Cadence sensor

larkim

Thinking about spending £25 on a cadence sensor to pair with my Garmin watch. I like data, generally, and whilst I don't ride a lot, I do like to be disciplined and structured so if I can add to the data I see when I'm out and about in terms of cadence (and perhaps work on finding an "ideal" one for me, rather than just by feel) I'd be willing to spend £25 on the privilege.

What can I expect to see in terms of averages though - just being straightforwardly logical, I'm assuming that if you freewheel down a hill or cruise up to a set of red lights etc that means there is a period of unrepresentative cadence. Are the measurements usually smart enough to distinguish between not pedalling because you don't need to vs pedalling when you have to / want to?

Probably not an issue hugely, but if you were riding a hilly route which (say) had 45 minutes climb and 15 minutes descent the "average" cadence would be way out? Or am I overthinking things?

supermurph09

larkim wrote:

Thinking about spending £25 on a cadence sensor to pair with my Garmin watch. I like data, generally, and whilst I don't ride a lot, I do like to be disciplined and structured so if I can add to the data I see when I'm out and about in terms of cadence (and perhaps work on finding an "ideal" one for me, rather than just by feel) I'd be willing to spend £25 on the privilege.

What can I expect to see in terms of averages though - just being straightforwardly logical, I'm assuming that if you freewheel down a hill or cruise up to a set of red lights etc that means there is a period of unrepresentative cadence. Are the measurements usually smart enough to distinguish between not pedalling because you don't need to vs pedalling when you have to / want to?

Probably not an issue hugely, but if you were riding a hilly route which (say) had 45 minutes climb and 15 minutes descent the "average" cadence would be way out? Or am I overthinking things?

The last 5 words.

dabber

Don't know about your Garmin watch but with my G520 one of the settings allows you to include or exclude zero cadence.

prhymeate

Yea, as mentioned above you can ask it to exlcuse zeros. It can be found under system > data recording > data averaging

larkim

Supermurph09 wrote:

larkim wrote:

Or am I overthinking things?

The last 5 words.

That's one of my biggest flaws. Self aware though ;-)

Thanks for the answers. So a bit like the "autopause" on a GPS, devices are often cute enough to ignore periods of zero pedalling.

kingstongraham

Why do you want to know your average cadence?

imposter2.0

larkim wrote:

(and perhaps work on finding an "ideal" one for me, rather than just by feel)

You are already pedalling at your ideal cadence, whether you realise it or not. Average cadence has to be about the most pointless metric in terms of ride data in any case.

larkim

I want to use cadence info like anyone else - help me identify where I am spinning too fast or too slow and having an impact on my speed (or not). I disagree that I can say I am already pedalling at my ideal cadence - otherwise why does anyone have a cadence sensor on their bike?

(If the answer to that is that they are a waste of time, fair enough)

imposter2.0

larkim wrote:

I want to use cadence info like anyone else - help me identify where I am spinning too fast or too slow and having an impact on my speed (or not). I disagree that I can say I am already pedalling at my ideal cadence - otherwise why does anyone have a cadence sensor on their bike?

You don't need a number on a screen to tell you that. If you feel like you are pedalling too fast, then you probably are. Your ideal cadence is the one you already ride at. If will vary during your ride and vary according to your fitness.

larkim wrote:

(If the answer to that is that they are a waste of time, fair enough)

Correct.

drlodge

larkim wrote:

I want to use cadence info like anyone else

Other people don't use a cadence sensor - waste of time.

larkim

But if I wanted to see progress with fitness, for example, wouldn't a cadence sensor help show me that for a 1km climb, a faster time for the same cadence indicates improved strength (assuming weather not an issue) or power (or the same time for a lower cadence might indicate the same)? I'll never afford a power meter, so I thought cadence info was one of the other "standard" pieces of info that (most/many/some) people use?

drlodge

I really don't think that knowing the cadence at which a certain performance was achieved is really going to help you.

