Speed and cadence sensors
Comments
-
BikerGroveish wrote:
I didn’t know they made one. Is it inertial or magnet across a sensor?Navrig2 wrote:I have the Decathlon speed/cadence sensor on my turbo. It has been faultless for several years. I only used it on outside rides for a short spell tho.
It's magnetic. Fits to the chainstay and has two small units connected by a short cable. That allows a magnet on the crank and a magnet on the rear wheel to work without interfering with each other. I've only ever used the cadence function.0 -
Of course - but cadence isn't going to be the limiter on power output, muscular endurance and cardiovascular factors will be. Hence don't worry overmuch about cadence as long as it's in the right ball-park. An exception to this would be track sprinting when the ability to maintain a high cadence is a pre-requisite.BikerGroveish wrote:Svetty wrote:Actually the research that has been done suggests that a lower cadence of around 60 is the most efficient wrt power output vs oxygen consumption. This does put more strain on the legs however and so riding at a higher - less efficient - cadence is more sustainable which is why the rate of 80+/- is usual.
It’s key to know what power you’re putting out at your chosen cadence range though surely? It’s not much good being able to sustain a high cadence if you’re only making a low power. I guess when you have a C.V. fitness level that allows you to sustain a relatively high cadence you should then be working on your leg strength and muscle endurance to allow you to put out increasing power at that cadence is the way forward. So effectively keep your cadence range constant and aim to increase power at that cadence by increasing the amount and duration of applied torque.FFS! Harden up and grow a pair
0 -
BikerGroveish wrote:Svetty wrote:Actually the research that has been done suggests that a lower cadence of around 60 is the most efficient wrt power output vs oxygen consumption. This does put more strain on the legs however and so riding at a higher - less efficient - cadence is more sustainable which is why the rate of 80+/- is usual.
It’s key to know what power you’re putting out at your chosen cadence range though surely? It’s not much good being able to sustain a high cadence if you’re only making a low power. I guess when you have a C.V. fitness level that allows you to sustain a relatively high cadence you should then be working on your leg strength and muscle endurance to allow you to put out increasing power at that cadence is the way forward. So effectively keep your cadence range constant and aim to increase power at that cadence by increasing the amount and duration of applied torque.
Seriously, would you like a JCB to finish the hole you’re digging?I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
What does that mean?philthy3 wrote:BikerGroveish wrote:Svetty wrote:Actually the research that has been done suggests that a lower cadence of around 60 is the most efficient wrt power output vs oxygen consumption. This does put more strain on the legs however and so riding at a higher - less efficient - cadence is more sustainable which is why the rate of 80+/- is usual.
It’s key to know what power you’re putting out at your chosen cadence range though surely? It’s not much good being able to sustain a high cadence if you’re only making a low power. I guess when you have a C.V. fitness level that allows you to sustain a relatively high cadence you should then be working on your leg strength and muscle endurance to allow you to put out increasing power at that cadence is the way forward. So effectively keep your cadence range constant and aim to increase power at that cadence by increasing the amount and duration of applied torque.
Seriously, would you like a JCB to finish the hole you’re digging?
It’s a fairly simple concept. The higher gear you can push or the bigger the gradient you can handle at a given cadence the bigger power you’ll be putting out at that cadence. I wouldn’t have thought that was a tough concept to grasp. It’s been proven that higher cadences are more efficient. For example someone at 90 rpms with a 100 gear inch ratio is going to have to be producing a lot more power than someone who’s in a 60 gear inch ratio at 90 rpms on the same road in the same conditions. They’ll also be going a lot quicker. It’s possible someone could be going as quickly as the 100 gear incher or the 60 gear incher with a different cadence, but they won’t be pedalling with the same optimum efficiency.0 -
BikerGroveish wrote:It’s been proven that higher cadences are more efficient.
No it hasn't - that is simply not correct. I asked you before for some proof - and you didn't provide any. In actual fact, the opposite is true. For a given power output, a higher cadence usually means a higher metabolic demand, which inevitably translates into lower efficiency, not higher.
The fact that you are also still talking about 'leg strength' kind of underlines that you don't really understand the topic.0 -
"want to improve yourself with a view to joining a club"
Bugger that, wouldnt want to join any cycling club that required me to improve myself.0 -
Imposter wrote:BikerGroveish wrote:It’s been proven that higher cadences are more efficient.
