Improving pedalling efficiency
Comments
-
Tom Dean wrote:I expect Wattbike have some evidence showing the usefulness of their polar graph, but they don't want anyone to see it :roll:
Yes they have is experienced cyclists including gold medal winners saying how they find it useful and results showing how top end cyclists have different results from beginners.
Trouble is that in the cynical world of Alex et al this automatically means they have sold themselves out and are lying.
Clearly Alex has a bee in his bonnet about this subject. But I really find it surprising/depressing that others agree with him.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Anecdotally I think most cyclists would say they feel that for short bursts - maybe cresting a hill or sprinting, maybe climbing steep gradients out of the saddle - pulling up can contribute. If it's uncontroversial that track sprinters do pull up on the pedal at some points at least it's at least possible that pulling up can be a useful technique - although admittedly such use wouldn't really be what you'd call improved pedalling efficiency.
Moving away from the pulling up or not debate though - wouldn't there still be a possible role for improved pedalling efficiency through better timing and sequencing of muscles firing. It may all be about pushing down on the pedals - but if you can start pushing down at just the right time with just the right muscles that would seem to be a possible area where a rider might gain an advantage over another through having what might fall under the term better or smoother pedalling technique. I've got twin 11 year olds who are getting into cycling and I had them both on rollers last night - certainly one of them had a noticeably slightly jerky pedalling motion - to the eye it didn't look efficient - not saying it definitely isn't of course and I don't have any peer reviewed research to refer you to but given the obvious limitations of the research quoted in this thread it's not a closed question.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
bahzob, you are confusing cynical with sceptical. I have no bee in any bonnet. So cut the BS and leave out the ad hominem, it's so passé.
Do you have access to pedal force data on Wiggins? It sounds as if you do and can therefore verify what you are implying.
You claim "crap science" and lamely attack the credibility of some specialists in the field of cycling biomechanics but what have you got to demonstrate your thoughts beyond loosely worded anecdote and book quotes?0 -
This is who you are trashing BTW. Perhaps you'd like to take them up on it?
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/sse/sport-scien ... omas-korff
http://www.health.utah.edu/ess/faculty/martin.html0 -
Regarding specifically the technique-related functions? Show us.bahzob wrote:Tom Dean wrote:I expect Wattbike have some evidence showing the usefulness of their polar graph, but they don't want anyone to see it :roll:
Yes they have is experienced cyclists including gold medal winners saying how they find it useful and results showing how top end cyclists have different results from beginners.0 -
Oh, and I forgot - one of the authors on those papers bahzob finds so amusing is Paul Barrett, who, let's see, works for British Cycling as a biomechanics expert:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/gbcycl ... -Barratt-0
but clearly he has no idea either :roll:0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:Anecdotally I think most cyclists would say they feel that for short bursts - maybe cresting a hill or sprinting, maybe climbing steep gradients out of the saddle - pulling up can contribute. If it's uncontroversial that track sprinters do pull up on the pedal at some points at least it's at least possible that pulling up can be a useful technique - although admittedly such use wouldn't really be what you'd call improved pedalling efficiency.
Moving away from the pulling up or not debate though - wouldn't there still be a possible role for improved pedalling efficiency through better timing and sequencing of muscles firing. It may all be about pushing down on the pedals - but if you can start pushing down at just the right time with just the right muscles that would seem to be a possible area where a rider might gain an advantage over another through having what might fall under the term better or smoother pedalling technique. I've got twin 11 year olds who are getting into cycling and I had them both on rollers last night - certainly one of them had a noticeably slightly jerky pedalling motion - to the eye it didn't look efficient - not saying it definitely isn't of course and I don't have any peer reviewed research to refer you to but given the obvious limitations of the research quoted in this thread it's not a closed question.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Pedal type aside, coordination is the key. Making sure the non pushing leg is not applying negative force and getting the leg into position to push effectively at the right instant. Somewhere here pulling up pushing over the top and scraping back blurs with better timing and sequence of muscle firing.
The difference of opinion is in trying to apply force pushing over the top and scraping back and pulling up, or just being coordinated.
My question is, does any particular technique or method allow us to produce more sustainable watts for a given period of time?
I have used a Wattbike and my graph shape is, I'm told by Wattbike themselves, excellent, with or without clipless pedals. But I do not consciously scrape back, lift up or push over the top. I must be relying on good coordination and timing. Has riding fixed helped?
