"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Pedaling Circles

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/11504.0.html


Broker separated out the gravitational and inertial components of a pedaling force diagram, so that one could really see exactly what was being produced and at what cost to the rider. Broker noted that most cycling coaches spend a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the downward forces at bottom dead center part of a pedal stroke. That effort, he explained, is essentially futile, since most of that downward force present there is non-muscular and takes virtually no energy. Offering an extreme example, Broker suggested that one could knock a rider out cold, clip him into the pedals, tape him down to the saddle and handlebars and crank up the pedals up to 90rpm. The result, he said, would show similar forces expended at the bottom of the pedal stroke.

Now, its only one little paragraph taken from one lecture given by one man, but still pretty interesting. The research on pedaling efficiency seems to be varied and dynamic.

I've been saying stuff like this ^ for years. I reckon "perfect circles" and similar techniques are some of the biggest myths going around. They've never made sense to me. We'll NEVER get any worthwhile force on the pedals between 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock, or 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock, and the whole pulling up this is being shown to be overemphasized.

Here's a thread about similar stuff from a little while back:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=233835&highlight=colson Danno's posts (#81 and #82) are about the only worthwhile 'counters' to what I was trying to get across

there's also some interesting stuff here:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t233514.html Check out the posts by 'coach to the stars', Ric Stern

and here: http://www.topbike.com.au/pdfs/colson-bicyc-austjuly_aug2002.pdf



I'm gunna regret all this, but this is me quoting me quoting someone else: :)

Cycling News contributor:

"The idea of losing power due to a presumably inefficient pedal stroke is not supported either. Research comparing the abilities of state-class and national-class cyclists (Coyle, 1991) showed that the national-class cyclists had what is often incorrectly referred to as and "inefficient" pedal stroke. In a 40k TT test, the national-class cyclists put more of their power into their downstroke, while the slower, less powerful cyclists distributed more of their power in all directions of the pedal stroke. Yep, the more powerful cyclists mashed (at least more than the other cyclists) their way to 40k times that were 10% faster. One way to potentially change the efficiency of your stroke is by manipulating cadence. This is where it gets interesting, because if you pedaled with the intent on being as efficient as possible, you would ride around at a cadence that is much slower than the typically freely chosen cadence of most cyclists (~90rpm). As cadence increases, so does the oxygen demand for a given power output. I personally don't know any top cyclists who pedal all day at 60rpm, so one has to wonder why having an efficient pedal stroke is a desirable goal at all.

While many cyclists, and coaches, will talk about having an "efficient stroke", that concept is really not supported when the variables of cycling efficiency are directly studied. There still might be some good reasons for you to work on your pedal stroke (e.g.: limiting the work done by the rest of your body), and I've yet to find a better way than by using a good old set of rollers"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2005/letters04-11#Pedalling

Sometimes when sprinting really hard, I have a tendency to pull up really hard on the pedals....you'd think a few times of popping out my cleats I'd learn. Almost wiped out at 33 mph once....foot hit the pavement.

:) well, sprinting is very different, especially jumping from a slow speed

I'm stuck on trying to think of who we can "knock a rider out cold, clip him into the pedals, tape him down to the saddle and handlebars and crank up the pedals up to 90rpm"

I have a few ideas.

I'm stuck on trying to think of who we can "knock a rider out cold, clip him into the pedals, tape him down to the saddle and handlebars and crank up the pedals up to 90rpm"

I have a few ideas.

COUGHR600DuraAce!!!

Sorry, guys, can't seem to shake this cold. :D

Let me try to compile a complete list of cycling myths:

pedaling in circles
base
weight lifting
vibration dampening
light wheels
tubulars
cadence

I'm sure I left something out.

Let me try to compile a complete list of cycling myths:

pedaling in circles
base
weight lifting
vibration dampening
light wheels
tubulars
cadence

There is questioning dogma and there is non-conformity for non-conformity's sake.

Let me try to compile a complete list of cycling myths:

pedaling in circles
base
weight lifting
vibration dampening
light wheels
tubulars
cadence

I'm sure I left something out.
Going fast.:)

Let me try to compile a complete list of cycling myths:

pedaling in circles
base
weight lifting
vibration dampening
light wheels
tubulars
cadence

I'm sure I left something out.

You're going to hell :lol:

Not exactly scientific, but when I'm trying to hold a wattage out put doing steady states, my perceived effort and HR will drop for a given wattage output if I remind myself to scrape the dog poop off. So while the importance of pedaling circles may be overstated, I still thinkthere's something to it.

May be mental, but what's wrong with the plecebo effect if it works?

