Cadence

sketchley

I now have a cadence sensor (and a shiny new bike computer). This morning was first ride with it. I seem to cruise between 90 and 100 rpm and average 75 rpm for 1hr commute. I have no idea what this means as I lack any kind of frame of reference. Still 100rpm sounds cool.....

Anyone care to enlighten me?

mattcroad

There isn't a right or wrong just what's comfortable for you. I normally sit between 100-110, higher into the wind, lower with a tailwind (and bigger gear).

I think s/s riders generally average higher cadence than geared riders, but it really is what works for you.

richVSrich

...if you have a higher rpm - you go faster right?..thus more rpm = good

i think it depends on the individual though - i remember watching the TT where lance armstrong catches up with the guy ahead, they had 2 completely different cadences...lance was pretty spinny

personally im more of a spinny kinda guy...

hope you're doing good mate!

Initialised

I try to climb at 80 and cruise at 90-110. I've found spinning a lower gear is usually faster and easier than stomping a big one.

roger_merriman

Single Speed so it varies.

40rpm up BoxHill and the like.

once cruising along 70-90 rpm

hoofing it down a fast road 130rpm though its not pretty or clever!

cyclingprop

Depends on your legs. Skinny legs will (probably) find spinning preferable to stomping, and larger legs the opposite - given that: P=F*R where P is the power to maintain a specific speed, F is the force applied to the pedal and R is the pedal revolutions per minute.

I'll cruise anywhere from 80-100, with deliberate sections at 70~ to make it look easy. If I'm going for it my top end is anywhere between around 120-140.

meanredspider

I target 90rpm (typically change at 100 and 80) though average low 80's (freewheeling obviously drops the average)

My cadence is higher climbing (spin up hills seated - plus no freewheeling)

optimisticbiker

cyclingprop wrote:

Depends on your legs. Skinny legs will (probably) find spinning preferable to stomping, and larger legs the opposite - given that: P=F*R where P is the power to maintain a specific speed, F is the force applied to the pedal and R is the pedal revolutions per minute.

I'll cruise anywhere from 80-100, with deliberate sections at 70~ to make it look easy. If I'm going for it my top end is anywhere between around 120-140.

While I can see the relationship of your formula with Power (W) = Torque (Nm) * Angular Velocity (rad/sec), I'm not sure its actually correct, where did you get it from?

For the record my cadence is around 90-95, thats what feels natural and seems to be the most efficient (i.e. least tiring on long runs) and I find the cadence measure useful in trying to select the right gear - too spinny is inefficient, too stompy is tiring... of course you can do it by feel, you don't need the toys, but its useful to track. In fact my avergae cadence has risen over the last year by 5, presumably as my legs have become more muscular/toned/efficient

daviesee

OptimisticBiker wrote:

For the record my cadence is around 90-95, thats what feels natural and seems to be the most efficient (i.e. least tiring on long runs) and I find the cadence measure useful in trying to select the right gear - too spinny is inefficient, too stompy is tiring... of course you can do it by feel, you don't need the toys, but its useful to track. In fact my avergae cadence has risen over the last year by 5, presumably as my legs have become more muscular/toned/efficient

I have found that having the toys is very beneficial! :P
Due to bad technique (get it in the big gear and keep it there) I used to stomp out on low cadence. Quick but I couldn't last on long runs.
By using a cadence meter I am slowly changing my cycling style for the better, much better.
I now target a mimimum of 80 for the flats and 70 for the hills and I don't feel comfortable over 100 - That may change in time though. My previous used to be 60-70 on the flat. Without the meter to track I would have slipped back into old grind it out style. Now 80 rpm feels just right.

slowbike

Like many - I'm between 80-90 in comfort. On hills I prefer a slower cadence, I find if I try and keep to 80-90 I end up just slowing down anyway.
Downhill depends on how steep and how long it is - it varies from 0 (having a rest from pedalling up hill!) to ~150 this morning - drafting a cement mixer that overtook me - to achieve my all time record of 48.3mph - well, I think that's my all time record - I'll have to check ...

rolf_f

I started out averaging round about 79 - I've recently started targetting cadence and my main screen has cadence and average cadence displayed. Last night I got up to average 91 and this morning 90 - the first times I have got over 90.

My unit is a Bryton and Garmins may record differently. The problem with the average on the Bryton is that it records zero cadence so coasting trashes the average. I keep trying to pursuade them to put a threshold on it so coasting isn't counted but in a way it doesn't really matter.

It's certainly getting me used to riding at well over 100.

the_fuggler

I mash, therefore I am. Might get up to 80 on the flat, with my general ride average being around 72 to 75. Just seems to suit my legs.

First.Aspect

I stopped bothering with cadence. Instead I measure the rate my wheels turn.

I think I was a 90-110 guy, dipping into the 80's on climbs. Anything less than 80 and I know I'm struggling. When I used to get tired on long rides (can't do those at the moment) my cadence would drop dramatically and I'd start to mash.

