Compact Crank vs Semi-Compact
Comments
-
Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
I think you need to look up the term "flat course". It wasn't mountainous, but "flat"
your total ascent over 29 miles was only 730 feet at an average speed of under 10mph that's pretty damned flat.
in metric terms that's 200m of climbing over a distance of 50 kilometres. were they speed bumps?0 -
97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
As far as I can make out the only thing any of his comments prove is that his thinking furniture is in urgent need of some feng shui. No Trout he'll come back with some equally unfathomably "relevant" piece of information.....All I've learnt so far is that Sky social rides are not for me !0 -
Alex99 wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:As an experiment, I rode all the way home from w*rk last night, on about 120 gear inches. Admittedly it was only 8 miles, and a few down hills, and a few very slightly uphill bits, with a flat bit at about the half way point. I didn't find it massively difficult, and there was no way I was going to be able to get to spin out on the downhill bit ( and not just because it was dark and damp ). The drive train was not happy though
.
What was the experiment designed to test?
Whether you have to be superman or not, to push a 100 + inch gear. I think the answer is, no, not really.0 -
MikeBrew wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
.All I've learnt so far is that Sky social rides are not for me !
Good, keep it that way. I'll carry on riding my bike, thousands of miles a year, in all sorts of conditions, and I'll leave you to beat your chest on an Internet forum ( which is supposed to be about cycling stuff)0 -
97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
I think you need to look up the term "flat course". It wasn't mountainous, but "flat"
your total ascent over 29 miles was only 730 feet at an average speed of under 10mph that's pretty damned flat.
in metric terms that's 200m of climbing over a distance of 50 kilometres. were they speed bumps?
Strava is odd as far as raw figures go, the elevations don't look much on paper, but the gradients of the bits around Winchester, are more than enough for a single speed bike with a 44-16, as anyone who spends more time riding, than typing would know.0 -
You still haven't answered the guy's question as to how those, very pedestrian, rides demonstrate the efficiency of a low cadence. I'd have to say that, based on the immediate evidence, your typing appears to be at a somewhat more advanced level than your pedaling...0
-
I think he might be more into Trout tickling.Milemuncher1 wrote:MikeBrew wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
.All I've learnt so far is that Sky social rides are not for me !
Good, keep it that way. I'll carry on riding my bike, thousands of miles a year, in all sorts of conditions, and I'll leave you to beat your chest on an Internet forum ( which is supposed to be about cycling stuff)0 -
How am I beating my chest ? I've made no claims whatsoever about my riding ability. You are the one publicly posting (albeit very poor) Strava Stats not me. Seems to me that you're guilty of the very thing you're accusing others of.There's something very Fishy about all this : I'm still convinced that you must saying all of this nonsensical gobble-de-gook tongue-in-cheek .....Come on admit it... You're having a Giraffe aren't you.0
-
Alex99 wrote:Pinno wrote:^ Those teeth look shot despite only been back pedalled out of the factory for the photo shoot and I think that there is a mechanical efficiency conflict with the 11 tooth sprocket...
They seem to have covered the chain in sherbet too. Probably OK until it rains.
that's a Colombian national team bike, so no, i don't believe that is sherbert.0 -
Either that or he's on his way home from Britain's biggest bake off....0
-
Milemuncher1 wrote:MikeBrew wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
.All I've learnt so far is that Sky social rides are not for me !
Good, keep it that way. I'll carry on riding my bike, thousands of miles a year, in all sorts of conditions, and I'll leave you to beat your chest on an Internet forum ( which is supposed to be about cycling stuff)
C'mon chaps. I'm sure we can all be Chums. No need to Filp out.0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:Alex99 wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:As an experiment, I rode all the way home from w*rk last night, on about 120 gear inches. Admittedly it was only 8 miles, and a few down hills, and a few very slightly uphill bits, with a flat bit at about the half way point. I didn't find it massively difficult, and there was no way I was going to be able to get to spin out on the downhill bit ( and not just because it was dark and damp ). The drive train was not happy though .