There are 'perfect' circles and then there are perfect circles. It would be next to impossible to pedal a perfect circle however if you ever watched pro's warm up and listen to the sound their trainers make, it's not wup wup wup of a guy just mashing down on the down stroke. The sound is more or less smooth and constant. To me that is what a circular pedal stroke means.

May be mental, but what's wrong with the plecebo effect if it works?

Lots of wheels and framesets are made of placebo too :D

Let me try to compile a complete list of cycling myths:

pedaling in circles
base
weight lifting
vibration dampening
light wheels
tubulars
cadence
.up until I've felt so alone :cry:
I'm so happy :cry:

There are 'perfect' circles and then there are perfect circles. It would be next to impossible to pedal a perfect circle ...
In all the thousands of miles I've ridden, I've never been able to pedal anything other than a circle. I've tried to do otherwise, but the cranks were always too strong for me to distort them. Now what are we really talking about?

This is always an interesting debate.

The old school feel of pedaling in circles has produced a few fast riders. At the same time I don't think there is any doubt that when you go fast you are pushing hard on the pedals, research has shown this time and time again. There isn't any real contradiction here, during a lot of athletic movements what you feel is often not precisely what you are doing (try teaching or learning the feel of swinging a golf club).

Kinesthetic sense can be misleading.

Anyone who has ever ridden the Kilo knows that it's possible to pedal in squares, usually at the 900m mark.

Let me try to compile a complete list of cycling myths:

pedaling in circles
base
weight lifting
vibration dampening
light wheels
tubulars
cadence

I'm sure I left something out.

Physics?

Physics?

Hey, did you know that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Well darn it thats it then. I am going back to platform pedals.

Well darn it thats it then. I am going back to platform pedals.


Alanbikehouston was right!

Physics?

Finally someone exposing that crap for what it is. I'm adding the Germ Theory to the list.

Anyone who has ever ridden the Kilo knows that it's possible to pedal in squares, usually at the 900m mark.

yeup, one of the most painful experiences of my life.

I've been riding powercranks since mid October, since these are designed to force users to pedal circles I might be able to share my experience which I think is meaningful even though sample size is admittedly n=1.

When first riding these my assumption was that I would be able to ride much faster once adapted due to training myself, no being required to apply force all around the stroke, i.e the classic circle. I must say that at first I could probably only ride around 1 min continuously at first due to extreme hip flexor and neuromuscular fatigue. Now that I am adapted to them and have done some LT work on normal cranks I find that the main benefit to powercranks is that they have taught me to get my opposing leg out of the way for my downstroke leg. They essentially lead to smooth mashing if that makes sense.

I can't say if it's Powercranks or my more committed training but I am doing hour sweet spot intervals at the same wattage that I could muster for 15 minutes last year, I suspect both.

Ok, I go with germ theory...

I've been doing the one-legged drill thing to help with my circles, and I find it helps to make my cadence smoother when I'm getting into my LT heart rate. It's also seems to help alot while I'm climbing on the saddle. I could be wrong, but I don't know what else it would be.

I find that the main benefit to powercranks is that they have taught me to get my opposing leg out of the way for my downstroke leg. They essentially lead to smooth mashing if that makes sense.



That makes sense to me. I mean how much does a leg weigh? Say 30 pounds? So if you just leave the down stroke leg there as dead weight then thats more force the other leg has to deal with on the next downstroke.

Instead of using one-legged drills, and other dubious methods to help to pedal 'circles,' why not just ride rollers?

I've yet to find anyone who hasn't benefited, in terms of smooth pedaling, from continued work on rollers. In my experience, while a trainer is useful for many things, developing a good pedal stroke isn't one of them.

Anyone who has ever ridden the Kilo knows that it's possible to pedal in squares, usually at the 900m mark.

I've seen people do triangles, too.

Instead of using one-legged drills, and other dubious methods to help to pedal 'circles,' why not just ride rollers?


+142. rollers just make smoothness cease to be an issue

IMO "Circles" is less about where pressure is actually applied and more about developing a pedal stroke where you are still on the bike from the hips up. Less wasted movement and wasted energy. With very few exceptions ride behind a fast racer and you wont see a lot of rocking, bouncing or excessive body movement. This is "Circles", not some mythical state where you are always applying muscle pressure tangent to crank position.

^ good points about high revs and smooth spin. "Back in my day" (the late '80s), everyone was told to 'spin grin and win' on their easy days by spinning an easy gear at high revs to work on smoothness. I never really embraced it, but it was pretty funny seeing other dudes spinning along at 28kph at 130 rpm :)

funny aussie track riders spin 220 rpm on rollers:eek:

A friend of mine was recently fit by Paul Levine of Signature Cycles. Paul, in case you haven't heard, uses all manner of cameras & computers & lasers etc. to accurately document a cyclist's performance before and after the fitting. Anyway, while looking over the data Paul comments to my friend "You've got a very smooth pedal stroke."

