Cadence cadence cadence!!!

rolf_f

I suppose it depends on gradient - in W Yorks, I just don't have the gears to maintain cadence on the average climb.

bernithebiker

Rolf F wrote:

I suppose it depends on gradient - in W Yorks, I just don't have the gears to maintain cadence on the average climb.

On a slope of 8% (fairly steep by anyone's standards), using 34/28 (my lowest gear), with a cadence of 80, you will be at 12.2km/h.

I would think that most reasonably fit cyclists here could maintain that speed, no?

rolf_f

bernithebiker wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I suppose it depends on gradient - in W Yorks, I just don't have the gears to maintain cadence on the average climb.

On a slope of 8% (fairly steep by anyone's standards), using 34/28 (my lowest gear), with a cadence of 80, you will be at 12.2km/h.

I would think that most reasonably fit cyclists here could maintain that speed, no?

8% quite gentle around here! And cadence = 80 would be rather less than flat or descending cadence. I think I manage the high 70s as an uphill average (when I'm trying as I do have a tendency to drift downwards!) and high 80s overall.

The gearing helps - I'm normally on 34-25 as minimum but do run a 13-29 for the harder trips and I know that does ultimately lead to quicker ascents when it gets properly steep despite what the MTFU brigade might say!

thegodplato

To me, unless your a Pro or a really good racer, then I still don't see how the average person can keep the same cadence when climbing steep hills as they do on flats, etc. Slight gradients, yes, drop a gear ( and then another...) and you may manage to keep it reasonably close, but as said before if you're climbing a good hill then I'm struggling just to turn the pedals round and goodness knows how low my cadence is. See this little article I've come across about times - http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2137/tejv ... ill-climb/ He knows how to climb and his time up Jubilee Tower which I live close to is simply amazing - I'm miles off his time. If we had endless gears then you would be able to keep a high cadence but we don't!

Bozman

Your cadence will drop on a hill, it's all down to what gradient you class as a "hill".
You've only got to watch a couple of stages from last years Vuelta to see that.

MichaelW

thegodplato wrote:

To me, unless your a Pro or a really good racer, then I still don't see how the average person can keep the same cadence when climbing steep hills as they do on flats, etc.

The problem is when low wattage amateurs use the same gear system as high wattage professional riders.
If you have less power, you need lower gears. Compact doubles or road triples are essential if you want to ride at high cadence up hills.

TakeTurns

Cadence will naturally drop on a hill once you run out of gears. It's the transition you make from the flat to the incline which is important. I like to shift down so that I'm able to keep the smooth cadence flowing which helps with momentum instead of letting your cadence suddenly plummet.

bernithebiker

Bozman wrote:

Your cadence will drop on a hill, it's all down to what gradient you class as a "hill".

Sorry, mine doesn't.

I like 80 to 90 cadence (100 if I'm pressing on), and I can maintain that on all cols I've done up to about 8%, i.e. Tourmalet, Aubisque, Faucille, etc.

Using my 34/28, this is between 12.2 and 13.8km/h. Not especially quick, so hopefully I'd be in the 25.

If your cadence is dropping right off on the hills, either you haven't got the right gears or you're not using them right.

Bozman

bernithebiker wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Your cadence will drop on a hill, it's all down to what gradient you class as a "hill".

Sorry, mine doesn't.

I like 80 to 90 cadence (100 if I'm pressing on), and I can maintain that on all cols I've done up to about 8%, i.e. Tourmalet, Aubisque, Faucille, etc.

Using my 34/28, this is between 12.2 and 13.8km/h. Not especially quick, so hopefully I'd be in the 25.

If your cadence is dropping right off on the hills, either you haven't got the right gears or you're not using them right.

Like I said in the bit of the quote you missed off, as you'll know when you watch the top blokes on the tours their cadence can plummet, you just have to watch last years Vuelta to see that.
A lot of folk drop down and get out of the saddle on steeper climbs, when you're out of the saddle you're. It going to have a cadence of 90+.
At the the tour of Britain this year a lot of the riders were out of the saddle at Oakamoor(staffs), that climb can only be 10% at it's steepest point.

Pross

bernithebiker wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Your cadence will drop on a hill, it's all down to what gradient you class as a "hill".

Sorry, mine doesn't.

I like 80 to 90 cadence (100 if I'm pressing on), and I can maintain that on all cols I've done up to about 8%, i.e. Tourmalet, Aubisque, Faucille, etc.