What was the experiment designed to test?
Whether you have to be superman or not, to push a 100 + inch gear. I think the answer is, no, not really.
I was going to make a comment about a Spinner, but couldn't think of a good way to work it in.0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:MikeBrew wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
As far as I can make out the only thing any of his comments prove is that his thinking furniture is in urgent need of some feng shui. No Trout he'll come back with some equally unfathomably "relevant" piece of information......All I've learnt so far is that Sky social rides are not for me !
Good, keep it that way. I'll carry on riding my bike, thousands of miles a year very slowly in the wrong gear , in all sorts of conditions, and I'll leave you to beat your chest on an Internet forum ( which is supposed to be about cycling stuff)
Sounding slightly crabby there kid.. 0 -
Alex99 wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Alex99 wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:As an experiment, I rode all the way home from w*rk last night, on about 120 gear inches. Admittedly it was only 8 miles, and a few down hills, and a few very slightly uphill bits, with a flat bit at about the half way point. I didn't find it massively difficult, and there was no way I was going to be able to get to spin out on the downhill bit ( and not just because it was dark and damp ). The drive train was not happy though .
What was the experiment designed to test?
Whether you have to be superman or not, to push a 100 + inch gear. I think the answer is, no, not really.
I was going to make a comment about a Spinner, but couldn't think of a good way to work it in.
Oh I don't know...There's very clearly someone spinning us a line :idea:0 -
MikeBrew wrote:Alex99 wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Alex99 wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:As an experiment, I rode all the way home from w*rk last night, on about 120 gear inches. Admittedly it was only 8 miles, and a few down hills, and a few very slightly uphill bits, with a flat bit at about the half way point. I didn't find it massively difficult, and there was no way I was going to be able to get to spin out on the downhill bit ( and not just because it was dark and damp ). The drive train was not happy though .
What was the experiment designed to test?
Whether you have to be superman or not, to push a 100 + inch gear. I think the answer is, no, not really.
I was going to make a comment about a Spinner, but couldn't think of a good way to work it in.
Oh I don't know...There's very clearly someone spinning us a line :idea:
The net may be closing on them0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
I think you need to look up the term "flat course". It wasn't mountainous, but "flat"
your total ascent over 29 miles was only 730 feet at an average speed of under 10mph that's pretty damned flat.
in metric terms that's 200m of climbing over a distance of 50 kilometres. were they speed bumps?
Strava is odd as far as raw figures go, the elevations don't look much on paper, but the gradients of the bits around Winchester, are more than enough for a single speed bike with a 44-16, as anyone who spends more time riding, than typing would know.
Those stats were for your carbon bike with 50-11. They're your figures. If you want willy waving my last ride I logged on strava was 89k with 1074m of climbing, and a good proportion of that was off road, but my average speed was still a good bit faster than yours and my cadence was a damn sight higher
So back to the original point, how does riding at 10mph on a flat course prove the efficiency of a low cadence?0 -
Good grief! Is this still going on??? Apart from the fish based humour I got bored and wandered off.
Is the executive summary: put whatever gears you want on your bike, then spin the pedals as quickly / slowly as you like?
I'm getting on a bit now, and have never been a particularly powerful rider. My preference has always been to keep my cadence up and change gear frequently as required.
I've taken the standard 53/39 chainset off the summer bike. I found I was spending nearly all the time in the 39 so the big chainring was a waste of time.
It's now got the 50/39/30 triple back on it; I do occasionally use the inner and outer rings, but again spend most of the time using the middle 39. Cassette's a 12-27 FWIW.
On the winter / wet weather bike I've fitted a CX 46/36 chainset, again with a 12-27 cassette. I seem to use both rings equally and do a lot more front shifting, and I do seem to use all the gears available but never really feel I need anything bigger / smaller. For me, in this part of the world, both setups work well.
