colnago62

Some of the the highest cadences in cycling are match sprinters. François Pervis has some amazing You Tube videos. One video had clocked his cadence at 270rpm. I don't think size is the limiter in maximum pedal cadence.

UnfilteredDregs

Said all this better than I could... Besides depleting glycogen faster as I understand it you're breaking down muscle faster as well due to higher force... Recruiting more muscle than necessary for a given effort due to higher torque. I'm certainly no speed demon but in my experience by holding a higher cadence my legs last far longer. I spin in the 90s.

JohnJ80

Some. I spent the last year raising my cadence from 75-80 to 80-85. I'm not going to put a lot more time into it at this point. Either way, I find that that is a very comfortable range for me for recovery.

I did try the 11-32 for riding in hilly areas and the gaps were troublesome for me for the reasons noted. I dropped back to an 11-28 from SRAM which has a much nicer spacing for me and it was easier for me to find a gear that fit my cadence better. When I'm on flatter, I switch out to a 11-26 SRAM that I have. The 11-26 is like Shimano's 11-25 but with the last gear one lower.

I do agree with the sentiments about changing cassettes. It's so easy and fast that if you ride in varied terrain, just select the one that matches the best and use it.

J.

achoo

Well, there's a reason to work on expanding your "normal" cadence band - you won't be bothered by the larger gaps of wider-range cassettes. Because even hilly rides where you need the smaller gears of a wide-range cassette are going to have flat portions.

And doing something like 5x7x3 high-cadence intervals at low power is a great way to break up the monotony of winter base workouts on a trainer or rollers. You still get your base workout in and add a little extra - expand your cadence band. And it's a DIFFERENT WORKOUT!

JohnJ80

Don't want to. I'm not bothered by the larger gaps because I don't use them. I'm happy with my performance on the bike and it's all great because I don't have to use a cassette with large jumps.

J.

Cafe

On the 11-32 large gaps don't bother me because I find myself staying in the same gear on flats and my pace is usually hovering around 18-21mph. So I basically have 21 unusable gears on the flats for the most part. I don't do pace line riding though. If all i did was plan to ride flats I would of probably went with a single speed.

Bah Humbug

Chicks dig the big rings?

TGT1

34/48 12-32 Gap problem solved!

today's loop included;

34.6 miles total
5 mi fire road (dirt)
2188 ft gain
max grade one mile average 7.3% (estimated max grade for multiple short (<100 yd) sections on the fire road 15- 25%)
39.83 mph max speed
111 rpm max cadence
12.7mph average speed.
+
The average cadence was 60, but cyclemeter doesn't have a cutoff rpm so decelerating and coasting figure into the average. Going off the graph the median was about 75-80 rpm.

Why a 50t big ring and an 11t small cog are industry standard is a bit bewildering.

seypat

As per the norm on these cadence/gearing threads, nobody takes into account the type of muscle makeup in the individual's engine. Fast twitch or slow twitch muscle ratios will have a big effect on cadence.

krobinson103

I'm a terrible sprinter even on my feet. I don't have super fast reflexes either. Speed and high rpms have never been my forte. But, I can hold a slower cadence/pace for as long as I can go without sleep as long I eat enough. Nor am I particularly light at 90kg and 192cm. But am reasonabky strong particularly in my legs. I'd make a terrible race horse, but I could sure pull a plow all day. Some people are built to move fast, others not.

hueyhoolihan

i totally agree, but it becomes less bewildering when looked at from a marketing point of view.

Duane Behrens

The Fixies have been very kind not to crash this thread . . . .

achoo

OK, tell us how that effects a rider's preferred cadence.

colnago62

I know a lot of match sprinters (PNW has a lot of velodromes in driving distance of each other). High cadence seems to be much more comfortable than pushing a gear. Lactic acid seems to build up very fast in riders with large amounts of high twitch muscle fiber.