Using my 34/28, this is between 12.2 and 13.8km/h. Not especially quick, so hopefully I'd be in the 25.

If your cadence is dropping right off on the hills, either you haven't got the right gears or you're not using them right.

Or you feel more comfortable riding at a lower cadence going up hill. I don't like higher cadence on hills, there's no logic to it at all but I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. Maybe it stems from the days where a low gear was 39 x 23 and most club cyclists had 42 x 21 as their lowest. That said, you seem to be hedging your bets a bit - one minute you are saying you do up to 100 rpm on the flat but then you base the speed on the lowest of your cadence ranges.

As for 13.8kph up the Tourmalet etc. you must be some climber as that would put you in the top 30 out of on Strava for one of the gentler routes (7.5%) and even the 12.2kph would put you in the top 5 on the 2010 route up so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "not especially quick". It would be similar on the 6.7% climb of the Aubisque.

bernithebiker

Pross wrote:

Or you feel more comfortable riding at a lower cadence going up hill. I don't like higher cadence on hills, there's no logic to it at all but I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. Maybe it stems from the days where a low gear was 39 x 23 and most club cyclists had 42 x 21 as their lowest. That said, you seem to be hedging your bets a bit - one minute you are saying you do up to 100 rpm on the flat but then you base the speed on the lowest of your cadence ranges.

As for 13.8kph up the Tourmalet etc. you must be some climber as that would put you in the top 30 out of on Strava for one of the gentler routes (7.5%) and even the 12.2kph would put you in the top 5 on the 2010 route up so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "not especially quick". It would be similar on the 6.7% climb of the Aubisque.

Well there are loads of segments on the Tourmalet, and I can't find the one you're talking about. The most appropriate one would be the D918 Climb, the last 4k to the top, at 8.3%. The KOM is at 17km/h, pretty impressive. My speed (during the Etape du Tour 2012 was 11.5km/h, I am 184th out of 1599. Had I not been semi-hyperthermic, (terrible conditions that day, no rain jacket), and well past half of a 200km day, I would like to think I could have been at the 12.2km/h mentioned above or better. (And 8% instead of 8.3% would have been nice too.....)

So no, it doesn't put me in the 'Top 30' or even less, the 'Top 5'.

bernithebiker

Bozman wrote:

Like I said in the bit of the quote you missed off, as you'll know when you watch the top blokes on the tours their cadence can plummet, you just have to watch last years Vuelta to see that.

The Vuelta had some super steep sections, up to 20% if I remember right.

So yes, of course, in those extremes, everyone's cadence will plummet.

But check out the pros on a 'normal' col (6 to 8%) and I don't see their cadence dropping. In fact Lance's often increased, (although that may have been due to what was in his morning coffee......)

thegreatdivide

I'm an 85.

Bozman

bernithebiker wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Like I said in the bit of the quote you missed off, as you'll know when you watch the top blokes on the tours their cadence can plummet, you just have to watch last years Vuelta to see that.

The Vuelta had some super steep sections, up to 20% if I remember right.

So yes, of course, in those extremes, everyone's cadence will plummet.

But check out the pros on a 'normal' col (6 to 8%) and I don't see their cadence dropping. In fact Lance's often increased, (although that may have been due to what was in his morning coffee......)

6-8% isn't steep though is it, they're long and I'd struggle but they're at a % where you can still spin and get a good rhythm going.

bernithebiker

Bozman wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Like I said in the bit of the quote you missed off, as you'll know when you watch the top blokes on the tours their cadence can plummet, you just have to watch last years Vuelta to see that.

The Vuelta had some super steep sections, up to 20% if I remember right.

So yes, of course, in those extremes, everyone's cadence will plummet.

But check out the pros on a 'normal' col (6 to 8%) and I don't see their cadence dropping. In fact Lance's often increased, (although that may have been due to what was in his morning coffee......)

6-8% isn't steep though is it, they're long and I'd struggle but they're at a % where you can still spin and get a good rhythm going.

6 to 8% is enough to be a Cat 1 or an HC col, so I would say its fairly steep, but of course there will always be steeper exceptions.

All I'm saying is that it should be possible for most fit cyclists to keep a highish cadence on the majority of the cols you meet. I think alot of mediocre climbers would actually be better off with a triple, but these are rare in hilly sportives, cos they just ain't cool.