Think I'd fit a triple to the winter bike too if I lived anywhere with proper hills though...0 -
@ 97th choice, to be fair he can't explain his point as he doesn't even seem to be clear in his own mind what his point is. All those Sky rides appear to have left him in Cloud Cuckoo land. Pretty sure he's deliberately talking drivel to draw people in...0
-
.97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
I think you need to look up the term "flat course". It wasn't mountainous, but "flat"
your total ascent over 29 miles was only 730 feet at an average speed of under 10mph that's pretty damned flat.
in metric terms that's 200m of climbing over a distance of 50 kilometres. were they speed bumps?
Strava is odd as far as raw figures go, the elevations don't look much on paper, but the gradients of the bits around Winchester, are more than enough for a single speed bike with a 44-16, as anyone who spends more time riding, than typing would know.
Those stats were for your carbon bike with 50-11. They're your figures. If you want willy waving my last ride I logged on strava was 89k with 1074m of climbing, and a good proportion of that was off road, but my average speed was still a good bit faster than yours and my cadence was a damn sight higher
So back to the original point, how does riding at 10mph on a flat course prove the efficiency of a low cadence?
I'm not really into willy waving competitions, but 89Km's, really?
https://www.strava.com/activities/496408313
That's my last Ton ride. It was ( as all my rides are ) a social ride, that means lots of stopping, taking photo's, drinking coffee and stuff. I do a lot of these types of rides, they're not supposed to be quick.
https://www.strava.com/activities/476644330
Oh look there's another one.
https://www.strava.com/activities/477446291
And a quicker 100Km ride for good measure.
As for the point about the ride on the single speed. You don't seem to have a very good grasp on reality / Geography if you think it was flat. Not on a SINGLE SPEED BIKE IT ISN'T. And I was trying to point out ( I don't know why I bother trying to explain ) but I have developed a low cadence, high gear preference, over the years, that was the point.0 -
keef66 wrote:Good grief! Is this still going on??? Apart from the fish based humour I got bored and wandered off.
Is the executive summary: put whatever gears you want on your bike, then spin the pedals as quickly / slowly as you like?
I'm getting on a bit now, and have never been a particularly powerful rider. My preference has always been to keep my cadence up and change gear frequently as required.
I've taken the standard 53/39 chainset off the summer bike. I found I was spending nearly all the time in the 39 so the big chainring was a waste of time.
It's now got the 50/39/30 triple back on it; I do occasionally use the inner and outer rings, but again spend most of the time using the middle 39. Cassette's a 12-27 FWIW.
On the winter / wet weather bike I've fitted a CX 46/36 chainset, again with a 12-27 cassette. I seem to use both rings equally and do a lot more front shifting, and I do seem to use all the gears available but never really feel I need anything bigger / smaller. For me, in this part of the world, both setups work well.
Think I'd fit a triple to the winter bike too if I lived anywhere with proper hills though...
Have to say a 10 tooth difference between rings is ideal for injecting the right amount of cadence increase. I ran 48/38 for a while which was great for getting over short climbs that weren't Uber steep without either spinning like mad in a 34 or getting joint reckingly low revs in the larger ring...0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:
.97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
I think you need to look up the term "flat course". It wasn't mountainous, but "flat"
your total ascent over 29 miles was only 730 feet at an average speed of under 10mph that's pretty damned flat.
in metric terms that's 200m of climbing over a distance of 50 kilometres. were they speed bumps?
Strava is odd as far as raw figures go, the elevations don't look much on paper, but the gradients of the bits around Winchester, are more than enough for a single speed bike with a 44-16, as anyone who spends more time riding, than typing would know.
Those stats were for your carbon bike with 50-11. They're your figures. If you want willy waving my last ride I logged on strava was 89k with 1074m of climbing, and a good proportion of that was off road, but my average speed was still a good bit faster than yours and my cadence was a damn sight higher
So back to the original point, how does riding at 10mph on a flat course prove the efficiency of a low cadence?
I'm not really into willy waving competitions, but 89Km's, really?
https://www.strava.com/activities/496408313
That's my last Ton ride. It was ( as all my rides are ) a social ride, that means lots of stopping, taking photo's, drinking coffee and stuff. I do a lot of these types of rides, they're not supposed to be quick.
https://www.strava.com/activities/476644330
Oh look there's another one.
