Notices
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

smoothness and power

Old 10-09-10, 03:39 PM
  #76  
Elite Fred
 
mollusk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edge City
Posts: 10,945

Bikes: 2009 Spooky (cracked frame), 2006 Curtlo, 2002 Lemond (current race bike) Zurich, 1987 Serotta Colorado, 1986 Cannondale for commuting, a 1984 Cannondale on loan to my son

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked 42 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex
How do I get my dork disc off without removing the rear wheel?
Buy a new bike?

I think that it is much more important to get the dork off of the saddle than to get the dork disc off of the rear wheel.
mollusk is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 03:39 PM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,519
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 450 Times in 264 Posts
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
Why not teach us something in a way that we'd actually learn instead of calling everyone on here stupid and being abrasive.
Robert has been patiently and carefully explaining the irrelevance of cadence (and other things e.g., the Chung method) for years. Maybe he's just tired of typing the same things over and over again. Sometimes you have to expand your reading beyond this forum to get the important stuff.
asgelle is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 03:42 PM
  #78  
Wheelsuck
 
Fat Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
RChung,

All you've come up with so far is a bunch of responses without much substance. If you have a certain philosophy, then out with it. I don't particularly care if you're a dick or not, but to this point, you've taken a lot of space and not said much.
Fat Boy is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 03:45 PM
  #79  
Wheelsuck
 
Fat Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
Robert has been patiently and carefully explaining the irrelevance of cadence (and other things e.g., the Chung method) for years. Maybe he's just tired of typing the same things over and over again. Sometimes you have to expand your reading beyond this forum to get the important stuff.
Fine, then why show up someplace and start picking fights? There's no sense strutting around with your chest all puffed out if you're truly interested in some sort of knowledge transfer. To this point, that's all he's done.
Fat Boy is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 03:49 PM
  #80  
fuggitivo solitario
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 9,107
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
Can't you be right and not be a dick?

Why not teach us something in a way that we'd actually learn instead of calling everyone on here stupid and being abrasive. Seriously, we like having a discussion on here and we're all ears to what you really think minus the rhetoric.

So, tell us how you really feel without the feeling...
As soon as i saw the cadence of the world hour record brought up, i knew he'd be as abrasive as possible trying to point to some flaws (or better yet, make up a flaw in an argument where none exists). I was wrong before regarding cadence, and i now know that an absolute number really doesn't mean that much. But I sure didn't learn that fact when he was trying to get that point across in an obnoxious manner for I just ignored his misanthropic comments.

For a man regarded as one of the leaders in studying the physiology of cycling, it's quite pathetic how he's going about it.

Originally Posted by RChung
1. My English ain't bad for a non-native speaker.
2. Speaking softly and well doesn't make the words right; being a dick doesn't mean I'm wrong.
What's the point when no one will listen to you because of your boorish behavior? You might as well have said nothing.

Originally Posted by RChung
1. What's the fun in that?
If you are deriving some sort of satisfaction for being a dick, and being a dick on the internet for that matter, you ought to see a shrink.
echappist is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 05:18 PM
  #81  
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
Robert has been patiently and carefully explaining the irrelevance of cadence.
Cadence is not irrelevant. I've explained that it's contextual and individual. I get tired of pointing this out.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 05:26 PM
  #82  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,519
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 450 Times in 264 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex
Cadence is not irrelevant. I've explained that it's contextual and individual. I get tired of pointing this out.
I'll let you take that up with him. I've read what both of you had to write on the subject. I know what I believe.
asgelle is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 05:29 PM
  #83  
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
I'll let you take that up with him. I've read what both of you had to write on the subject. I know what I believe.
You believe the blanket statement that cadence does not matter?

Well OK then. I'll throw out all the gearing that I use at the track. I'm sure I would have won those medals pedaling any old cadence.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 05:33 PM
  #84  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,519
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 450 Times in 264 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex
You believe the blanket statement that cadence does not matter?
If that's what you get from the "red herring" posts, I think you should take a closer look.
asgelle is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 05:38 PM
  #85  
gmt
 
Grumpy McTrumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I think these guys are just yanking eachother's chains for our amusement (and their own). The veracity of this "war" is questionable.
Grumpy McTrumpy is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 05:48 PM
  #86  
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
If that's what you get from the "red herring" posts, I think you should take a closer look.
It too big word for me.