If you manage to smash your PB up a hill, you know that performance has improved. Whether that's through increased torque or cadence I don't think is really that relevant.

markhewitt1978

larkim wrote:

I thought cadence info was one of the other "standard" pieces of info that (most/many/some) people use?

Of course it is, I find it useful as do countless others. It's one of those things that after you've had it for some time you only glance at occasionally but it's useful for getting a feel for how your own pedalling is and what ranges you should be in. I have a tendancy to end up spinning too fast when I should really change to a harder gear.

kingstongraham

larkim wrote:

I want to use cadence info like anyone else - help me identify where I am spinning too fast or too slow and having an impact on my speed (or not). I disagree that I can say I am already pedalling at my ideal cadence - otherwise why does anyone have a cadence sensor on their bike?

(If the answer to that is that they are a waste of time, fair enough)

average cadence isn't going to give any of that. cadence might.

fat daddy

cadence sensors are useful for training. ie 1 min at 80ppm 1 min at 90ppm 1min at 100ppm, 110 then back down or doing hill repeats at a different cadence each time.

But average cadence wont tell you much other than what your average cadence was ..... but what would you hope to get from that .... if it was 80ppm ... is that good ?

imposter2.0

fat daddy wrote:

cadence sensors are useful for training. ie 1 min at 80ppm 1 min at 90ppm 1min at 100ppm, 110 then back down or doing hill repeats at a different cadence each time.

Very useful if your training goals are focused on cadence, rather than performance. Either way, I thought cadence was measured in rpm, not parts per million?

larkim

Averages don't have to be over the whole ride. But fair comment, average was perhaps a mis-direction. But just like heart rate data, sometimes a summary at the end of a ride / section is useful / interesting so whilst it doesn't tell the whole story, if you were on a repeat loop, average cadence of X vs average cadence of X+10 might be a useful analysis to determine which created the better, more efficient pace outcome.

fat daddy

Imposter wrote:

I thought cadence was measured in rpm, not parts per million?

Of course revolutions !!! ... I am so used to saying spm (strokes per minute) for rowing, I couldn't for the life of me think what cycling was measured in, so I went for Pedals per minute ... it totally escaped me that its revolving

imposter2.0

larkim wrote:

Averages don't have to be over the whole ride. But fair comment, average was perhaps a mis-direction. But just like heart rate data, sometimes a summary at the end of a ride / section is useful / interesting so whilst it doesn't tell the whole story, if you were on a repeat loop, average cadence of X vs average cadence of X+10 might be a useful analysis to determine which created the better, more efficient pace outcome.

HR data is a performance metric, therefore it is worth measuring and reviewing. Cadence is incidental to performance, and is all a bit of a red herring really - I would just forget about it. But it sounds like you are determined to buy one either way.

larkim

No, not at all. If the consensus is its a waste of time, I'll happily be dissuaded.

If the consensus is we can't all agree, some like them, some don't bother, then for £25 I may still invest, even if I end up chucking it in 12 months.

fat daddy

I use one ... but only on the turbo .. and then only when a pro style training ride calls for a cadence .... I haven't learnt anything from it other than it gets my used to manic spinning which is good for sprints

drlodge

FWIW, I had the garmin speed/cadence sensor on 3 of my bikes. I never used cadence so sold them and de-cluttered the chainstays.

What Imposter says :-)

timothyw

You've said in your first post you like data - that is reason enough to get one, given how cheap they are. Get the magnetless garmin one, it honestly isn't useful enough as a metric if you need to keep fannying around lining up the magnet.

I used one when I was starting out in order to encourage a higher cadence pedalling style when I was starting out - I'm of the belief that a higher cadence style is likely to reduce muscle fatigue, probably aid recovery and reduce the risk of injury, which for commuting daily is a good thing.

I don't have any scientific evidence to hand to back that up, but my experience has so far largely tallied.

Conversely, riding at a higher/different cadence isn't necessarily very good for overall performance - whenever I tried riding to HR it was my experience that I could keep my heart rate down by turning a harder gear at a low cadence - this being because I was shifting the burden of effort from cardiovascular into muscular.