No it hasn't - that is simply not correct. I asked you before for some proof - and you didn't provide any. In actual fact, the opposite is true. For a given power output, a higher cadence usually means a higher metabolic demand, which inevitably translates into lower efficiency, not higher.
The fact that you are also still talking about 'leg strength' kind of underlines that you don't really understand the topic.
Why do you post on a cycling forum when you clearly have no understanding or experience of actually cycling?
Just in case you missed the important bit of the stuff I linked to
“So a higher cadence equals more efficiency and is more sustainable for any type of rider. If cadence makes a big difference on just one climb, imagine the difference it will make across a three-week Grand Tour.”
That’s it again. This is from
“Dr Dan Dwyer, Senior Lecturer in Applied Sport Science at Deakin University in Geelong, has researched cadence in cycling extensively, and how it can impact on performance.”
Who knows more about it than you, not that that would be hard to achieve.0 -
“As a time trial specialist, Movistar Team’s Alex Dowsett has spent plenty of time fine-tuning every element of his performance, and agrees with Dr Dwyer that cadence is often overlooked.
Dowsett said: "Cadence needs to be worked on and it's often neglected. Everyone settles in to what they feel is natural, but a bit of specific work on cadence can see massive gains. For me, a low day will be 90 and a high day will be 95, so it’s quite a small bracket.”
And as you can see Alex Dowsett agrees. I’m sure you know better than him as well.0 -
If MM has been reincarnated (and the 'debating style' is remininscent) he has changed his tune on cadence.....
Dowsett is a time-trialler/rouleur not a leisure/amateur cyclist. What applies to maximising power over relatively short distances doesn't apply rigidly to all cycling. The quotes provided make no reference to efficiency either.....FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0 -
More gadgets the better. More stats for Strava that you don't know what to do with. Everyone needs a S&C sensor.0
-
BikerGroveish wrote:Why do you post on a cycling forum when you clearly have no understanding or experience of actually cycling?
Just in case you missed the important bit of the stuff I linked to
“So a higher cadence equals more efficiency and is more sustainable for any type of rider. If cadence makes a big difference on just one climb, imagine the difference it will make across a three-week Grand Tour.”
That’s it again. This is from
“Dr Dan Dwyer, Senior Lecturer in Applied Sport Science at Deakin University in Geelong, has researched cadence in cycling extensively, and how it can impact on performance.”
Who knows more about it than you, not that that would be hard to achieve.
That's an appeal to authority, Nick. Not sure how long it took you to find that quote, but seeing the context would be interesting. Anyway, I would rather you had linked to the science behind the claim, rather than the claim itself. But that's just what you do - you attack the poster, not the content.
Talking of which - have a read of these for starters...
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ng_cycling
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/view ... ntext=ijes
The point that high cadence has a higher metabolic demand than low cadence is a scientific fact - but obviously you know better... :roll:0 -
From:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/w ... ome-191779
Pedalling fast in a low gear wastes your energy, scientists have demonstrated. When you cycle at the wrong cadence most of your effort will go into moving your legs up and down, not moving the bike forward.
“If a recreational cyclist tries to copy the high cadence of a pro but, instead of turning big gears, they ride a low gear, they can waste 60 per cent of their energy,” says Dr Federico Formenti, Senior Research Fellow in physiology at the University of Oxford.0 -
BikerGroveish wrote:Imposter wrote:BikerGroveish wrote:It’s been proven that higher cadences are more efficient.
No it hasn't - that is simply not correct. I asked you before for some proof - and you didn't provide any. In actual fact, the opposite is true. For a given power output, a higher cadence usually means a higher metabolic demand, which inevitably translates into lower efficiency, not higher.
The fact that you are also still talking about 'leg strength' kind of underlines that you don't really understand the topic.
Why do you post on a cycling forum when you clearly have no understanding or experience of actually cycling?
Just in case you missed the important bit of the stuff I linked to
“So a higher cadence equals more efficiency and is more sustainable for any type of rider. If cadence makes a big difference on just one climb, imagine the difference it will make across a three-week Grand Tour.”