Maybe I'm getting it all wrong. If someone could explain to me why I should drop my cadence as soon as I hit a col, maybe I'll give it a try......?

rolf_f

bernithebiker wrote:

But check out the pros on a 'normal' col (6 to 8%) and I don't see their cadence dropping. In fact Lance's often increased, (although that may have been due to what was in his morning coffee......)

Gawd - no wonder no one gets where you are coming from! Alpine Cols are not normal climbs in the UK. You come to Yorkshire and pedal up Greenhow Hill or Fleet Moss and keep your 34-28 turning over at 90 all the way and then I'll take your point!

bernithebiker wrote:

6 to 8% is enough to be a Cat 1 or an HC col, so I would say its fairly steep, but of course there will always be steeper exceptions.

But this isn't the Pro Race forum. It's Road General and a lot of us have to deal with much steeper gradients than are often found on HC Cols. I could probably knock up a 50 mile route around here that would have a good 10 climbs with 20% plus gradients in them without much bother. Just because the Pros don't cycle up them doesn't mean the bloody things aren't there

bernithebiker

Rolf F wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

6 to 8% is enough to be a Cat 1 or an HC col, so I would say its fairly steep, but of course there will always be steeper exceptions.

But this isn't the Pro Race forum. It's Road General and a lot of us have to deal with much steeper gradients than are often found on HC Cols. I could probably knock up a 50 mile route around here that would have a good 10 climbs with 20% plus gradients in them without much bother. Just because the Pros don't cycle up them doesn't mean the bloody things aren't there

OK, so if you're taking on short, very steep hills like that on a regular basis, why not consider a triple? Would keep your cadence higher.

Or is the jury still out on whether high cadence climbing is a good thing?

smidsy

I do not think anyone would argue that high cadence climbing is not a good thing it is simply that depending on the type of hill, your available gearing and strenght/fitness it is often impossible to remain in the 80+ area of cadence.

There are plenty of times where I am in 34/27 and have to drop to 60 or less, just because that's everything I've got.

rolf_f

bernithebiker wrote:

OK, so if you're taking on short, very steep hills like that on a regular basis, why not consider a triple? Would keep your cadence higher.

A road triple is normally not going to get you much more than the 34 - 29 I already have. It's not generally a bother though - you just grind up.

Another point is that when it becomes hard enough to have to get out of the saddle, natural cadence drops anyway (hence why people think that they climb more quickly out of the saddle when they probably don't!). I'd be surprised if many people can sustain a high cadence out of the saddle on a steep climb - it just doesn't work well.

bernithebiker

smidsy wrote:

I do not think anyone would argue that high cadence climbing is not a good thing it is simply that depending on the type of hill, your available gearing and strenght/fitness it is often impossible to remain in the 80+ area of cadence.

There are plenty of times where I am in 34/27 and have to drop to 60 or less, just because that's everything I've got.

Fair enough. At least you guys already have the lowest practical gearing without using a triple.

I use a compact with 23-11 cassette normally, but if going on a hilly sportive (like the Etape), I'll put on the 28-11 cassette.

I'm usually in the top 10% of climbers, but I would go lower geared for the Etape if I easily could. Why? To maintain my 'best' cadence. And these are for climbs of up to 10%, so for 20%+, who knows?

I know that a % of riders struggling on the climbs in Etape type sportives are running standard chainsets, or small cassettes (cos I've seen them) which makes no sense to me at all, but hey, horses for courses.

Pross

bernithebiker wrote:

Pross wrote:

Or you feel more comfortable riding at a lower cadence going up hill. I don't like higher cadence on hills, there's no logic to it at all but I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. Maybe it stems from the days where a low gear was 39 x 23 and most club cyclists had 42 x 21 as their lowest. That said, you seem to be hedging your bets a bit - one minute you are saying you do up to 100 rpm on the flat but then you base the speed on the lowest of your cadence ranges.

As for 13.8kph up the Tourmalet etc. you must be some climber as that would put you in the top 30 out of on Strava for one of the gentler routes (7.5%) and even the 12.2kph would put you in the top 5 on the 2010 route up so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "not especially quick". It would be similar on the 6.7% climb of the Aubisque.

Well there are loads of segments on the Tourmalet, and I can't find the one you're talking about. The most appropriate one would be the D918 Climb, the last 4k to the top, at 8.3%. The KOM is at 17km/h, pretty impressive. My speed (during the Etape du Tour 2012 was 11.5km/h, I am 184th out of 1599. Had I not been semi-hyperthermic, (terrible conditions that day, no rain jacket), and well past half of a 200km day, I would like to think I could have been at the 12.2km/h mentioned above or better. (And 8% instead of 8.3% would have been nice too.....)