Wattbike should be able to prove that pedalling in the way they suggest enables the cyclist to produce more power for longer. As they seem unable to provide any evidence, indeed there does not seem to be evidence that type of pedalling technique does have a performance benefit, (does anyone have evidence?), I'm inclined to hold the opinion that it is all about the downstroke.
A question; does the way power meters measure power make us misunderstand or misinterpret how best to pedal?
What is Dr Andrew Coggan's opinion?0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:Anecdotally I think most cyclists would say they feel that for short bursts - maybe cresting a hill or sprinting, maybe climbing steep gradients out of the saddle - pulling up can contribute. If it's uncontroversial that track sprinters do pull up on the pedal at some points at least it's at least possible that pulling up can be a useful technique - although admittedly such use wouldn't really be what you'd call improved pedalling efficiency.
Moving away from the pulling up or not debate though - wouldn't there still be a possible role for improved pedalling efficiency through better timing and sequencing of muscles firing. It may all be about pushing down on the pedals - but if you can start pushing down at just the right time with just the right muscles that would seem to be a possible area where a rider might gain an advantage over another through having what might fall under the term better or smoother pedalling technique. I've got twin 11 year olds who are getting into cycling and I had them both on rollers last night - certainly one of them had a noticeably slightly jerky pedalling motion - to the eye it didn't look efficient - not saying it definitely isn't of course and I don't have any peer reviewed research to refer you to but given the obvious limitations of the research quoted in this thread it's not a closed question.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Pedal type aside, coordination is the key. Making sure the non pushing leg is not applying negative force and getting the leg into position to push effectively at the right instant. Somewhere here pulling up pushing over the top and scraping back blurs with better timing and sequence of muscle firing.
The difference of opinion is in trying to apply force pushing over the top and scraping back and pulling up, or just being coordinated.
My question is, does any particular technique or method allow us to produce more sustainable watts for a given period of time?
I have used a Wattbike and my graph shape is, I'm told by Wattbike themselves, excellent, with or without clipless pedals. But I do not consciously scrape back, lift up or push over the top. I must be relying on good coordination and timing. Has riding fixed helped?
Wattbike should be able to prove that pedalling in the way they suggest enables the cyclist to produce more power for longer. As they seem unable to provide any evidence, indeed there does not seem to be evidence that type of pedalling technique does have a performance benefit, (does anyone have evidence?), I'm inclined to hold the opinion that it is all about the downstroke.
A question; does the way power meters measure power make us misunderstand or misinterpret how best to pedal or has the ability to measure power accurately exposed a myth?
What is Dr Andrew Coggan's opinion?0 -
Pro riders generally have a very fluent, smooth pedaling style. If you were to watch a video of them cut off at the waist, their upper bodies are almost totally still. This, to my mind, is efficient pedaling.
Now cut to a novice rider who is riding in an exaggerated, jerky, Push the Downstroke, way. We've all seen this type of rider before, and it doesn't look good, therefore I doubt it is efficient. (No I don't have VO2, or FTP data for this...)
So the pro rider has developed a smooth style. What is it that makes it smooth? I can't believe it's just the power section, from 1 to 5 o'clock. Something else must be going on.
Also, given that we are agreed that a good rider can develop enough force to pull out of a pedal on the upstroke during sprints, does it not seem unlikely that he would never use the upstroke at any other time?0 -
bernithebiker wrote:Pro riders generally have a very fluent, smooth pedaling style. If you were to watch a video of them cut off at the waist, their upper bodies are almost totally still. This, to my mind, is efficient pedaling.
Now cut to a novice rider who is riding in an exaggerated, jerky, Push the Downstroke, way. We've all seen this type of rider before, and it doesn't look good, therefore I doubt it is efficient. (No I don't have VO2, or FTP data for this...)
So the pro rider has developed a smooth style. What is it that makes it smooth? I can't believe it's just the power section, from 1 to 5 o'clock. Something else must be going on.
Also, given that we are agreed that a good rider can develop enough force to pull out of a pedal on the upstroke during sprints, does it not seem unlikely that he would never use the upstroke at any other time?
No one disputes that the pulling up from a standing start or in a sprint or up a very steep incline helps generate more power. It does but at a cost.
The area of disagreement is over how force is applied throughout the whole pedal stroke the rest of the time.
