Originally Posted by
RChung
ISTR a study of pro cyclists that showed that work efficiency was maximized at lower cadences -- but I always thought this was an argument that while racing, pros don't tend to maximize efficiency, they're more interested in racing results no matter how inefficient it may be. Race cars get much lower mileage than economy cars, but they're usually not trying to maximize mileage (race cars have their own efficiency and fuel consumption goals, but those goals aren't to maximize overall economy, they're to get acceptable economy compared to the other cars they're competing against).
I've looked at the cadence and power (and crank torque) of several pro races. Although their *average* cadence is relatively high, they tend *not* to stay within a narrow cadence band: they're not automatons, their cadence band spans the range from slow to very fast, depending on the race situation. That said, the range in power is "wider" than the range in cadence, so they *tend* to vary their crank torque to modulate power (that is, they vary both cadence and crank torque to produce the power they want, but they vary crank torque more than they vary cadence).
When I've looked at data from me and some of my friends (and we're definitely not pros) the overall pattern of wide cadence range, not being automatons, and modulation of power more by crank torque than cadence, seem to describe us, too.
My impressions and observations, on myself, would agree with this.
There are/were always times in a race (mass start) when the pace steadies out. at that point I always quickly searched for the most 'efficient' gear/cadence. That was when my HR would settle down to a lower steady rate. Before on-bike 'Power' meters, you had HRMs, and those still are the best reading of 'efficiency'. The best effciency of work done results in the lowest HR at whatever work load. Often it meant, while sitting in or moving around in a line or echelon, that a greater gear with lower rpm showed a lower HR, often very substantial... It's actually a reason I still highly desire single tooth step cog ranges in my most used gear range.
I'm not looking for the besr/max efficiency. I'm still looking to being able to ride Quickly' for the times/distance that I'm riding.
My considered opinion is that efficiency affects the entire combined cadence and torque (power) range one have available and might use. Having a high cadence range doesn't mean you need to use it, but it does mean you should be more efficient in the gear and cadence ranges that you might need or want.
If I can hold 110 rpm with the needed torque, then riding at 90 rpm is likely more 'efficient'. Doesn't mean I need to use 110 constantly, the impact of efficiency affects all levels of effort.
Ride On
Yuri