given crank length is fixed, what's the difference between pedal speed and frequency of applying force?will3 wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
I think you are falling into the trap of thinking one can independently control force and cadence.will3 wrote:Yes of course power is limited, but power at any given RPM is limited by the force you can exert on the pedals at that particular frequency (it cannot be otherwise).
Again, the force production is not limited by the pedal speed (within reason, gets a bit tricky out at 200 rpm). The rider in question is quite capable of producing much higher forces at both very low and very high cadences. Ability to apply force is not the limiter.
I never said it was limited by pedal speed, I said it was limited by the frequency at which you are applying the force.
And see the bit in red? That's where I'm deffinitely not saying that cadence and force are independent.
A: none.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Bloody hell, Bhima's threads make the Hubmeister's threads seem sensible and intelligent.
Seperated at birth? 0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Given crank length is fixed, what's the difference between pedal speed and frequency of applying force?
A: none.
Subtle.
You said:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:The rider in question is quite capable of producing much higher forces at both very low and very high cadences.
Why doesn't he then? He'd be able to drive a higher gear and go faster as a result.
A: because he couldn't keep doing it at that frequency.
In the same way that you can lift a larger weight once than you can pick up and put down every few seconds or so.0 -
IOW he is limited by the power he can produce, not by the force he can apply to the pedals.0
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:IOW he is limited by the power he can produce, not by the force he can apply to the pedals.
If that were true he'd be able to reach the same speed in any gear. He can't (or says he can't).
Look at it this way - if you're going flat out (ie as hard as you can sustain) at 100rpm and change up so that you're now doing 90rpm, the only way to maintain the same power is to press harder on the pedal each stroke. Since Bhima went slower at lower rpm than at higher rpm, it is reasonable to assume that he didn't/couldn't develop the same power at lower rpms as he did at higher rpms.
Therefore he is not limited by his max power, but by the force he could exert (or to put it another way, his max power is dependant on cadence, but since power divided by cadence = force, we see that the force he can apply is dependant on cadence, hence the reason he didn't go as fast at lower cadence is because he couldn't push hard enough).
Hooman beans are like car engines, they only develop max power at a particular rpm. This is why we have gears, but I think you know this
0 -
We have no power data, so you cannot draw any such conclusion. He may have produced more power but gone slower. Speed is a very poor indicator of such things, even if he thinks conditions were similar.
And you cannot independently control one aspect of power (force) from the other (cadence). Thinking that way is a folly.
This is why we have power meters, but I think you know this 0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:He may have produced more power but gone slower.
How? are you saying he was riding the brakes? Or that he had more headwind that he's telling us? Where was the extra power going if it didn't make the bike go faster?0 -
It doesn't take much of a change in conditions for times to be considerably different for the same power.will3 wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:He may have produced more power but gone slower.
How? are you saying he was riding the brakes? Or that he had more headwind that he's telling us? Where was the extra power going if it didn't make the bike go faster?
It is also possible that pacing was different, i.e. the application of power through the course of an effort also has a considerable impact on the average speed for a given average power.
Like I said way back, all this exercise has shown is that using speed is fairly useless means by which to assess such things.0 -
will3 wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:He may have produced more power but gone slower.
How? are you saying he was riding the brakes? Or that he had more headwind that he's telling us? Where was the extra power going if it didn't make the bike go faster?
Easy, to overcome wind resistance.
It is not that complex.
I am sure you have ridden same stretch of road with wind in opposite directions and noticed how "easier" it is with tail wind to go same speed and guess what, I bet you go much faster with the wind for same effort?
Cross winds can be misleading also and require more effort (or power).
If not convinced, try slipstreaming behind a mate driving a car, same thing.
As Alex said times and speed do not really mean a lot.
I have done some rides in bad conditions and put big efforts in and got mashed, other times less effort and faster times on same route. I just ignore the times completey, and average speed for rides, they mean nothing.0 -
Just found out that the wind was in my favour on day 1 & 4 (the 2 fastest). It was 3mph max in that area, but the other days had a max wind of 9mph.
If only I could afford a power-meter!
Never done track riding before - what's the wind like? I'm thinking of giving it a go with different gear ratios so I can rule out the wind and get more accurate results.0 -
-
What's wrong with Manchester Velodrome?0
-
-
Bhima wrote:Just found out that the wind was in my favour on day 1 & 4 (the 2 fastest). It was 3mph max in that area, but the other days had a max wind of 9mph.
