Originally Posted by
Lrdchaos
What’s the general consensus on a cadence sensor? My tcr has a spot for one and I’m thinking about picking it up.
I know it’s not as useful as a power meter, but I don’t know if I can justify a meter at this time. I’m a casual rider looking to increase speed and endurance. I’m currently a 18.5 mph solo rider and 20-21mph group rider.
Thanks
Originally Posted by
shelbyfv
Is there a way to objectively establish your proper cadence w/o power measurement?
Originally Posted by
xroadcharlie
I think with experience you will be able to quantify effort by feel, from 30 - 90% and corollate it to you cadence range.
I have calculated my base cadence range using my speedometer and noting the sprocket selection to be about 60 - 90 rpm. At 40% effort 60 - 65 rpm is good, 60% about 70 -75 rpm, and at 80% effort perhaps 80-85 rpm.
Even as a recreational rider, I still like to monitor my effort by feel and cadence sometimes when fighting strong wind or climbing steep hills. Experiment with the gears. I used to use only very low gears on a hill in my neighbourhood, But found it much more efficient using taller ones for much of the ride.
Actually now that I think about it, A cadence sensor makes sense.
Originally Posted by
jadocs
To me cadence is helpful when I am able to reference my power and speed. When I'm going all out, what feels faster is not always the case.
In certain instances (referencing speed and power) dropping a gear and increasing my cadence (even though it feels easier) has produced more power and resulted in more speed, especially with wind in your face.
I have posted about my use of a cadence sensor as a “surrogate power meter”:
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
"
Cadence"
I’m a 40+ year cyclist and I ride mainly for fitness. My training tool is the
Relative Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale, and I use cadence to chose gears to maintain my desired exertion.
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
This year though, I decided to go for speed (intensity), and I use the semi-quantitative, standardized, but personally relavant system of
(Borg’s) Relative Perceived Exertion (RPE), with my own particular adaptation.
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
The RPE scale ranges from 6 to 17, with descriptions of the intensity. Multiply the RPE by 10 is the approximate heart rate. Jim's scale is the equivalent on a 0 to 100 scale, easier to think about:
RPE = 6, resting... Jim's scale = 10 to 20
RPE = 7, very, very light... Jim's scale = 20 to 30
RPE = 9, very light... Jim's scale = 30 to 40
11, fairly light...50 (my usual happy-go-lucky pace without thinking about it)
13, somewhat hard...60 (I have to focus to maintain)
15, hard...70 (I start breathing hard at about 30 seconds)
17, very hard (lactate threshold; breakpoint between hard but steady
breathing and labored with gasping)...80 (my predicted max HR)
19, very, very hard...90 to 100.
My basic training is to ride at my RPE of 50% for six miles to warm up, then cruise at an RPE of 60%, and do intervals (on hills) at 70%.
I try to change gears to maintain a cadence of about 85-90 rpm on flats and rolling hills, and about 60 to 80 rpm on harder hills, to maintain my RPE. Shift up to higher gears as the cadence rises, and shift down as the RPE increases.