So no, it doesn't put me in the 'Top 30' or even less, the 'Top 5'.

Try this one http://app.strava.com/segments/665229 13.8kph would put you top 40 out of 766 people / 877 rides and it's a measly 7.3%

or this http://app.strava.com/segments/652848 13.8kph would be just outside the top 30 from 1440 people and 1620 rides (7.5%)

I saw another yesterday where it would have been top 3 out of 400 odd from memory but can't find it now.

Whilst I'm not doubting you can do those speeds the fact are in the top 12% on that climb whilst bordering on hypothermia would suggest you are way above average climbing. However, whilst using a 34 / 28, which without a triple is about the lowest gear you will find on a road bike, you are averaging a cadence of just over 70. Even if you had you felt better you would have only just hit the lowest end of your normal cadence sort of disproves your point that anyone should be able to maintain their cadence on the flat when climbing.

bernithebiker

Pross wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Pross wrote:

Or you feel more comfortable riding at a lower cadence going up hill. I don't like higher cadence on hills, there's no logic to it at all but I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. Maybe it stems from the days where a low gear was 39 x 23 and most club cyclists had 42 x 21 as their lowest. That said, you seem to be hedging your bets a bit - one minute you are saying you do up to 100 rpm on the flat but then you base the speed on the lowest of your cadence ranges.

As for 13.8kph up the Tourmalet etc. you must be some climber as that would put you in the top 30 out of on Strava for one of the gentler routes (7.5%) and even the 12.2kph would put you in the top 5 on the 2010 route up so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "not especially quick". It would be similar on the 6.7% climb of the Aubisque.

Well there are loads of segments on the Tourmalet, and I can't find the one you're talking about. The most appropriate one would be the D918 Climb, the last 4k to the top, at 8.3%. The KOM is at 17km/h, pretty impressive. My speed (during the Etape du Tour 2012 was 11.5km/h, I am 184th out of 1599. Had I not been semi-hyperthermic, (terrible conditions that day, no rain jacket), and well past half of a 200km day, I would like to think I could have been at the 12.2km/h mentioned above or better. (And 8% instead of 8.3% would have been nice too.....)

So no, it doesn't put me in the 'Top 30' or even less, the 'Top 5'.

Try this one http://app.strava.com/segments/665229 13.8kph would put you top 40 out of 766 people / 877 rides and it's a measly 7.3%

or this http://app.strava.com/segments/652848 13.8kph would be just outside the top 30 from 1440 people and 1620 rides (7.5%)

I saw another yesterday where it would have been top 3 out of 400 odd from memory but can't find it now.

Whilst I'm not doubting you can do those speeds the fact are in the top 12% on that climb whilst bordering on hypothermia would suggest you are way above average climbing. However, whilst using a 34 / 28, which without a triple is about the lowest gear you will find on a road bike, you are averaging a cadence of just over 70. Even if you had you felt better you would have only just hit the lowest end of your normal cadence sort of disproves your point that anyone should be able to maintain their cadence on the flat when climbing.

On these sort of climbs, there is a big difference between 12 and almost 14km/h, and therefore 80 and 90 cadence.

I said 80 to 90 and chose 80, you are using 90. But it seems my cadence is in fact around the 80 mark on this 8 to 8.5% climb.

Looking at the first segment you mention, I was doing 11.9km/h, not far off 12.2, and as I said, very cold, on the point of giving up, and knackered.

If I took that climb in isolation, on a nice day, I would hope to be doing at least 12.5km/h, but 14 no, I doubt it.

If I wanted to climb a 5km 4% col as fast as possible, I would be spinning at 90+, sometimes standing (down to 70ish), and aiming for a speed of at least 25km/h.

Like this one for example; http://app.strava.com/activities/36523131#588540051

I only use these examples to show that I strongly believe that it is not necessary to drop your cadence on a climb, indeed, you might go faster if you don't. If you don't have the gears for that, then consider getting them.....

markos1963

My cadence range is 20-160, try riding fixed/ss and you'll find out that most things written about cadence is nonsense. Just ride at what feels comfortable.

bernithebiker

markos1963 wrote:

My cadence range is 20-160, try riding fixed/ss and you'll find out that most things written about cadence is nonsense. Just ride at what feels comfortable.