Apparently fish oil is very beneficial for mental acuity...Try some. You might realise how far off the point you are,as well as how ridiculous waving that tiny metaphorical member about is making YOU look :roll:
I'm loving the irony that that 9 and 3/4hour, 102 mile pan flat 2000ft epic at the blistering pace of 5.7 minutes per mile, went through LITTLE HAMPTON (slowly).... Priceless!0 -
keef66 wrote:Good grief! Is this still going on??? Apart from the fish based humour I got bored and wandered off.
Is the executive summary: put whatever gears you want on your bike, then spin the pedals as quickly / slowly as you like?
I'm getting on a bit now, and have never been a particularly powerful rider. My preference has always been to keep my cadence up and change gear frequently as required.
I've taken the standard 53/39 chainset off the summer bike. I found I was spending nearly all the time in the 39 so the big chainring was a waste of time.
It's now got the 50/39/30 triple back on it; I do occasionally use the inner and outer rings, but again spend most of the time using the middle 39. Cassette's a 12-27 FWIW.
On the winter / wet weather bike I've fitted a CX 46/36 chainset, again with a 12-27 cassette. I seem to use both rings equally and do a lot more front shifting, and I do seem to use all the gears available but never really feel I need anything bigger / smaller. For me, in this part of the world, both setups work well.
Think I'd fit a triple to the winter bike too if I lived anywhere with proper hills though...
"Is the executive summary: put whatever gears you want on your bike, then spin the pedals as quickly / slowly as you like?"
Yeah, basically. If you're getting dropped from your regular group / race because you are spinning 120 RPM on 50x11, then put a bigger chainring on. If you're doing less than 70 RPM up your regular hills for any length of time, then put a bigger cassette or smaller chainring on (unless you like riding very low cadence for some reason - apparently it is more efficient a very low watts, but that isn't what the post was about anyway). To be fair, the post also wasn't about fish either.0 -
MikeBrew wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:
.97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
I think you need to look up the term "flat course". It wasn't mountainous, but "flat"
your total ascent over 29 miles was only 730 feet at an average speed of under 10mph that's pretty damned flat.
in metric terms that's 200m of climbing over a distance of 50 kilometres. were they speed bumps?
Strava is odd as far as raw figures go, the elevations don't look much on paper, but the gradients of the bits around Winchester, are more than enough for a single speed bike with a 44-16, as anyone who spends more time riding, than typing would know.
Those stats were for your carbon bike with 50-11. They're your figures. If you want willy waving my last ride I logged on strava was 89k with 1074m of climbing, and a good proportion of that was off road, but my average speed was still a good bit faster than yours and my cadence was a damn sight higher
So back to the original point, how does riding at 10mph on a flat course prove the efficiency of a low cadence?
I'm not really into willy waving competitions, but 89Km's, really?
https://www.strava.com/activities/496408313
That's my last Ton ride. It was ( as all my rides are ) a social ride, that means lots of stopping, taking photo's, drinking coffee and stuff. I do a lot of these types of rides, they're not supposed to be quick.
https://www.strava.com/activities/476644330
Oh look there's another one.
Apparently fish oil is very beneficial for mental acuity...Try some. You might realise how far off the point you are,as well as how ridiculous waving that tiny metaphorical member about is making YOU look :roll:
You do know, that when people try to resort to ( pathetic ) personal type insults, they demonstrate that they have lost any credibility, and any arguements they insist on having, don't you?0 -
Alex99 wrote:keef66 wrote:Good grief! Is this still going on??? Apart from the fish based humour I got bored and wandered off.
Is the executive summary: put whatever gears you want on your bike, then spin the pedals as quickly / slowly as you like?
I'm getting on a bit now, and have never been a particularly powerful rider. My preference has always been to keep my cadence up and change gear frequently as required.