If only I could afford a power-meter!
Never done track riding before - what's the wind like? I'm thinking of giving it a go with different gear ratios so I can rule out the wind and get more accurate results.
There is a wind on the track, it is when you go faster
Your too obsessed with stats and measurement, just enjoy your rides.
You will progressively get faster anyway.
You results can vary from conditions and also due to your fitness/wellbeing but you should not read too much into all these figures.
Best thing to do is ride with others and you can compare with those as you ride also, then try racing, if your not going well you will get dropped, if your going well you may win 0 -
Bhima, you don't need a powermeter to get a BALLPARK figure for what is your 'best' cadence.
A turbo with a speedo could give you more control over what you are looking at.
For example, see how 'far' you can go in say 5 minutes with a constant cadence of 150. Vary the speed if needed by changing gear.
A day or two later try the same test but keep the cadence at a constant (say) 100. See if you can beat the previous 'distance'. Repeat as often as needed.
Warning, this test is limited, I'm aware of this so others please don't jump on...
but what you are saying is your best cadence seems to be a very, very high 150, Now I had a similar problem but the other way round, I though my best cad was low 60's. I performed similar tests as above and came to the conclusion that I was barking up the wrong tree and I'd need a higher cadence (although not much)
but (2) as others have said, don't worry about cadence and over analysing things, for me it was an experiment over a winter, now the racing season has started I'm not particularly interested in what cadence I'm riding at.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Bhima wrote:What's wrong with Manchester Velodrome?
You're asking what the wind is like at an indoor velodrome
If you go fast enough though, you generate wind resistance.
Go 30mph in a perfect 29.999mph tailwind and there's still resistance!0 -
Yeah, i'll try the trainer thing. Don't have one myself though but I could try an excercise bike down the gym. The readouts on them are not very accurate though - one told me i'd reached 47mph when I was warming up... :?0
-
Bhima wrote:redddraggon wrote:Bhima wrote:What's wrong with Manchester Velodrome?
You're asking what the wind is like at an indoor velodrome
If you go fast enough though, you generate wind resistance.
Go 30mph in a perfect 29.999mph tailwind and there's still resistance!
Wind Resistance? Normal people call that Air Resistance.
There is unlikey to be a "wind" in a Velodrome, maybe a draft but nothing substantial.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Bhima wrote:redddraggon wrote:Bhima wrote:What's wrong with Manchester Velodrome?
You're asking what the wind is like at an indoor velodrome
If you go fast enough though, you generate wind resistance.
Go 30mph in a perfect 29.999mph tailwind and there's still resistance!
Wind Resistance? Normal people call that Air Resistance.
There is unlikey to be a "wind" in a Velodrome, maybe a draft but nothing substantial.
If you want a good read:-
http://wattagetraining.com/forum/viewto ... &sk=t&sd=a
Alex may disagree with the word substantial
0 -
chrisw12 wrote:Alex may disagree with the word substantial
Well put it this way, I would like some riders to stir the pot a little before my client starts his attempt on the hour record* (which is this Sunday here in Sydney). The effect is small, but detectable with the power meter data. If it gets my rider another 50-100 metres, we'll take it.
* for best hour performance for Masters Men0 -
Nobody probably cares about this thread anymore but I thought i'd just mention that, from the audio analysis, my average cadences for the rides were:
148.756
112.338
89.996
75.554
So, i'm not too good at keeping up with the beep in my earpiece! Got pretty close to the desired cadences though. Maybe these are the cadences my body feels more naturally inclined to work at...0 -
Bhima, I care, I care about all God's children and their crazyness :twisted:
Anyway, so what you are saying is that you set a beep off which you can hear and then try to ride to the same tempo? If this is right, then you will not ride at your natural cadence but that of the pre set beep.
Why don't you just go out and ride at a 'blind/natural cadence' and then look at the results? Let cadence be a variable rather than a constant within the test.
Another test you could try is find a long but not too steep hill (and constant gradient.) and ride up it in different gears as fast as you can. Again look at the results because one gear (and hence one cadence) will be faster.
I've done this sort of thing to mix up 6x4 intervals eg 1st with 53x15 2nd with 53x16 etc.
and I know that speed on intervals will change as the session progresses but again if you do them often enough and using the same gear, you tend to learn the pattern of which is going to be the fastest etc. When you do a mixed gear set, you then look for anomalies.0