That’s it again. This is from
“Dr Dan Dwyer, Senior Lecturer in Applied Sport Science at Deakin University in Geelong, has researched cadence in cycling extensively, and how it can impact on performance.”
Who knows more about it than you, not that that would be hard to achieve.
I wager Imposter knows a damn sight more than you, judging by your blinkered and incorrect thoughts on cadence.
Cadence and power is irrelevant. Quintana doesn't use a high cadence, but Moviestar put his power at between 6.4/6.5 W/kg. Fenton has a very high cadence in comparison for documented performance of 6.25 w/kg. Power is power no matter what gear you're turning unlike heart rate. The average Jo/Joe will have a naturally low cadence when starting out, but with experience builds to a more efficient rpm. As an average +/- 80rpm is the norm for being easier on the leg muscles and without over taxing the cardio vascular system. Higher level racers will inevitably have higher cadences due to their level of fitness both aerobically and anaerobic. It is correct to state that a rider will have a point where their cadence and heart rate are the most efficient at putting out sustainable power, but your estimation of 90+ rpm is incorrect.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Who gives a toss, just ride at the cadence that suits YOU. As has been seen, there are one or two on here who prefer a low cadence, others like myself find the "accepted" norm of circa 80-85rpm about right but one size does not fit all.0
-
thistle (MBNW) wrote:More gadgets the better. More stats for Strava that you don't know what to do with. Everyone needs a S&C sensor.
Now this I can get on board with0 -
Very true. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head. If you can’t or don’t want to develop a high cadence approach the world isn’t going to stop turning.SurferCyclist wrote:Who gives a toss, just ride at the cadence that suits YOU. As has been seen, there are one or two on here who prefer a low cadence, others like myself find the "accepted" norm of circa 80-85rpm about right but one size does not fit all.0 -
philthy3 wrote:BikerGroveish wrote:Imposter wrote:BikerGroveish wrote:It’s been proven that higher cadences are more efficient.
No it hasn't - that is simply not correct. I asked you before for some proof - and you didn't provide any. In actual fact, the opposite is true. For a given power output, a higher cadence usually means a higher metabolic demand, which inevitably translates into lower efficiency, not higher.
The fact that you are also still talking about 'leg strength' kind of underlines that you don't really understand the topic.
Why do you post on a cycling forum when you clearly have no understanding or experience of actually cycling?
Just in case you missed the important bit of the stuff I linked to
“So a higher cadence equals more efficiency and is more sustainable for any type of rider. If cadence makes a big difference on just one climb, imagine the difference it will make across a three-week Grand Tour.”
That’s it again. This is from
“Dr Dan Dwyer, Senior Lecturer in Applied Sport Science at Deakin University in Geelong, has researched cadence in cycling extensively, and how it can impact on performance.”
Who knows more about it than you, not that that would be hard to achieve.
I wager Imposter knows a damn sight more than you, judging by your blinkered and incorrect thoughts on cadence.
Cadence and power is irrelevant. Quintana doesn't use a high cadence, but Moviestar put his power at between 6.4/6.5 W/kg. Fenton has a very high cadence in comparison for documented performance of 6.25 w/kg. Power is power no matter what gear you're turning unlike heart rate. The average Jo/Joe will have a naturally low cadence when starting out, but with experience builds to a more efficient rpm. As an average +/- 80rpm is the norm for being easier on the leg muscles and without over taxing the cardio vascular system. Higher level racers will inevitably have higher cadences due to their level of fitness both aerobically and anaerobic. It is correct to state that a rider will have a point where their cadence and heart rate are the most efficient at putting out sustainable power, but your estimation of 90+ rpm is incorrect.
Whether someone can make high power at lower cadences is neither here nor there really. There exceptions to every rule. It’s been determined by some very clever people that most people will be making their power most efficiently bio mechanically speaking at higher cadences. This doesn’t mean they will necessarily be going as fast as they can under those conditions though. Fast and efficient aren’t necessarily the same thing.0 -
philthy3 wrote:
I wager Imposter knows a damn sight more than you, judging by your blinkered and incorrect thoughts on cadence.
Erm he sort of reminds me of a Korean who doesn’t actually speak English singing spice girls songs. It’s entertaining but you kind of know they don’t speak the language in which the song was written they are just repeating things in a parrot like fashion. “Blinkered and incorrect thoughts on Cadence”?