I've taken the standard 53/39 chainset off the summer bike. I found I was spending nearly all the time in thue 39 so the big chainring was a waste of time.
It's now got the 50/39/30 triple back on it; I do occasionally use the inner and outer rings, but again spend most of the time using the middle 39. Cassette's a 12-27 FWIW.
On the winter / wet weather bike I've fitted a CX 46/36 chainset, again with a 12-27 cassette. I seem to use both rings equally and do a lot more front shifting, and I do seem to use all the gears available but never really feel I need anything bigger / smaller. For me, in this part of the world, both setups work well.
Think I'd fit a triple to the winter bike too if I lived anywhere with proper hills though...
"Is the executive summary: put whatever gears you want on your bike, then spin the pedals as quickly / slowly as you like?"
Yeah, basically. If you're getting dropped from your regular group / race because you are spinning 120 RPM on 50x11, then put a bigger chainring on. If you're doing less than 70 RPM up your regular hills for any length of time, then put a bigger cassette or smaller chainring on (unless you like riding very low cadence for some reason - apparently it is more efficient a very low watts, but that isn't what the post was about anyway). To be fair, the post also wasn't about fish either.
Erm yes, or no, or I've forgotten.0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:
.97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
I think you need to look up the term "flat course". It wasn't mountainous, but "flat"
your total ascent over 29 miles was only 730 feet at an average speed of under 10mph that's pretty damned flat.
in metric terms that's 200m of climbing over a distance of 50 kilometres. were they speed bumps?
Strava is odd as far as raw figures go, the elevations don't look much on paper, but the gradients of the bits around Winchester, are more than enough for a single speed bike with a 44-16, as anyone who spends more time riding, than typing would know.
Those stats were for your carbon bike with 50-11. They're your figures. If you want willy waving my last ride I logged on strava was 89k with 1074m of climbing, and a good proportion of that was off road, but my average speed was still a good bit faster than yours and my cadence was a damn sight higher
So back to the original point, how does riding at 10mph on a flat course prove the efficiency of a low cadence?
I'm not really into willy waving competitions, but 89Km's, really?
https://www.strava.com/activities/496408313
That's my last Ton ride. It was ( as all my rides are ) a social ride, that means lots of stopping, taking photo's, drinking coffee and stuff. I do a lot of these types of rides, they're not supposed to be quick.
https://www.strava.com/activities/476644330
Oh look there's another one.
I picked my last one, not my longest or highest one do you want to hear about the one involving 2500m of climbing, or the one in april I'm riding that covers 200k and 3500m, off road? You're the one that suggested I spend more time riding than typing. from your stats it seems the only reason you don't is because you ride so slow.
I notice you're avoiding the question so I'll repeat it for the third time.... how does riding at 10mph on a flat course prove the efficiency of a low cadence?0 -
Milemuncher1 wrote:MikeBrew wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:
.97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:97th choice wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:Here's a typical 44-16 single speed ride
https://www.strava.com/activities/493338938
I was invited to ride the Tour of Britain London stage last year, because I am a Skyride social ride organiser
https://www.strava.com/activities/391338390
That was the 50-11 equipped Carbon bike,
https://www.strava.com/activities/190333400
London and back on the 50-11 equipped bike
There are loads of others, but that's a mixture of lengths and bikes and gears and stuff.
what point are you proving with those strava rides? I fail to see how riding at 10mph on a flat course proves the efficiency of a low cadence?
I think you need to look up the term "flat course". It wasn't mountainous, but "flat"
your total ascent over 29 miles was only 730 feet at an average speed of under 10mph that's pretty damned flat.
in metric terms that's 200m of climbing over a distance of 50 kilometres. were they speed bumps?
Strava is odd as far as raw figures go, the elevations don't look much on paper, but the gradients of the bits around Winchester, are more than enough for a single speed bike with a 44-16, as anyone who spends more time riding, than typing would know.