BigJeff

I love the charts as much as the next person, the question I never see answered is "what speed do you like riding at what cadence?"

colnago62

I have found that my cadence at a given speed is different based on the the situation I am in.When ridding in a group, I tend to you use small gears. Riding alone, I tend to you use larger gears then when in a group.

hueyhoolihan

ya, like when riding into a headwind or with a tailwind, or on rough or on smooth pavement, or with winter clothes or summer clothes, in sunshine or rain, whether i've just started or already covered 20 miles, or if i feel energetic or off a bit, or just rode a lot the previous day or not, or put on or took off some weight, well, they're a lot of variables.

gearing is important, don't want to leave the house without enough arrows in the quiver.

seypat

Fast and Slow Twitch Muscle Fiber Types

Cafe

Again however, the debate has to do with an increase in performance and efficiency for non-professionals...so I look at most recreational cyclists that are weekend warriors that might ride 20-30 miles on their weekend ride. Is using more glycogen going to hinder them on their 20-30 mile ride? Probably not. If you are not the typical cyclists and you are doing 60-100 miles then you don't fall in the typical cyclist category.

And if we are talking about pro racing, then yes, there is both an efficiency and performance advantage. When were talking about 99% of the other riders, an 11-32 versus a 12-25 won't give an efficiency or performance advantage on their 20-30 mile weekend rides. Anyone with a cadence sensor and power meter is not the average cyclist either imo.

I was just pointing out the misinformation when someone stated that a wide range cassette like an 11-32 would hinder performance from a 12-25 when concerning the average cyclist. It's this kind of misinformation that I don't like.

WhyFi

You've already moved in together, now you're talking about big rings *sigh*

achoo

Hooray for you. Irrelevant hyperlink is still irrelevant, now isn't it? Thanks for posting something that's been known for what? 100 years? And doesn't mention cadence and only mentions "bicycle" - once - in passing?

If you're going to try to be a condescending jerk, you should at least post a link that mentions the topic under discussion.

You have no idea how muscle composition impacts preferred cadence, do you?

achoo

Yeah, if you're not measuring your performance in any way you probably shouldn't worry about getting the absolute most out of your gear. Anyone "just riding around" probably shouldn't be concerned at all about efficiency.

RollCNY

@Cafe, I find it interesting that you are the one who started this thread asking specifically what the advantages of a 12-25 are versus an 11-32. When multiple people tell you, you argue with them, and say the advantages are irrelevant in the context you want measured.

Unless you are riding at the limits of your ability and endurance, efficiency is a moot point. It is only when your goal is to push your boundaries that you notice the benefits or detriments of different equipment selection.

Bandera

Your conception of "recreational cyclists" and "the average cyclist" confuses folk out for a nice bike ride with those who have taken up the Sport of Cycling.
They are two very different activities involving bicycles.
One is unconcerned with performance, or won't admit that they are, while the other enjoys challenging themselves on the bike in difficult terrain over distance and time. Neither is racing, that is Something Else.

If one can honestly say “I don’t care about going farther, faster or riding in challenging terrain” good for you and have a nice bike ride.
Any bicycle that goes and stops is just fine for a nice bike ride.

Cyclists have different interests and the gear is designed for their improvement of endurance, power and speed in the sport.
A century old cycling culture with its own behavior, technical requirements and interests has codified basic principles long ago.
One is having the proper gearing for the terrain: the lowest gear necessary for the toughest climb, the highest gear one is willing to descend in and as many cogs in between as possible for efficiency.

That's how cyclists look at it from a performance viewpoint, for having a nice bike ride: Whatever.
Don't confuse the two, it's not a matter of what you like or not.

To your original question: A 50/34-11-32 on The Flats is not suitable for Cycling performance and a waste of $$$ for a nice bike ride.

-Bandera

krobinson103

I think the definition needs a little clarifying. My wife can ride a bike. She does sometimes. If she gets 400km a year she is doing well. Thats not a cyclist. She isn't conditioned and thus needs all the mechanical advantage she can get. For her, wide range gearing is a must as any small hill is a challenge.

I see weekend warriers out on their road bikes. They might get 3-4000km in a year. They are out to have fun. Again, I don't think the gear ratios are super important to them as they hardly ever climb anything anyway. On the flat they may just be better off with a close range.

Then there is touring and randos. For most (including me) a wide range of gears isn't just useful its necessary as I ride with varying loads over as many hills as possible. I simply can't do what I want to do with a narrow range of gears. Commuters also fit this range. When I commute I always have 5-20kg of crap with me in a very upright position. Without a wide range cassette hills can get downright hard fast.

Then we move on to those who care about performance. Racers, and sports cyclists. These people will benefit from a narrow range cassette as long as it stays flat. Thing is as soon as the hills appear I see them either killing themselves to get up on 34-25 or walking.

It all depends on who is riding...