What's with this super high cadence stuff anyway?

Moodyman

Agree enitirely with Dudu.

Also, less strain on the drivechain. Makes legs more supple and allows you to go for longer.[/b]

vorsprung

Here's what Michele Ferrari was saying about it a few years ago

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=15

snailracer

SimonAH wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Zachariah wrote:

... The person hasn't been born who can go up col d'huez on 53x11 in the same time it takes to spin up it at a lower gear, because human beings can't (yet) generate the torque required (over the same time). Equally, nobody has yet shown they can spin a low gear fast enough to do a sub-20min 10-mile TT. It's the way we're made.

+1
You also gain a few % in transmission efficiency by running on a larger cog (i.e. lower gear) - larger cogs are simply more efficient.

...
Big cogs do bend the chain less => less friction, BUT the chain goes round it a lot more because you're pedalling faster, and round the jockey wheel a lot more, 'cos you're pedalling faster therefore actually overall your energy losses will be higher.
...

No, the efficiency findings are for a fixed output power i.e. same overall speed on a bike.

The jockey wheels probably do dissipate more because the chain passes through it faster, but because they do not carry much force (high chain tension is only on present on the segment between cog and chainwheel) their losses are not significant compared to the cog losses. The low forces on the "return" segment of the chain is why plastic jockeys with simple "sleeve" bearings can be used.

The chain losses are also only significant over the high-tension segments of the run i.e. not around the jockeys.

lost_in_thought

Horses for courses I reckon.

That article linked above is interesting - I am one of the cyclists who shifts gears to go faster, but makes little change to cadence - and my natural cadence is pretty slow - 80-90ish. If I want to overtake, I'll just dump 3 gears.

However, I can comfortably cruise around in big gears with very little perceived strain on my legs - no machismo, seems it's just how I'm constructed. I'm much more comfortable in a big gear at a slower cadence than I am spinnig like a Labour press secretary.

jzed

Before Christmas my avergae seems to have been around 80 (so was probably riding at around 90-100 when moving) and I was having problems with my knees. My average so far this year is 90 and I'm generally spinning between 100-110 and so far no knee problems.

snailracer

lost_in_thought wrote:

Horses for courses I reckon.

That article linked above is interesting - I am one of the cyclists who shifts gears to go faster, but makes little change to cadence - and my natural cadence is pretty slow - 80-90ish. If I want to overtake, I'll just dump 3 gears.

However, I can comfortably cruise around in big gears with very little perceived strain on my legs - no machismo, seems it's just how I'm constructed. I'm much more comfortable in a big gear at a slower cadence than I am spinnig like a Labour press secretary.

The effect of cadence on efficiency is an area of active research, which means there we still don't know all the answers. Recent research suggests that it is biomechanically more efficient to ride at lower cadences at lower power outputs - I find it staggering that the sports scientists have only recently come up with this hypothesis. Maybe their focus on relatively high power outputs used in sport resulted in their overlooking the non-sporting, bimbling mode.

lost_in_thought

snailracer wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Horses for courses I reckon.

That article linked above is interesting - I am one of the cyclists who shifts gears to go faster, but makes little change to cadence - and my natural cadence is pretty slow - 80-90ish. If I want to overtake, I'll just dump 3 gears.

However, I can comfortably cruise around in big gears with very little perceived strain on my legs - no machismo, seems it's just how I'm constructed. I'm much more comfortable in a big gear at a slower cadence than I am spinnig like a Labour press secretary.

The effect of cadence on efficiency is an area of active research, which means there we still don't know all the answers. Recent research suggests that it is biomechanically more efficient to ride at lower cadences at lower power outputs - I find it staggering that the sports scientists have only recently come up with this hypothesis. Maybe their focus on relatively high power outputs used in sport resulted in their overlooking the non-sporting, bimbling mode.

It's the lowest form of wit, darling. Don't let your keyboard rage meter get into the red, but 'cruise' is a turn of phrase.

senoj

I havent counted my cadance but i know its quicker than the boys i ride with.
I would be classed as large for a bike rider nearly 14stone,although Im alright at hill climbing.I put this down to a higher cadance as it feels very comforable.I had no preconceived ideas as ive only been a roady for two years.
Some others in the group turn a tremendous cog,and i dont know how they keep it going,but then they do tend to slow a bit on the hills.

jonginge

I tend to be super-spinny on the flat but grindy up the hills. Go figure, innit

The Rookie

My commute is about 22 minutes, the research I have seen suggests that about 20 mins is the point at which (if the theory be true) spinning should offer some benefit over mashing.

As I commute cross country my findings are not warped by traffic or traffic lights as I am rarely held up.

I do feel fresher when I get to work if I go the whole way at 80-90rpm than if I go at 40-50 (which is what I was used to from my bikes as a kid, it took a while to get used to spinning faster) for what that is worth, if I spin I can run up the 8 flights of steps to the office, if I mash I have to walk!

Simon

Dudu

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dudu wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Blame Armstrong.

It makes little accelerations, ones that you don't notice, a little easier.

I started using a higher cadence when Armstrong was 10. A lot of small efforts put less strain on you joints and muscles than a few big efforts, especially if you pedal smoothly. And you do go faster - try using one gear lower than usual for a regular ride like a commute or a training run and you'll find out.

Well arn't you old!

I think the word you're struggling to find is "experienced". Or perhaps "grown-up". :-)

rick_chasey

Dudu wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Dudu wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Blame Armstrong.

It makes little accelerations, ones that you don't notice, a little easier.

I started using a higher cadence when Armstrong was 10. A lot of small efforts put less strain on you joints and muscles than a few big efforts, especially if you pedal smoothly. And you do go faster - try using one gear lower than usual for a regular ride like a commute or a training run and you'll find out.

Well arn't you old!

I think the word you're struggling to find is "experienced". Or perhaps "grown-up". :-)

They sound like old man words to me dude, wassup etc.

cjcp

JonGinge wrote:

I tend to be super-spinny on the flat but grindy up the hills. Go figure, innit

You're confusing "grindy" with "going slower for CJ's benefit"