As an aside, I suspect this is part of the reason why in the Hinault era big gears were turned at low cadence, versus the spinny Lance era - doping had moved on from steroids for muscle recovery to EPO for cardio improvement. Fair to say that limitations in the gears available at the time were also a factor (along with bravado about gears being used).

It's hard to know what cadence will give you the best balance of performance unless you also incorporate a power meter to accurately compare your performance (and most power meters will give you cadence without an additional sensor), however, if you get the Garmin cadence & speed sensor, then you can use wheel speed on a cheap turbo trainer as a proxy for power output - in this way a speed sensor is a better training aid than a cadence sensor - you can read about this in Graeme Obree's training manual.

If you're not interested in performance then I refer you back to the first point - if you like data, cadence data is cheap to collect. Get an HR strap too - they're also cheap.

If you want to get faster, money is better spent on a power meter, or speed sensor and turbo (and a training plan...)

imposter2.0

TimothyW wrote:

As an aside, I suspect this is part of the reason why in the Hinault era big gears were turned at low cadence, versus the spinny Lance era - doping had moved on from steroids for muscle recovery to EPO for cardio improvement. Fair to say that limitations in the gears available at the time were also a factor (along with bravado about gears being used).

There's no differences in cadence between these two 'eras' - not sure why you say that. Lance's 'high cadence' thing was a myth anyway - his cadence was not significantly different to anyone elses before or since.

fat daddy

Is that so ..... I wonder where this myth originates from, being relatively new to the world of road cycling I was always led to believe the whole "its new to spin" thing

imposter2.0

fat daddy wrote:

Is that so ..... I wonder where this myth originates from, being relatively new to the world of road cycling I was always led to believe the whole "its new to spin" thing

There were other reasons for Lance's performance that were not cadence-related. The cadence thing was a convenient distraction used at the time.

Q: "wow, Lance is going well this year?"
A; "Oh, er, yeah, um, we told him to spin the pedals more over the winter"

markhewitt1978

It was the contrast between the other riders who came before who were often famous for turning big gears up climbs - a consequence of taking muscle building drugs.

They got banned so Lance et al moved onto EPO a drug which mostly improves your cardio fitness, and the best way to exploit that is to ride at a higher cadence. It was all a function of how they were cheating at that moment.

ForumNewbie

Imposter wrote:

larkim wrote:

(and perhaps work on finding an "ideal" one for me, rather than just by feel)

You are already pedalling at your ideal cadence, whether you realise it or not. Average cadence has to be about the most pointless metric in terms of ride data in any case.

I didn't think about cadence until I got a cadence sensor. However I soon realised that my average cadence was very low and that was one of the reasons I was tiring quickly. I read that the ideal cadence you should be aiming for is 80 to 90 rpm. I'm not quite there yet but can now see the benefits of spinning more in low gears than trying to churn bigger gears. So I think a cadence sensor can be of benefit to some cyclists, if maybe not for all.

courtmed

I've also been looking at buying one, mainly for using to improve fitness. Probably get more use out of it on my turbo than out on the road - no gradients to take in to account and a lot of turbo plans I've seen seem to use cadence (1 minute at 90rpm). Really I just want something a bit more scientific than perceived effort, and thought cadence & heart rate could do the job

cougie

If its just for turbo you can count for 20s and multiply by 3 to find the Cadence. I'd not clog the bike up with one for little benefit.

Interested in the debate over if Lance etc span faster than previous generations. I'd not be surprised if they did. We get an extra sprocket with each groupset update now - so there are lower gears about. There was a real bravado about tiny sprockets back in the 80s.

Man Of Lard

To all those that want a cadence/speed/heart/moxy/power sensor - if you want one, buy one - just because Joe Random on the internet says you shouldn't or don't need to is of no consequence.

Some people are data driven, some people aren't - if you are then you probably want the sensor that records the data.