I actually agree with Robert on most of the points he makes. You might take a moment to read what I wrote. What I don't agree with is a blanket statement that is factually wrong, and also uses "red herring" in poor context BTW. It would not pass this editor's muster.

As a zinger line to stir interest in the subject it's an Enquirer headline, bordering on the Weekly World News. And it assumes that people will read the full text. That's quite an assumption.

You, Robert, and I (giving you the benefit of the doubt because you seem, while dogmatic, pretty bright) all know cadence can be the difference between success and failure. I spent the better part of 2 months playing with gear splits at the track for my pursuit and sprint efforts. Cadence is vitally important. In context. Individually.

And you'll find people with as good or better credentials than Robert who disagree with him.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 05:49 PM
  #87  
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Grumpy McTrumpy
I think these guys are just yanking eachother's chains for our amusement.
I had the flush noise on "mute"
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 06:01 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,519
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 450 Times in 264 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex
It too big word for me.
Then I'm worried that this will go over your head too, but I'll give it a shot and hope for the best. On rereading my post I see the choice of irrelevant was not a good one in the context of cadence being a red herring, but that was my mistake in that it does not accurately reflect the meaning. I should have and will let those posts speak for themselves.
asgelle is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 06:15 PM
  #89  
going roundy round
 
wanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: High Point, NC
Posts: 6,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
This one time in high school, I tried to pull out of an intersection in my 1977 4 cylinder silver mustang II in fifth gear from a dead stop. Another time I cut off a dork disc without taking off the wheel using a pair of cutting pliers.
wanders is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 06:34 PM
  #90  
Slow'n'Aero
 
DrWJODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Driving the pace in the crosswind
Posts: 2,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I was going to stay out of this, but I am back simply because of my morbid curiosity (I know, Dr. Chung, that you will probably come up with some reason why the phrase "Morbid curiosity" should not be used, but I will leave that to you) and my desire to lay this to rest as it is wasting not only my time, but others’ as well.

I have decided to look back through the posts of "Robert" and I have to say, I have come to some conclusions:

1. He is a very intelligent man. A bit exacting and to the point, in a fashion similar to the Character or Dr. Temperance Brennan on the television show Bones, and completely disregarding context, because he is arguing semantics more often than not, but he is intelligent in his own way.

2. He is a very argumentative man. I tried to find an instance of you truly contributing to anything in your posts and I frankly stopped trying after searching through two pages of his 90+ posts. In fact, while many come here to contribute to the database (both correctly and incorrectly, similar to wikipedia), and many others are here for help and guidance, there are a few who come here hoping to be the policeman. Dr. Chung, thank you for your policing skills, but frankly, you are smart enough to know that much of what is discussed here is opinion, some is anecdotal, and a very little is science so I have to figure that you are either trying to be a god among children (insert Botto's Seinfeld Dojo reference here) or you really believe that you are contributing something to the learning that is sometimes undergone here, in which case you do need to work a bit on your presentation. Be as smart as you want, but the reality here is that for anyone to listen to you on a public and dare I say social forum, being a "Dick" will not get your point across - right or not. And you should be intelligent enough to realize this.

3. I keep calling him intelligent, but when I read through some of his argumentative posts about cadence elsewhere (I have been out for a while) I see over and over again that he makes mistakes (and if you really want me to post the inconsistencies, I will waste my time doing it, just like you could do the same for me, as I have said flat out wrong things and made inconsistent comments as well), saying things like cadence doesn't matter, then makes the argument that pushing a beginning rider toward a higher cadence can in fact be harmful and counterproductive (indicating that it in fact does matter). This does not make him less intelligent, but it brings to mind a phrase regarding glass houses and stone throwing athletics.

4. I was wrong about the world record cadences. I have been wrong about other things. I will be wrong in the future. I admit that with no sarcasm. I am glad he pointed it out, as it was not my intention to pass on misinformation, though again, social skills lacking, he perhaps could have presented it in a way less like "a dick" as it seems he has the intelligence to be that creative (and you can ask why you should be less of "a dick" but refer to my social forum explanation above).