Those stats were for your carbon bike with 50-11. They're your figures. If you want willy waving my last ride I logged on strava was 89k with 1074m of climbing, and a good proportion of that was off road, but my average speed was still a good bit faster than yours and my cadence was a damn sight higher
So back to the original point, how does riding at 10mph on a flat course prove the efficiency of a low cadence?
I'm not really into willy waving competitions, but 89Km's, really?
https://www.strava.com/activities/496408313
That's my last Ton ride. It was ( as all my rides are ) a social ride, that means lots of stopping, taking photo's, drinking coffee and stuff. I do a lot of these types of rides, they're not supposed to be quick.
https://www.strava.com/activities/476644330
Oh look there's another one.
Apparently fish oil is very beneficial for mental acuity...Try some. You might realise how far off the point you are,as well as how ridiculous waving that tiny metaphorical member about is making YOU look :roll:
You do know, that when people try to resort to ( pathetic ) personal type insults, they demonstrate that they have lost any credibility, and any arguements they insist on having, don't you?
Getting silly now guys / gals. Why not leave it there and chalk it down to the wacky effect of internet forums.0 -
Come on Milemuncher, admit it: You have failed to prove the relevance of your argument and flapping your legs about can actually be efficient and a bit quicker than you. You are not making any gains in your CV fitness and although it's horses for courses*, your personal preference to not flap your legs and the (obscure) relative merit of low cadence has no relevance to this thread. You are happy with 100 mile grinding and you are also unique: Even the most recreational of cyclists I have come across pedal quicker.
*Should that be 'fish for rivers' ?
Nice ton ride MB (although at an ave 13.1 mph. I think you need to up your cadence ). Even I could keep up with you. seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Whatever MetreMuncher, ..You say insult, I say accurate appraisal, Potato Po-tat-toe ....However, I can't argue with someone so far removed from reality any longer. In the words of Theo Paphitis : I'm out..... I can't let my eyes be assaulted with this flakey Cods-Wallop any longer :roll: Sorry if you find it rude but sometimes one has to call a digging implement, a digging implement...0
-
Pinno wrote:Come on Milemuncher, admit it: You have failed to prove the relevance of your argument and flapping your legs about can actually be efficient and a bit quicker than you. You are not making any gains in your CV fitness and although it's horses for courses*, your personal preference to not flap your legs and the (obscure) relative merit of low cadence has no relevance to this thread. You are happy with 100 mile grinding and you are also unique: Even the most recreational of cyclists I have come across pedal quicker.
*Should that be 'fish for rivers' ?
Nice ton ride MB (although at an ave 13.1 mph. I think you need to up your cadence ). Even I could keep up with you.
I think the initial point that I was trying to demonstrate ( with examples) that you can do all sorts of rides, with all sorts of gearing choices, and that changing a compact for a Semi / triple / single, really isn't going to have a massive impact, then I trip trapped over someone's bridge, and it all got a bit off topic. Another point, is that Strava includes all the bits of the rides, where I stop, have a coffee, get stuck at traffic lights etc. I'm not particularly slow, Strava averages make it look a lot worse than is the case, but hey ho.0 -
Pinno wrote:
Nice ton ride MB (although at an ave 13.1 mph. I think you need to up your cadence ). Even I could keep up with you.
In actuality his true average speed is closer to 10mph, meaning you'd probably be miles ahead of him, rather than merely keeping up. Devices that pause the timer whilst you're in the pub having a few pints and a 3 course lunch tend to flatter.....God only knows how he thinks posting such rides says anything other than that his choice of gearing and cadence is extremely INEFFICIENT.... He defeats his own argument without even the vaguest awareness that that is what he's doing... 5.7mpm(minutes per mile) is slower than many runners.
I can't decide between daft or deluded, but if it makes him happy where the harm eh? 8) presumably "Milemuncher" alludes to the fact that he takes his time to chew each and every mile over, for very nearly a full 6minutes...
Mocking the speed someone rides at is not my point, everyone rides at their own pace and as long as they enjoy what their doing that's great .
My point is that holding up a patently slow, flat ride as evidence of the effectiveness on a low cadence and large gear is misguided to say the least....0