My friend, who admitted to me his initial reaction was to say "Thanks!", decided to play it coy and instead asked "That's good, right?"

To which Paul replied "No."

Apparently (I'm paraphrasing now) Paul's contention is that a smooth pedal stroke can only be the result of equal effort coming from the larger/stronger leg muscles (quads?) and the smaller/weaker leg muscles (hamstrings?). If your pedal stroke is a smooth consistent circle this almost always means that your stronger muscles aren't working at their maximum potential, and/or that the weaker muscles are being over-stressed.

Ideally one's pedal stroke *should* be asymmetrical, with a more powerful downstroke than upstroke...not really "smooth circles" at all.

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~neptune/Papers/essr30(4).pdf

Let me try to compile a complete list of cycling myths:

pedaling in circles
base
weight lifting
vibration dampening
light wheels
tubulars
cadence

I'm sure I left something out.

So cadence is a myth? Cadence has no effect on speed? So the guy that just recently set the record for the flying 200m on the track at close to 45 MPH, on an app. 98 inch gear could do the same speed with a 120 inch gear at a lower cadence.

Is that what you are saying?

Let me try to compile a complete list of cycling myths:

pedaling in circles
base
weight lifting
vibration dampening
light wheels
tubulars
cadence

I'm sure I left something out.

Oh, I forgot something. Since we are on the road racing forum, and you are advising racers that all of the things you listed are myths and have absolutely no effect on speed, what was the highest racing category that you achieved by

ignoring your pedaling technique
not building up base miles early in the season
not weight lifting
not caring about cadence
?

Did you make it to cat 1 following your methods? How much prize money did you win following your technique?

So cadence is a myth? Cadence has no effect on speed? So the guy that just recently set the record for the flying 200m on the track at close to 45 MPH, on an app. 98 inch gear could do the same speed with a 120 inch gear at a lower cadence.

Is that what you are saying?
Actually, I know of at least one study that demonstrated increased efficiency at cadences lower than the typical self-selected cadence (~90). That's not to say it's best to ride at a low cadence, as it's a bit more difficult to respond to attacks, among other things.

I think it's also rather obvious that cadence is a whole different beast on the track, as opposed to road racing, with our gears and whatnot.

And in response to your later post, no need to get testy. I think we can have a discussion about training techniques without having to proffer credentials (or lack thereof).

I assume Squint wasn't talking about sprinting

So cadence is a myth? Cadence has no effect on speed? So the guy that just recently set the record for the flying 200m on the track at close to 45 MPH, on an app. 98 inch gear could do the same speed with a 120 inch gear at a lower cadence.

Is that what you are saying?
This line of reasoning might have had some merit 60 years ago, but since multiple gears are pretty much the norm in road racing today (c.f. forum title) and riders can control cadence within a fairly narrow band, any compromises that might be necessary for a fixed gear are pretty much irrelevant. I'm certain that Theo Bos could have gone faster if he had had a bike with multiple gears.

This line of reasoning might have had some merit 60 years ago, but since multiple gears are pretty much the norm in road racing today (c.f. forum title) and riders can control cadence within a fairly narrow band, any compromises that might be necessary for a fixed gear are pretty much irrelevant. I'm certain that Theo Bos could have gone faster if he had had a bike with multiple gears.

I don't know how irrelevant it is...in flat straightaway finishes top road sprinters are typically reaching maximum speeds of around 40-42 mph on geared bikes. Cipollini might have had a momentary maximum of 46 mph at one point, but I don't believe he was averaging that for 200m. Given that, I'm not sure the tradeoff of efficiency for gear development would be worth it. Or are you suggesting that we should be using geared bikes on the track?

Additionally...I'm not sure how many of you also ride track, but just anecdotally I have a faster sprint on the track bike than I do on the road bike. Something is going on (or I'm just an inarticulate shifter!)

Given that, I'm not sure the tradeoff of efficiency for gear development would be worth it. Or are you suggesting that we should be using geared bikes on the track?
I don't know what efficiency has to do with things. As mentioned earlier, the most efficient cadence is around 60 rpm, much lower than used for racing. The objective is speed, not efficiency, and it has been shown that self-selected cadence is almost always the fastest for a given individual. As to using gears on track, I never suggested any such thing. I'm saying that having the ability to shift gears to self select the best cadence will result in faster speeds.