RChung, I would like to ask you to please, lay down your arms. I have no more quarrel with you. I don't understand you, but I have no quarrel with you. I believe I had admitted to my posting of misinformation about the world records. I frankly disagree with you about the world records all having relatively high torques and comparing it to the small percentage of variability found in cadence for the same world records (considering that cadences have varied by such a small percentage outside of Obree, it seems quite unlikely that torques were similarly constrained lest every world record holder put out the same power which would imply either a physiological limit to hour power, or some similar constraint thereof with relation to weight and aerodynamics). But that is a disagreement I feel within my right to maintain. I will continue to believe (perhaps wrongly) that there is an optimum cadence for individuals and with the understanding and acceptance of outliers, if you take a population of cyclists, a bell curve should form, and perhaps one could play the percentages and agree that there are cadences 'more likely' to be of a beneficial balance for RACE efficiency. I am sorry that I lead you to believe that I would speak of caloric efficiency. In any case, I leave you to your opinions (Many with which I am in agreement), and I would ask that you allow me mine, even if we feel the other is wrong. It seems unlikely that either of us will be changing our minds on this anytime soon.

So I offer to you, your move. You have checkmated me. I have no desire to respond to this any more. Will you attempt to kill the king by continuing this argument, or will your next move be to move on, and provide information that may be of use to the OP and future posters on this forum (and if you come back by saying 'dispelling misinformation IS my way of providing useful information' or something to that effect, I will assume you cannot comprehend what it is I am asking, and that your intelligence should be questioned. Context please, my friend.)? May we shake hands and say ‘good game?’

*EDIT* And yes, your English is excellent for a non-native speaker!

Last edited by DrWJODonnell; 10-09-10 at 06:40 PM. Reason: Posted too quickly!
DrWJODonnell is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 06:57 PM
  #91  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
dbikingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Spokane/Tri-Cities WA
Posts: 1,385

Bikes: mountain bike, road bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My very simple take on rchung has been this, if you tell a person he has to pedal at a certain cadence, rchung will jump in and tell you you're wrong. I think most here agree that cadence is a variable to consider when trying to go faster. What cadence is the question and is dependant to that individual for a variety of reasons.

What I don't see from rchung is any other useful information. Shall I dare say a one trick pony. I assume he has a PhD, which means he is very knowledgable about a very small subject. My snarky response is knowing more and more about less and less. I haven't seen a ride or race report from him, so I'm not sure how much he rides. While others may not have the academic education he does, you have valuable cycling experiences that is helpful. rchung will say you can't specify a specific cadence, but that your candence will improve with time. Others here have given exercises for me to improve my cadence, both increasing the cadence and effeciency. Thank you.
dbikingman is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 07:06 PM
  #92  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,519
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 450 Times in 264 Posts
Originally Posted by dbikingman
Others here have given exercises for me to improve my cadence, both increasing the cadence and effeciency.
Honestly, what do you mean by efficiency? Do you mean the commonly accepted definition of work produced per calorie burned? If so, how do you know it's improved, and why do you care? This was discussed earlier in the thread and the consensus seemed to be that under this definition, efficiency is at best secondary to performance. If you have some other meaning in mind, what is it? Do you mean speed for a given perceived exertion or other metric, race performance, or perhaps something else? This is not meant to be argumentative, but I'm just not clear on what you're saying.
asgelle is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 07:17 PM
  #93  
Slow'n'Aero
 
DrWJODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Driving the pace in the crosswind
Posts: 2,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by asgelle
Honestly, what do you mean by efficiency? Do you mean the commonly accepted definition of work produced per calorie burned? If so, how do you know it's improved, and why do you care? This was discussed earlier in the thread and the consensus seemed to be that under this definition, efficiency is at best secondary to performance. If you have some other meaning in mind, what is it? Do you mean speed for a given perceived exertion or other metric, race performance, or perhaps something else? This is not meant to be argumentative, but I'm just not clear on what you're saying.
I have to say, I don't KNOW what he means by efficiency, but my guess is that it has to do with being able to produce the highest wattage (and thus speed all things being equal) over a given time period (I would guess, since he referred to to a 20 mile all out effort, he is looking for CP30-CP60 range). During that distance, it is not calories which are the limiting factor, so what would be? On one side, the muscles' ability to produce torque and the other, the cardiovascular and pulmonary capacity to maintain the effort. I would say that he is calling the best balance between those extremes, which will result in his being able to produce the best power curve without overexertion on either end (either muscular endurance or cardiopulmonary). So, a lower RPE, higher wattage, higher speed. This is my guess.