Do top pros pull up or just make sure they are not applying negative force? Do they apply force over the top or do they just get their leg into position?
I know I don't pull up, (other than in the instances mentioned earlier), I know this because I can't on flat pedals. I also know if I use clipless pedals I generate the same power. I know that if I try to pedal pulling up etc I fatigue sooner. I can't speak for others.
So far we would seem to have evidence on one side of the argument (which is being trashed by some) and no evidence on the other side but a lot of opinion based on how things look.
As you said above, the pro looks good because his body is still - the beginner looks terrible because he is all over the place. Does the still body and probably higher cadence give the illusion of smooth pedalling?
You said yourself you have no data but you can see it on video.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:
No one disputes that the pulling up from a standing start or in a sprint or up a very steep incline helps generate more power. It does but at a cost.
So given that this is a useful weapon for any pro (or any rider come to that), can we assume that at some point they must be training the muscles required to pull hard on the upstroke?Trev The Rev wrote:The area of disagreement is over how force is applied throughout the whole pedal stroke the rest of the time.
Do top pros pull up or just make sure they are not applying negative force? Do they apply force over the top or do they just get their leg into position?
Yes. These are the questions that are crucial, but difficult to answer. It's not just about 'pulling up', or unweighting. It's about the transition from 5 to 7 o'clock, and 11 to 1 o'clock as well. And the angle of the foot to the pedal too. Is your foot flat (0') to the pedal at 6 and 12 o'clock? Or is it + or - 20'? Has this been studied? Because if a rider can get his foot to -20' to the pedal at 12 o'clock, (heel down) he will find it easier to push over the dead spot.0 -
dunno about the experts - I had read that pulling up increased watts but was a poor return on the energy expended - therefore not much use above sprinting.
I choose to use what works for me - I apply force from about 11 o'clock through to 7 o'clock with the greater force being at 3 o'clock. On the on the 7-11 o'clock I try and lift my leg but not with force but just enough to stop resistance to the opposing leg.
All the above is fine and dandy (for me at least) but what I find helps more is trying to keep even pressure from both legs i.e. not relying on one leg to much. Secondly relaxing my legs (not tensing the muscles) - now this bit is hard to explain - but when I am tensing I get more pressure on my knees I know very well from my sprinting days - when you tense up your shoulders when sprinting it slows you down - not tensing also gives me the impression that I am giving a much more even force from both legs
Screw all the long scientific stuff, in my book I go with what works for me - I am not going to be riding in the TDF so I just do what helps me do a 100 miler without hurting (too much).0 -
bernithebiker wrote:These are the questions that are crucial, but difficult to answer. It's not just about 'pulling up', or unweighting. It's about the transition from 5 to 7 o'clock, and 11 to 1 o'clock as well. And the angle of the foot to the pedal too. [...] Has this been studied?
Yes. http://isbweb.org/data/kautz/0 -
RChung wrote:bernithebiker wrote:These are the questions that are crucial, but difficult to answer. It's not just about 'pulling up', or unweighting. It's about the transition from 5 to 7 o'clock, and 11 to 1 o'clock as well. And the angle of the foot to the pedal too. [...] Has this been studied?
Yes. http://isbweb.org/data/kautz/
OK, interesting. The data is an average of 14 riders, and seems I wasn't far off when saying -20' at 12 o'clock.
But presumably, some riders might be -10, some -30. The lower the better.
So surely this data is a key part of the answer to 'What is efficient pedalling?' How you present your foot to the pedal, how flexible is your foot/heel, etc. Presumably for some riders this foot flexibility will come naturally, for others it has to be trained in.
Does this not show again that it's not just 'All about the Downstroke'?0 -
I think so.bernithebiker wrote:So surely this data is a key part of the answer to 'What is efficient pedalling?'
The 14 riders in this study are 14 of the 15 riders in the Coyle 1991 study that showed that the better riders (better in terms of 40k TT performance) pull up less and stomp down harder.Does this not show again that it's not just 'All about the Downstroke'?0 -
bernithebiker wrote:RChung wrote:bernithebiker wrote:These are the questions that are crucial, but difficult to answer. It's not just about 'pulling up', or unweighting. It's about the transition from 5 to 7 o'clock, and 11 to 1 o'clock as well. And the angle of the foot to the pedal too. [...] Has this been studied?