SS is good for developing a wide range of cadence and having a nice, simple bike.

I too do exercises where I try to go up my 6% hill in top gear (50/11 or 12) to develop muscle strength. (Cadence 20/30). But that sure as sh*t is not the fastest way to climb.

Try taking the SS to the Etape, and let us know how you get on.

markos1963

bernithebiker wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

My cadence range is 20-160, try riding fixed/ss and you'll find out that most things written about cadence is nonsense. Just ride at what feels comfortable.

SS is good for developing a wide range of cadence and having a nice, simple bike.

I too do exercises where I try to go up my 6% hill in top gear (50/11 or 12) to develop muscle strength. (Cadence 20/30). But that sure as sh*t is not the fastest way to climb.

Try taking the SS to the Etape, and let us know how you get on.

The Etape is a particular type of ride that I obviously wouldn't do on a SS(more like a triple!)
On our club runs in the winter you will invariably find the SS riders leading the way up hills with the compact riders losing momentum by switching chainrings and then having to find a ratio on the cassette to match their 'preferred' cadence.

topcattim

My wonder about cadence is about sustainability. I have a turbo with a power meter and have settled quite easily into a cadence of about 95 as my most comfortable. When I set the computer to adjust so that I ride at a certain power output, it adapts the resistance according to my cadence and wheel speed (which is dictated by my gear and cadence). So if I ride, for example, at 250W in a high-ish gear and 95 cadence it gives me a low resistance. But if the cadence drops to 80 or heaven-forbid, lower, in the same gear it increases the resistance - I still deliver the same power output.

What I've discovered is that I can maintain a higher cadence so much more easilly than a lower one, at the same power output. After just a few minutes of a lower cadence, higher resistance at 250W, I'm knackered. But I can manage the same power output at higher cadence for a good while.

So this leads me to think that my body is teaching me that I do have an optimum cadence. So, cadence matters, no?

Bobbinogs

topcattim wrote:

So this leads me to think that my body is teaching me that I do have an optimum cadence. So, cadence matters, no?

I would agree. However, I think we are all saying that what that cadence actually is varies depending on the individual, and that some individuals like a variable cadence too.

Pross

Bobbinogs wrote:

topcattim wrote:

So this leads me to think that my body is teaching me that I do have an optimum cadence. So, cadence matters, no?

I would agree. However, I think we are all saying that what that cadence actually is varies depending on the individual, and that some individuals like a variable cadence too.

This.

ai_1

Power = Speed x Force

So as you say for the same power you can increase your cadence and reduce the force applied to the pedals or drop the cadence and increase the force to the pedals.

The following is just my take on this. I'm not claiming to be an expert.

As I see it a high cadence increases the total amount of work you'll end up doing also increases. Your leg mass and the pedals and cranks, etc are subject to more acceleration due to a higher cadence. This is an unavoidable loss. I find in practice that for a comfortable and sustainable power output my heart rate will be a little higher at say 100rpm than generating the same power at 80rpm and this seems to be the obvious explanation (there may be other factors too).
If this doesn't make sense to you consider the following. If you were to put your bike on a trainer, remove the chain and spin the pedals at 80rpm you'll be putting in less effort and have a lower HR than if you spin it up to 100rpm. There's zero output power but moving your own body faster has an additional energy cost.

However, for long duration efforts there may be an advantage to working at higher cadence (lower force and higher speed). I think leg muscle damage and fatigue should be reduced by keeping the force low. Lower forces on joints should make knee/hip injury less likely unless perhaps it's due to number of reps. I find it easier to keep a clean, smooth pedal stroke with lower force and I think circulation in my feet is better so they're less likely to go numb or to get cold on cold days. Also I occassionally suffer a little back pain after a couple of hours in the saddle. This definitely seems to be helped by using a higher cadence. However, from a performance point of view the first one is the important one.

On easy rides with friends who aren't regular cyclists my cadence is often in the mid 70s. On a medium effort flattish long ride I usually cruise at about 90-95rpm. In the hills my average will be down a little due to some steep climbs.
When I started riding I used to suffer some knee pain (carried over from a running injury) and I tried to keep the cadence up to avoid aggravating it. This definitely seemed to help and I quickly got used to pedalling around 85-100rpm rather than the 65-80rpm I tended to settle at naturally as a newbie cyclist.

Pross

Spot on and well argued.