“Dr Dan Dwyer, Senior Lecturer in Applied Sport Science at Deakin University in Geelong, has researched cadence in cycling extensively, and how it can impact on performance.”
and he thinks the same as I do.philthy3 wrote:Cadence and power is irrelevant.
Errr no it isn’t exactly the opposite in fact.philthy3 wrote:Quintana doesn't use a high cadence, but Moviestar put his power at between 6.4/6.5 W/kg. Fenton has a very high cadence in comparison for documented performance of 6.25 w/kg. Power is power no matter what gear you're turning unlike heart rate. The average Jo/Joe will have a naturally low cadence when starting out, but with experience builds to a more efficient rpm. As an average +/- 80rpm is the norm for being easier on the leg muscles and without over taxing the cardio vascular system. Higher level racers will inevitably have higher cadences due to their level of fitness both aerobically and anaerobic. It is correct to state that a rider will have a point where their cadence and heart rate are the most efficient at putting out sustainable power, but your estimation of 90+ rpm is incorrect.
And you’ve completely missed with this little lot
Although you’re right in your assertion that your fitness will be the limiting factor as to how effectively you can ride whichever approach you take.0 -
Agreed. You have to develop the technique ( souplesse) to enable you to make sufficient power at 90 rpms for it to be effective as well as efficient. Otherwise you are just flapping for no good reason.Pooter wrote:From:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/w ... ome-191779
Pedalling fast in a low gear wastes your energy, scientists have demonstrated. When you cycle at the wrong cadence most of your effort will go into moving your legs up and down, not moving the bike forward.
“If a recreational cyclist tries to copy the high cadence of a pro but, instead of turning big gears, they ride a low gear, they can waste 60 per cent of their energy,” says Dr Federico Formenti, Senior Research Fellow in physiology at the University of Oxford.0 -
Despite all your clueless bluster, I'm still waiting for you to dispute the peer reviewed scientific studies I posted earlier, which demonstrate - by using actual science - that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll wait...0
-
Just ordered mine, don't know why I feel I need them but I definitely do. Gadget N+1
0 -
BikerGroveish wrote:philthy3 wrote:
I wager Imposter knows a damn sight more than you, judging by your blinkered and incorrect thoughts on cadence.
Erm he sort of reminds me of a Korean who doesn’t actually speak English singing spice girls songs. It’s entertaining but you kind of know they don’t speak the language in which the song was written they are just repeating things in a parrot like fashion. “Blinkered and incorrect thoughts on Cadence”?
“Dr Dan Dwyer, Senior Lecturer in Applied Sport Science at Deakin University in Geelong, has researched cadence in cycling extensively, and how it can impact on performance.”
and he thinks the same as I do.philthy3 wrote:Cadence and power is irrelevant.
Errr no it isn’t exactly the opposite in fact.philthy3 wrote:Quintana doesn't use a high cadence, but Moviestar put his power at between 6.4/6.5 W/kg. Fenton has a very high cadence in comparison for documented performance of 6.25 w/kg. Power is power no matter what gear you're turning unlike heart rate. The average Jo/Joe will have a naturally low cadence when starting out, but with experience builds to a more efficient rpm. As an average +/- 80rpm is the norm for being easier on the leg muscles and without over taxing the cardio vascular system. Higher level racers will inevitably have higher cadences due to their level of fitness both aerobically and anaerobic. It is correct to state that a rider will have a point where their cadence and heart rate are the most efficient at putting out sustainable power, but your estimation of 90+ rpm is incorrect.
And you’ve completely missed with this little lot
Although you’re right in your assertion that your fitness will be the limiting factor as to how effectively you can ride whichever approach you take.
Jeez you're tiresome! Why don't you read an article and actually take in its message rather than drip out drivel? You flit from one view to another and then go off and post incorrect rubbish on the Workshop pages. First you start off stating that the average rider should be doing 90rpm and then you agree that a high cadence in a low gear is counter productive! The average rider won't be doing 90rpm and power is power wherever you make it and at whatever cadence. I could do 180 watts in a big gear at a low cadence or 180 watts in a smaller gear at a high cadence. You're going on about kinetic energy as the speed of an object to increase its might, which is why power will increase or decrease if you stick to one gear and change the rpm.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0