Yes. http://isbweb.org/data/kautz/
OK, interesting. The data is an average of 14 riders, and seems I wasn't far off when saying -20' at 12 o'clock.
But presumably, some riders might be -10, some -30. The lower the better.
So surely this data is a key part of the answer to 'What is efficient pedalling?' How you present your foot to the pedal, how flexible is your foot/heel, etc. Presumably for some riders this foot flexibility will come naturally, for others it has to be trained in.
Does this not show again that it's not just 'All about the Downstroke'?
Is there any point in training it in? Does it improve sustainable power?
Have Wattbike or anyone using Wattbike done any scientific studies to see which style or styles of pedalling produce the most sustainable power? Surely if the feature is relevant, I assume they think it is, they would have come up with some hard evidence by now? They talk about the feature and training to improve the pedalling stroke as if it is a fact this style of pedalling works best - but where is the evidence?0 -
bernithebiker wrote:
Yes. These are the questions that are crucial, but difficult to answer. It's not just about 'pulling up', or unweighting. It's about the transition from 5 to 7 o'clock, and 11 to 1 o'clock as well. And the angle of the foot to the pedal too. Is your foot flat (0') to the pedal at 6 and 12 o'clock? Or is it + or - 20'? Has this been studied? Because if a rider can get his foot to -20' to the pedal at 12 o'clock, (heel down) he will find it easier to push over the dead spot.
One of the ways of applying more force than your own bodyweight to the pedal is by pulling up on the rising pedal. If you can solve the 11 to 1 o'c transition you don't have to worry about 5 to 7 o'c, in the same way as you don't have to worry about not applying torque between 8 and 10 o'c. All pedalling discussions end in the old circular v mashing argument but the fact is there are three techniques, circular, mashing and semi circular and there is an ideal time or place for all three. Circular for warming up, recovery rides and muscle relaxation during road races, mashing for explosive acceleration purposes and for technical sections of TT courses and semi circular for sustainable maximal power output in the non technical sections of TT courses. The unknown semi circular technique (used by Anquetil) enables a rider to start with the equivalent of of 2 o'c torque at 11 o'c, increasing to maximal torque as crank moves through 12, 1 , 2 and 3 o'c, it applies normal torque between 3 and 5 o'c. These are some pedalling facts which I hope BrimBros new PM will soon cofirm as genuine.0 -
Sorry inadvertent double post.0
-
Trev The Rev wrote:ncr wrote:bernithebiker wrote:
Yes. These are the questions that are crucial, but difficult to answer. It's not just about 'pulling up', or unweighting. It's about the transition from 5 to 7 o'clock, and 11 to 1 o'clock as well. And the angle of the foot to the pedal too. Is your foot flat (0') to the pedal at 6 and 12 o'clock? Or is it + or - 20'? Has this been studied? Because if a rider can get his foot to -20' to the pedal at 12 o'clock, (heel down) he will find it easier to push over the dead spot.
One of the ways of applying more force than your own bodyweight to the pedal is by pulling up on the rising pedal. If you can solve the 11 to 1 o'c transition you don't have to worry about 5 to 7 o'c, in the same way as you don't have to worry about not applying torque between 8 and 10 o'c. All pedalling discussions end in the old circular v mashing argument but the fact is there are three techniques, circular, mashing and semi circular and there is an ideal time or place for all three. Circular for warming up, recovery rides and muscle relaxation during road races, mashing for explosive acceleration purposes and for technical sections of TT courses and semi circular for sustainable maximal power output in the non technical sections of TT courses. The unknown semi circular technique (used by Anquetil) enables a rider to start with the equivalent of of 2 o'c torque at 11 o'c, increasing to maximal torque as crank moves through 12, 1 , 2 and 3 o'c, it applies normal torque between 3 and 5 o'c. These are some pedalling facts which I hope BrimBros new PM will soon cofirm as genuine.
So now we are talking about facts which people hope might become genuine facts when a power measuring system, which is still on the drawing board, might become available and someone might do some tests which they hope might confirm these facts which are not facts yet.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:Trev The Rev wrote:ncr wrote:bernithebiker wrote:
Yes. These are the questions that are crucial, but difficult to answer. It's not just about 'pulling up', or unweighting. It's about the transition from 5 to 7 o'clock, and 11 to 1 o'clock as well. And the angle of the foot to the pedal too. Is your foot flat (0') to the pedal at 6 and 12 o'clock? Or is it + or - 20'? Has this been studied? Because if a rider can get his foot to -20' to the pedal at 12 o'clock, (heel down) he will find it easier to push over the dead spot.
