chaadster

I earlier elaborated my definition of "better cyclist," which you apparently missed. I also earlier brought up the cost issue of high RPM for bigger riders, and had you not missed that, too, you'd know we're in agreement there.

I absolutely do *not* agree with your perspective that higher cadence at same power "isn't particularly useful." It reduces the torque requirement and reduces muscle fatigue. The same power at higher cadence is more speed.

I also disagree that higher cadence follows higher power as a matter of course. The fallacy there is evident in this thread, where this Tobias guy thinks he has "plenty of power" because he can do 12mph @ 50rpm and leg press .5 ton.

It is true that a deliberate and sensible power-based training regimen will produce higher cadence for the practitioner, but the reason is twofold: cadence targets are part and parcel of such regimens because the benefits of higher cadence are well-known, and because it's virtually impossible to produce maximum wattage without reasonably high cadence and because increasing cadence will produce more watts for any given effort level.

gregf83 

Incorrect. I think perhaps you're confusing torque with power. Power = torque x cadence

Disagree if you like but there aren't many riders putting out high power at low cadence. It's also backed up by numerous studies showing higher cadence correlated with higher power. And it's perfectly illustrated in this thread as one of the reasons Tobias can comfortably ride at a low cadence is because he's riding with relatively low power.

TobiasKilroy

I'm not so knowledgeable about cadence but when it comes to internal combustion horsepower I'm well versed.
So adapting my knowledge base to what I understand of your terminology I give you the following.

Their exist two basic types of power plants. High Torque, or High Cadence.
High Cadence:
Pro. Generally comes in smaller lighter packages and consume fewer BTUs per operating minute.
Con. Requires highly specialized gearing components and usually limited to a narrow optimization range.
High Torque:
Con. Generally comes in much larger heavier packages and will consume far more BTUs per operating minute.
Pro. Much wider operating range and the ability to use practically any manner of equipment.

TobiasKilroy

@gregf83 I'll need to look up the formulas for measuring power from work done again, but I would disagree with your assessment of low power output.

gregf83 

I just based it on your speed of 12mph. kreuzotter.de has a calculator to calculate your power output.

TobiasKilroy

Bike Calculator
This neat app shows that I must produce approximately 100w to maintain 12mph.

Not having any other data I can't say if it's high or low. Perhaps you should all give it a try and see how much wattage you need to go 12mph

gregf83 

Not sure if you're talking about combustion engines or people here. If it's people, low cadence is actually more efficient (i.e. uses fewer Cals/hr for same power). Now maybe you're talking about larger riders being less efficient and I agree with this as there's wasted energy moving heavy legs up and down repeatedly.

gregf83 

Sounds about right.

TobiasKilroy

@gregf83 I was actually talking about people and what I had thought I understood from the thread. I had always felt low cadence was more efficient but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the vindication.

Sauce to back up Greg: https://www.trifuel.com/training/bike/cycling-cadence-and-pedaling-economy

But seriously, I need more data. How much wattage do you need to go 12mph?

gregf83 

Power required to go 12 mph depends mostly on the type of tires and your weight. Wind resistance is fairly low so most of your power will go into overcoming rolling resistance. Your 100W estimate seems reasonable depending on the tires you're using.

TobiasKilroy

Dude, for the love of all that is holy. Will you actually input your specific figures to the calculator and post your results here?

Please?

gregf83 

Sorry I didn't realize you were looking for my data. I weigh about 165lbs and according to kreuzotter should take a little over 60W to go 12mph.

TobiasKilroy

Thank you kindly. To be clear I am asking for everyone's data.
Bike Calculator

chaadster

Yes, you're right...I meant to say effort level rather than power, due to reduced torque load; pushing a bigger gear at higher cadence can feel like the same load on the legs as turning a smaller one at low cadence, but will net more speed.

Still, higher cadence at same power is very useful in my eyes, and regardless of what one's max watts may be, when it comes to riding near max effort, higher cadence will let you do things, like long climbs, which would burn out legs trying to deliver same watts at lower RPM.

I think a lot of us can put out high power at low cadence, especially clydes. I mean, I can do 250w at 60rpm...just not for long, but I do it sometimes. And that's the difference between good riders and lousy ones: the good ones know how to go faster, longer. Having the ability to work hard at higher cadence is part and parcel...as you know.

TobiasKilroy

That's exactly why I cruise the flatland in high gear at low rpm. When the grade rises I can always shift down to a more favorable ratio.

chaadster

Why do you want to know that? Besides the fact that Bikecalc and Kreuz are estimates, the power required to make 12mph on flat ground is trivial for almost any adult. I don't think it's a useful indicator of anything...other than showcasing the irrelevance of being able leg press .5 ton when it comes riding at 12mph on flat ground.

TobiasKilroy

I need a larger data set to determine if 100w is a large power output or a minimal level.

chaadster

No one is trying to tell you what you're doing doesn't work, and if you're getting around riding the way you want to, that's all that matters. All I was saying is, that's not how the fast kids ride. It's not how the good cyclists ride. It may be how happy cyclists ride, though, and I'm totally cool with that.

I guess my overarching point was to add context to the "ridehowyalike" meme by pointing out that self-selected cadence works to a point, but that having a fully equipped toolbox (i.e. being able to ride at high cadence) is what it takes to ride with the best, like a pro, just better, or whatever you want to call it. If that's not your interest and goal, that's just fine by me.

chaadster

No you don't. It is minimal.

TobiasKilroy

If it's minimal that why does it only take 60w for Greg to keep up with me?

chaadster

He's smaller/lighter...but the point is, I'm sure he spends most of his rides making well more than 100w. And you could too, if you wanted.

TobiasKilroy

Well yeah for short bursts.

But my point was that 100w to only get 12mph is a high output for a mediocre result. How fast does 100w move you?

So yes at 12mph 100w is a lot of power. At 25mph 100w is a minimal amount of effort.

gregf83 

Riding at 12mph requires an effort roughly similar to walking. If you want to utilize power similar to what you'd need for running you'd need to increase above 200W.

For reference decent Cat 3 racers are capable of putting out somewhere around 4W/kg of body weight for an hour. Some are higher, some are lower. World class pros are closer to 6W/kg. Obviously, the leaner you are the easier it is to hit these numbers.

So when you say 'high power' I'm thinking something north of 4 W/kg for a reasonable (>20 min) length of time.

TobiasKilroy

I tried to explain my point of view.

But I am so done with being picked on. I'm not learning anything new here just being forced to defend myself.

So F#$k y'all, I'm out.

chaadster

I see what your saying, but you're just looking at the number being 35% higher than his (Kreuzotter gave 73w for me at 6', 220lb, btw), but the more important factor, I think, is ease of production, and it's easy for most adult cyclists to produce 100w (or pedal a bike at 12mph). Yeah there's duration, but let's put that down to fitness...and we haven't been talking time so far, so why start now?

Move up to 150w continuous, and probably that's harder and fewer can maintain it. 175w continuous might be close to the breakpoint between "average" and "good" cyclists. 200w continuous is probably "trained cyclist" realm, and probably close to an average output for what we'd call "really good riders." The elite segment can push 250-300w and beyond continuous.

Now none of that really means much without time, but for this stage of the discussion, I'm just hoping to give framework.