But maybe he means powercrank style 'pedaling efficiency?' The whole perfect circles thing? Seems like he is looking for results, so I go with my first guess.
DrWJODonnell is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 07:18 PM
  #94  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
dbikingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Spokane/Tri-Cities WA
Posts: 1,385

Bikes: mountain bike, road bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Let's see if I can explain what I meant by efficiency. Applying pressure evenly around the pedals, lifting in the upswing, pulling across the bottome. So all my effort goes to moving me forward faster and I'm not fighting "myself". I would think that if I'm efficient for example not having to apply extra force to raise my foot because it is resting on the upswing, I'd burn less energy (calories).

This is new information for me and I've never had to evaluate what I meant by efficient, simply going faster and further, no wasted motion.

If you have more questions ask. I'm not taking it as an argument.
dbikingman is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 07:29 PM
  #95  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
dbikingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Spokane/Tri-Cities WA
Posts: 1,385

Bikes: mountain bike, road bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Drwjo - you are certainly close. What I find is that my muscle endurance seems to be the limiting factor at higher speeds, I don't seem to get that shortness of breath or burning in my lungs from my cardiopulmonary being tested. Not that I'm some fitness fiend. Which brings us back to my original question. I need to increase my candence, because this will put more emphasis on my cardio and be less tiring on my legs. Thats the common belief. But, when I try to spin at a higher candence that is when my "stroke" feels less efficeint (do I dare use that word now) and not as smooth.

I hope I don't sound like some troll trying to be difficult. This discussion has taken on more depth than I anticipated and just shows how much I have to learn.
dbikingman is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 07:33 PM
  #96  
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
Honestly, what do you mean by efficiency? Do you mean the commonly accepted definition of work produced per calorie burned?
It's not commonly accepted. It's a definition from one single study which presumes efficiency= (cadence relating to kcal/time). One poorly considered study does not make something dogma. That the same people who agree that something is irrelevant pounce on a bandwagon legitimizing a definition for a metric that they believe has no relevance to the subject it professes to speak to makes this poor dumb bike racer shake his head in dismay.

You'll find few if any references to cadence and it's relationship to kcal in any publication related to training or bike racing as "efficiency", or any reference at all for that matter, because it's a metric that, unless we're in the midst of some world food shortage and need to ride to Bejing on a doughnut, is meaningless.

I've presented my own definition of efficiency (cadence in relation to power/time). I think it's more appropriate to the subject. It also meets several of the scientific definitions of efficiency BTW.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 07:52 PM
  #97  
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by dbikingman
Drwjo - you are certainly close. What I find is that my muscle endurance seems to be the limiting factor at higher speeds, I don't seem to get that shortness of breath or burning in my lungs from my cardiopulmonary being tested.
That's been my issue of late also. Big lungs, big heart; old man legs have become the limiter in many cases.

Not sure cadence is the solution for you, but it's worth a shot. You may not reach your goal (physio/genetic limiters come into play) and expect to have a fairly long adaption period (in my case it was 6 months, though I can get a bit more spin in a shorter time these days). What worked in my case was to do loaded efforts (climbing or riding into the wind) at the desired cadence. Doing the higher cadence efforts on the flats didn't do much.

There are other ways to increase muscular endurance on the books, one of which is counter to doing higher cadence efforts, some people respond to low cadence, high effort work...there's a fair bit of science and justification for both approaches.

You realize how individual this can be with the Ulrich/Armstrong example. And I had a 2x Olympian ride away from me with a guy who had ridden 5 grand tours on a hill once...one guy was spinning 100+ and the other was grinding about 70.

Gotta see which works for you.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 08:06 PM
  #98  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
dbikingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Spokane/Tri-Cities WA
Posts: 1,385

Bikes: mountain bike, road bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex
That's been my issue of late also. Big lungs, big heart; old man legs have become the limiter in many cases.
Yikes, I think I'm older than you. I hope I can reach my goals they aren't that lofty. I hope I have alot of upside since I'm new to this. Please agree with me
dbikingman is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 08:10 PM
  #99  
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by dbikingman
Yikes, I think I'm older than you. I hope I can reach my goals they aren't that lofty. I hope I have alot of upside since I'm new to this. Please agree with me
I'm 50. Your upside is big, though short (if you're older than me).
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 10-09-10, 08:18 PM
  #100  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
dbikingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Spokane/Tri-Cities WA
Posts: 1,385

Bikes: mountain bike, road bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex
I'm 50. Your upside is big, though short (if you're older than me).
You got me by a few years, but you have "seasoned mature" legs, my legs are new and inexperienced.
dbikingman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.