One of the ways of applying more force than your own bodyweight to the pedal is by pulling up on the rising pedal. If you can solve the 11 to 1 o'c transition you don't have to worry about 5 to 7 o'c, in the same way as you don't have to worry about not applying torque between 8 and 10 o'c. All pedalling discussions end in the old circular v mashing argument but the fact is there are three techniques, circular, mashing and semi circular and there is an ideal time or place for all three. Circular for warming up, recovery rides and muscle relaxation during road races, mashing for explosive acceleration purposes and for technical sections of TT courses and semi circular for sustainable maximal power output in the non technical sections of TT courses. The unknown semi circular technique (used by Anquetil) enables a rider to start with the equivalent of of 2 o'c torque at 11 o'c, increasing to maximal torque as crank moves through 12, 1 , 2 and 3 o'c, it applies normal torque between 3 and 5 o'c. These are some pedalling facts which I hope BrimBros new PM will soon cofirm as genuine.
So now we are talking about facts which people hope might become genuine facts when a power measuring system, which is still on the drawing board, might become available and someone might do some tests which they hope might confirm these facts which are not facts yet.
I am satisfied they are facts but people like yourself need the proof before you believe.0 -
An anecdote about Jacques Anquetil just isn't enough for some people...0
-
Best way to pedal efficiently is to do a nice 2x20. 15 minutes in you'll pedal as efficiently as you can because anything else would hurt more.0
-
yes, and they train their sprint and steep incline pedalling by doing sprint training and riding up steep inclines.bernithebiker wrote:Trev The Rev wrote:
No one disputes that the pulling up from a standing start or in a sprint or up a very steep incline helps generate more power. It does but at a cost.
So given that this is a useful weapon for any pro (or any rider come to that), can we assume that at some point they must be training the muscles required to pull hard on the upstroke?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
yes, and they train their sprint and steep incline pedalling by doing sprint training and riding up steep inclines.bernithebiker wrote:Trev The Rev wrote:
No one disputes that the pulling up from a standing start or in a sprint or up a very steep incline helps generate more power. It does but at a cost.
So given that this is a useful weapon for any pro (or any rider come to that), can we assume that at some point they must be training the muscles required to pull hard on the upstroke?
Wonderful sarcasm there.
Surely the point is valid? If pro riders are training to develop the muscle group that pulls as well as the one that pushes, that's useful information, to my mind at least.
Way back at the start of this thread, one of the questions was 'is one legged training useful', which was decried as being a silly, useless idea. Surely that's not a bad way to train the pulling muscles?0 -
No sarcasm, I'm being genuine. It's a (sensible) application of the specificity principle.bernithebiker wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
yes, and they train their sprint and steep incline pedalling by doing sprint training and riding up steep inclines.bernithebiker wrote:Trev The Rev wrote:
No one disputes that the pulling up from a standing start or in a sprint or up a very steep incline helps generate more power. It does but at a cost.
So given that this is a useful weapon for any pro (or any rider come to that), can we assume that at some point they must be training the muscles required to pull hard on the upstroke?
Wonderful sarcasm there.
Surely the point is valid? If pro riders are training to develop the muscle group that pulls as well as the one that pushes, that's useful information, to my mind at least.
Way back at the start of this thread, one of the questions was 'is one legged training useful', which was decried as being a silly, useless idea. Surely that's not a bad way to train the pulling muscles?
Pros do sprints and steep climbs to improve their performance in sprints and on steep climbs, not to improve the muscle group that pulls.
As for one-legged pedalling, as I explained already (might have another thread can't recall now), single leg pedalling bears little resemblance to two legged pedalling, unless you are doing so with a counterweighted non-drive pedal.
I do agree, if you want to train your "pulling muscles", then riding in such a fashion single legged will do that. But that's missing the point. The point is whether such a training intervention actually results in improved two legged cycling performance.
If non-counterweight single legged drills are effective, then (as Ric had already alluded to earlier or maybe on another thread) training using independent clutch cranks (which force one to pedal that way all the time) would result in improved performance, and so far the multiple published research studies on that fail to support any such training intervention (despite the manufacturer's somewhat exaggerated claims).0 -
bernithebiker wrote:'is one legged training useful', [... ] Surely that's not a bad way to train the pulling muscles?
