SpongeDad

I've read some posters that mention that their cadence when seated drops on hills. I'm wondering why this would be, or why it would be an advantage. If anything, I concentrate even harder on spinning up hills so I don't burn out my thighs.

I try to stay at about 90 rpm on the hills, although 100rpm is not unusual.

Is there any advantage to dropping cadence on a long hill?
(I'm excluding upshifting when standing or just grinding over a short hill for purposes of this question.)

Jakey

You keeping 90-100 on a double? I can do it on my bike with a triple, but on my double it goes down to probably 65-70

Moonshot

For me one of the funnest parts of cycling is grinding hard and fast up a hill in a low-mid cadence.

SpongeDad

Yeah, it's a triple. It'd be really tough to do the big hill near my house without it, but I'm getting close to doing it in the middle ring (42t).

As much as people dis the triple, when you've blown yourself out on a ride, it's nice to have that granny ring to limp home on. Or when you're trying to get over a nastier hill than you've ever tried before.

jslopez

Well I think given you're using a double and/or if the hill is just challenging versus your current ability then having lower cadence really isn't any more a choice but a reality you need to deal with. If the hill is easy then going to the harder gears (and maintaining a slower cadence) would be more of a training tool versus trying to be very efficient in climbing said hill.

Finally some people just like to mash...

53-11_alltheway

Uhmmm......

Becasue when you are climbing you are behind the 8 ball as far as difficulty goes and since you are putting a max effort to produce power your cadence will naturally drop.

Shet, there is no advantage to low cadence, but the difficulty is hard and you don't want to downshift and lose momentum.

Probably sliding back on the seat has something to do with it also. This increases *peak power*, but can reduce smoothness (therefore RPMs) to some extent unless you are really good at ankling.

https://www.analyticcycling.com/Pedal...ight_Page.html

'nother

Sure, on smaller/shorter hills, you probably want to try to spin nearly at the same rate as on flats. But for longer hills, while 90 to 100 RPM will be easier pedaling, you'll wipe yourself out aerobically and negate the benefit of the easier pedaling. OK, well, maybe not you, but definitely me. As such, I find that somewhere around 60 is most comfortable for climbing moderately steep, long grades. Super-steep grades I usually run out of gears anyway, so striving for a particular cadence takes a back seat to simply keeping the bike moving forward at all.

TheKillerPenguin

That's impressive! I avg'd 69 rpm on a 2.6mi climb today in my 39/26. 90-100rpm is awesome!

I drop my cadence because it just feels better for me. It lets me save some energy for the steeper parts that inevitably come at some point.

ivan_yulaev

I don't like high cadences because I feel that it robs me of power. For long, gradual slopes, I will usually do about 64rpm. Remember, the more RPMs you are doing, the more power you are putting into making your legs move up and down, rather than into the cranks...