There are lots of conflicting studies on this, depending on how or on who tests were conducted. One study, I seem to remember, calculated that optimum cadence was 50-60. This was conducted on non-cycling elite athletes, I think. The theory went that internal muscle friction increases with rpm and offsets any benefits.

However, all the pros do what is best for them. They all do more or less the same. I know fashion has changed slightly, but its a long time since I've seen a pro cyclist cruising at less than 85+ rpm, even on time trials.

rolf_f

First Aspect wrote:

I stopped bothering with cadence. Instead I measure the rate my wheels turn.

You mean speed?

meanredspider

I'm intrigued by the "lower cadence up hills" brigade: why don't you just drop a gear? Or are you standing?

OptimisticBiker wrote:

While I can see the relationship of your formula with Power (W) = Torque (Nm) * Angular Velocity (rad/sec), I'm not sure its actually correct, where did you get it from?

The two formulae are (more or less) the same - yours is technically more accurate (and has SI units) but force applied to the pedal is converted to torque by the crank and RPM is another way of stating angular velocity.

The point is, there's two ways of developing more power - pedal faster or apply more force to the pedal at the same pedalling speed (or a combination of course).

notsoblue

On longer rides I try to maintain a constant high cadence (for me thats 90-100). I can sustain that for much much longer than slower grinding (<80).

cyclingprop

OptimisticBiker wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

Depends on your legs. Skinny legs will (probably) find spinning preferable to stomping, and larger legs the opposite - given that: P=F*R where P is the power to maintain a specific speed, F is the force applied to the pedal and R is the pedal revolutions per minute.

I'll cruise anywhere from 80-100, with deliberate sections at 70~ to make it look easy. If I'm going for it my top end is anywhere between around 120-140.

While I can see the relationship of your formula with Power (W) = Torque (Nm) * Angular Velocity (rad/sec), I'm not sure its actually correct, where did you get it from?

For the record my cadence is around 90-95, thats what feels natural and seems to be the most efficient (i.e. least tiring on long runs) and I find the cadence measure useful in trying to select the right gear - too spinny is inefficient, too stompy is tiring... of course you can do it by feel, you don't need the toys, but its useful to track. In fact my avergae cadence has risen over the last year by 5, presumably as my legs have become more muscular/toned/efficient

It's not going to be 100% but its close enough to help understand some of the mechanics. #physicsdegree.

sketchley

meanredspider wrote:

I'm intrigued by the "lower cadence up hills" brigade: why don't you just drop a gear? Or are you standing?

Please do test for me on this, please put enough lead bars in your rucksack to bring you up to 18st3lbs then select 34x25 (my lowest gear) find a nice ave 9% gradient over 1 mile (Like ditching beacon in Sussexs, I'm sure there is something similar up there) and try and spin up it 90rpm. For me the gear is just too heavy, it's not that I cannot climb in this gear just that I cannot spin. I think I would go faster with lower gear and higher cadence, which might be your point btw. Next time bike is in for service I plan to do something about this. 11-28 on the rear is one plan, alhough I would like to go bigger (is that smaller) and have more options, but that may require a long cage rear mech (anyone any expierience of this). Another alternative is to admit I'm an old man (like ITBoffin) and fit a tripple on the front. Anyone know if you can just swap out a 105 double for a tripple? Or does it require a front mech and or front shifter change?

bails87

You'd need to change the front mech and shifter.

Tiagra has a fairly wide range cassette, as does Sram Apex, just make sure the range of teeth on cassette and chainring is within the mech's capacity.

daviesee

meanredspider wrote:

I'm intrigued by the "lower cadence up hills" brigade: why don't you just drop a gear? Or are you standing?

What can I say? Going uphill I am no longer only fighting friction and the wind but gravity too. It just feels right.
By hill, I mean at least 5%. Something that will make you sweat.
I do try to maintain 80 rpm but will slog it out at 70 rpm. Any lower does mean shifting down.
Bottom gear and less than 70 rpm, I am standing (possibly one or two gears up to make the most of the weight).

sketchley

bails87 wrote:

You'd need to change the front mech and shifter.

Tiagra has a fairly wide range cassette, as does Sram Apex, just make sure the range of teeth on cassette and chainring is within the mech's capacity.

€ 381,70 get me just those three parts from Bike24.de
€ 489,00 get me a whole 105 group set I'm sure I could get money for the old parts and I wouldn't even use the BB or brakes....

Any reason why you cannot fit a tripple to the Genesis Equalibrium Frameset?

Alternative is to spend less on beer and chips and loose some weight, that might be cheaper..... I also do not need tripple on commuter, maybe I need n+1 bike for the bigger hills.... Can you get a Di2 tripple?

cookdn

Sketchley wrote:

[....]I think I would go faster with lower gear and higher cadence, which might be your point btw. Next time bike is in for service I plan to do something about this. 11-28 on the rear is one plan, alhough I would like to go bigger (is that smaller) and have more options, but that may require a long cage rear mech (anyone any expierience of this). Another alternative is to admit I'm an old man (like ITBoffin) and fit a tripple on the front. Anyone know if you can just swap out a 105 double for a tripple? Or does it require a front mech and or front shifter change?

bails87 wrote:

You'd need to change the front mech and shifter.