Hmmm. Good point. One legged training is likely to be just about as good as PowerCranks or maybe weight lifting for training the pulling muscles used in cycling.0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:Best way to pedal efficiently is to do a nice 2x20. 15 minutes in you'll pedal as efficiently as you can because anything else would hurt more.
In other words pedal in a way that comes naturally to you. Pedalling in a manner which requires you to consciously use muscles in an unnatural way causes fatigue to set in sooner. The body has an inbuilt method of correcting modes of movement which are inefficient as Froomes says, it makes it hurt more. Only if someone has an obviously strange pedalling style like knees sticking out awkwardly should any effort be made to correct the natural style, even then the style might be caused by the skeletal structure and correcting it could lead to injury problems.
Bike position should be set up to allow your natural peddaling style. The only exception might be if a particular position can be proven to have aerodynamic advantages which outweigh any power losses. Even then the awkward position might cause injury problems in time.
Good example comes from Michael Johnson the sprinter. Practically every coach who saw him run said his style was diabolical and inefficient. But it was perfect for him and his skeleton & muscles.0 -
when practising a skill, a sport psychologist will tell you to practice it as a whole, not in some constituent parts. In other words using the above examples, you should practice riding up steep hills (should you need to, not all cyclists have to go up steep hills) or doing standing starts, etc.
cycling is a simple, gross motor sport. where are not talking about a fine motor skill sport such as archery. or even a non-constrained gross motor sport such as running. Cycling is somewhat specific because our legs are attached to the pedals and are thus constrained by the radii that the cranks make. We can only pedal in circles. If, when turning the pedals you aren't pedalling in circles then i suggest an immediate trip to your favourite bike mechanic to sort things out.
Due to the way that we're constrained by the pedals, efficiency between the worlds best cyclists and a couch potato who never rides a bike is surprisingly close (when we're pedalling). It doesn't take much skill to pedal a bike (the turning the cranks part). However, efficiency can be improved with training (but to know that it's improving you'll need to measuring power output, cadence, and expired respiratory gases) - but this training that improves efficiency is linked to the intensity of the training that is done, rather than some 'skill' such as 'scraping the mud' (or whatever the term is).
Using independent clutch controlled cranks (power cranks, hello Frank), while promising on their website to improve power output by 40% (LMAO) haven't been shown to improve anything apart from in one very poor study which vaguely showed they improved efficiency (but there was methodological errors in the study). Possibly (i can't quite recall while eating my breakfast) there are some studies showing a decrease in performance with these cranks.
Pedal at a sensible cadence. train optimally towards your goal. make sure your bike fits you correctly. learn actual skills that are needed (e.g. how to corner while descending). These are things that will make your pedalling look good along with years of training.
RicCoach to Michael Freiberg - Track World Champion (Omnium) 2011
Coach to James Hayden - Transcontinental Race winner 2017, and 2018
Coach to Jeff Jones - 2011 BBAR winner and 12-hour record
Check out our new website https://www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Ric/RSTSport wrote:cycling is a simple, gross motor sport. where are not talking about a fine motor skill sport such as archery. or even a non-constrained gross motor sport such as running. Cycling is somewhat specific because our legs are attached to the pedals and are thus constrained by the radii that the cranks make. We can only pedal in circles. If, when turning the pedals you aren't pedalling in circles then i suggest an immediate trip to your favourite bike mechanic to sort things out.
I think we all know that your pedal axle describes a perfect circle. 'Pedaling in circles' as most people define it, is the feeling that you are pedaling smoothly, evenly and consistently. I know, for example, that if I am knackered at the end of a very long ride, my pedaling is not as smooth as it was at the start.
You say that we are 'constrained by the pedals'. To some extent yes, but you can vary the angle at which your foot 'atttacks' the pedal (or crank to be more precise). Tilting or lifting your heel changes the angle of force applied to the crank. At 12 o'clock, -20' is better than -10'. This page is quite interesting; http://www.bikesplit.com/bsa4.htm
All of those things are good to train, but if it comes naturally, then why not also improve pedaling technique?Ric/RSTSport wrote:Pedal at a sensible cadence. train optimally towards your goal. make sure your bike fits you correctly. learn actual skills that are needed (e.g. how to corner while descending). These are things that will make your pedalling look good along with years of training.
Ric0