Actually, I know of at least one study that demonstrated increased efficiency at cadences lower than the typical self-selected cadence (~90). That's not to say it's best to ride at a low cadence, as it's a bit more difficult to respond to attacks, among other things.

I think it's also rather obvious that cadence is a whole different beast on the track, as opposed to road racing, with our gears and whatnot.

And in response to your later post, no need to get testy. I think we can have a discussion about training techniques without having to proffer credentials (or lack thereof).

Squint has made a statement that cadence, pedalling technique, base mile training and weight lifting have no effect on speed. This is a racing forum and I say he is doing a disservice to racers here, especially beginning racers, by dismissing long established training techniques. He certainly has the right to have a contrary opinion and I encourage him to. Healthy debate will lead to advancement of training techniques.

But of course he should prove up his statements. I ask him to back up his claims, wherein have I gone wrong?

If he is not a racer, then have him quote quote some accomplished racers or coaches who agree with him that cadence, pedalling technique, base mile training and weight lifting have no effect on speed.

But of course he should prove up his statements. I ask him to back up his claims, wherein have I gone wrong?
Not reading? See post #36.

And look what showed up here from Andy Coggan, http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1173849;search_string=;#1173849
"If pedaling style is so important, why has no one ever been able to show it? That is, no study has ever shown a correlation between the pattern of force application and efficiency, nor has any study ever demonstrated that, as group, more efficient cyclists pedal differently than less efficient cyclists. OTOH, numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between fiber type and efficiency, despite the significant variability involved in quantifying the former."

I don't know what efficiency has to do with things. As mentioned earlier, the most efficient cadence is around 60 rpm, much lower than used for racing. The objective is speed, not efficiency, and it has been shown that self-selected cadence is almost always the fastest for a given individual. As to using gears on track, I never suggested any such thing. I'm saying that having the ability to shift gears to self select the best cadence will result in faster speeds.

McEwen can't beat elite track sprinters running similar gearing. And why aren't the road sprinters regularly breaking 50 mph, even with the advantage of a leadout train?

Perhaps I'm just using the wrong terminology here...I'm not talking about style, or pedaling pretty circles as a virtue (I agree with you that's BS). to my thinking the advantage of a geared system in the case you're thinking of is that you can vary gear development to match better with cadence at a given speed.

The thing is, the track sprinters have gone over and over the 200 countless times using every conceivable ratio and they're sacrificing the ability to vary gear development in favor of just using the simplest (perhaps "efficiency" was the wrong word to use hear) drivetrain possible to achieve maximal speed. Somebody like Bos can spin a wider range of cadences than the average rider, so you'd have to think that they've pretty well determined what works best over that distance. And these guys are all training with SRMs these days, so you can't say they're not plumbing the data pretty exhaustively.

I believe Bos was spinning an average cadence of around 92 in the world record run -- what would his options have been with a derailleur system? Where would he make his shifts? Downshift coming into the pole? Upshift going through turn 4?

Then why aren't the road sprinters regularly breaking 50 mph, even with the huge advantage of a leadout train?
Are you serious? For starters consider these two effects: 1) 150+ km of fatigue, 2) conversion of type IIx fibers. Bonus question, how much more power is needed at 50 mph than 45 mph?

Are you serious? For starters consider these two effects: 1) 150+ km of fatigue, 2) conversion of type IIx fibers. Bonus question, how much more power is needed at 50 mph than 45 mph?

No, I'm being hyperbolic. What about the other points?

EDIT: I actually realized I was being a little silly so I was editing my post, you may not have seen the rest of the material I added)

I should add, because I realize even that my edit was a bit unclear...what I meant by the McEwen anecdote was that he wasn't beating elite track sprinters even though finishing speed in elite track sprinting is similar to or greater than finishing speed in road sprints.

The thing is, the track sprinters have gone over and over the 200 countless times using every conceivable ratio and they're sacrificing the ability to vary gear development in favor of just using the simplest (perhaps "efficiency" was the wrong word to use hear) drivetrain possible to achieve maximal speed.
Track riders aren't sacrificing anything. You make it sound as if you believe track riders choose to run a fixed gear over shifting systems because they believe it's faster. Track riders use fixed gears because the rules remove any other option.

I believe Bos was spinning an average cadence of around 92 in the world record run
Close, I get 172 rpm.

I'll show my work: 51x15 gear, avg speed = 73.767 km/h both from cyclingnews.com
51x15 gear at 100 rpm = 42.8 km/h per sheldonbrown.com
73.767/42.8 1.72 for 172 rpm.
Now where did you come up with 92?