Tiagra has a fairly wide range cassette, as does Sram Apex, just make sure the range of teeth on cassette and chainring is within the mech's capacity.

The straightforward option would be to use SRAM Apex as bails87 suggests. 50/34 on the front and 11/32 on the back. What is good enough for Alberto Contador is good enough for me.

I believe you can achieve much the same with Shimano using a 10 speed MTB rear derailleur and cassette without swapping out your 105 shifters as the shifting distance is the same. There is a thread here somewhere that goes into the detail.

Best regards
David

cyclingprop

105 triple stuff if you want. Have levers/crankset/long cage mech all going spare, so you would just want to source a cassette (unless you're happy sticking), and cables depending on what you already have. I do you niiicce price.

bails87

You could just change the cassette, which I think would mean also changing the rear mech. That should be fairly cheap. Cheaper than shifters and front mech anyway.

optimisticbiker

Sketchley wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'm intrigued by the "lower cadence up hills" brigade: why don't you just drop a gear? Or are you standing?

Please do test for me on this, please put enough lead bars in your rucksack to bring you up to 18st3lbs then select 34x25 (my lowest gear) find a nice ave 9% gradient over 1 mile (Like ditching beacon in Sussexs, I'm sure there is something similar up there) and try and spin up it 90rpm. For me the gear is just too heavy, it's not that I cannot climb in this gear just that I cannot spin. I think I would go faster with lower gear and higher cadence, which might be your point btw. Next time bike is in for service I plan to do something about this. 11-28 on the rear is one plan, alhough I would like to go bigger (is that smaller) and have more options, but that may require a long cage rear mech (anyone any expierience of this). Another alternative is to admit I'm an old man (like ITBoffin) and fit a tripple on the front. Anyone know if you can just swap out a 105 double for a tripple? Or does it require a front mech and or front shifter change?

11-28 is available in 105 or 12-30 in Tiagra 10speed, both will fit on a Tiagra 10sp rear mech. You can use a standard 105 rear mech with 12-30, it does work although it needs longer chain and careful adjustment to stop jockey and cassette coming together. You can fit an 21/24/28 or 21/25/30 spider to an existing 105 cassette. You can't do 11-30 though, its too wide a margin for the rear mech to cope.

Compact 34 x 28 (my road bike) is the same gearing as Triple 30 x 25 (my current commuter), but oddly the latter seems to feel easier even with the heavier bike, think its something to do with the step from the previous ratio.

rolf_f

Sketchley wrote:

bails87 wrote:

You'd need to change the front mech and shifter.

Tiagra has a fairly wide range cassette, as does Sram Apex, just make sure the range of teeth on cassette and chainring is within the mech's capacity.

€ 381,70 get me just those three parts from Bike24.de
€ 489,00 get me a whole 105 group set I'm sure I could get money for the old parts and I wouldn't even use the BB or brakes....

Any reason why you cannot fit a tripple to the Genesis Equalibrium Frameset?

Alternative is to spend less on beer and chips and loose some weight, that might be cheaper..... I also do not need tripple on commuter, maybe I need n+1 bike for the bigger hills.... Can you get a Di2 tripple?

Just get a 12-28 cassette for now (plus a longer chain) and see how you go. The only thing that defeated me with a 13-29 (Campag) and 50-34 was Hardknott after 100 miles.
12-28 is a handy cassette even on a triple so you have nothing to lose and a whole lot of money given to the Germans to save.

And stop spelling triple with two p's - it's driving me mad!

bails87

Rolf F wrote:

And stop spelling triple with two p's - it's driving me mad!

Isn't it a trippple 'p'?

sketchley

cyclingprop wrote:

105 triple stuff if you want. Have levers/crankset/long cage mech all going spare, so you would just want to source a cassette (unless you're happy sticking), and cables depending on what you already have. I do you niiicce price.

Swap for a compact? Also is it 5700? Don't want gear cables coming out the side of the shifters....

slowbike

meanredspider wrote:

I'm intrigued by the "lower cadence up hills" brigade: why don't you just drop a gear? Or are you standing?

Nope - run out of gears ... 39x26

So at 80rpm I'd be doing 9.4mph

Unfortunately I can't quite do that on a 9% gradient (I'm trying - believe me!) - so it ends up being 60-70 and between 7 and 8mph ... any more than that and my heart would take a leave of absence!

I've found that currently my best way up a "hill" is to find a gear that suits 60-70 cadence and pedal hard ... when I get back on the "flat" I can up the cadence to 80-90 ...

meanredspider

Fair enough on the low cadence folk.

cyclingprop

Sketchley wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

105 triple stuff if you want. Have levers/crankset/long cage mech all going spare, so you would just want to source a cassette (unless you're happy sticking), and cables depending on what you already have. I do you niiicce price.

Swap for a compact? Also is it 5700? Don't want gear cables coming out the side of the shifters....

It's 5700. Worth a chat though not reeeeally keen on a swap, am running compact on both bikes anyway