TheKillerPenguin

Are there any really? I've been clocking mine most of the time at 110-120. What advantages are there of 90rpm as opposed to 120rpm, if any? Conversely, are there any advantages?

SanDiegoSteve

Find your sweet spot. There is a "high" cadence where you have the best efficiency. That may change over the season.

I think the accepted "high" cadence is anywhere 90+. I tend to like ~93-95 on the flats, but if there is a tail wind, or I'm drafting, it is about 10 higher. Find you sweet spot.

The advantage of a high cadence is that there is less force/stress per revolution. This is kinder on your knees, joints, etc. If your form gets sloppy at a high cadence, then you loose any gains you had.
Another advantage is being able to rev it up high when needed (racing, downhil, avoiding traffic...). Along the lines that track rides are better handlers and can control their speed better.

Bockman

It all depends. Being able to spin at a higher cadence in contrast to an opponent traveling at the same speed means you are using less wattage (energy) than he is.

Dave

galen_52657

Seasoned competitive cyclists are efficient over a wide RPM band. They may have an RPM they like best and at which they are most efficient, but one needs to be able to deliver power on demand say, from 70 RPM to 140 give or take.

Personally, I ‘rest’ pedal at a lower RPM, say 80-85 than most. I do this on the flats or when drafting. But, I can wind it up when necessary. Train for fluid pedaling for all RPMS.

53-11 alltheway

There is a lot of debate about this. Not always is a lower gear at higher cadence going to require less wattage than a taller gear with lower cadence for the same mph. Many variables are involved here. If rpm gets too high (this is different for every rider....people have different power bands) efficiency drops.

The only way to tell is a damn dyno specific for your riding configuration and positioning.

Hitchy

....hello...someone has obviously hijacked 53-11's password & log on......he's beginning to make sense!!!......or is it just Pavlovian learning?

Hitchy

SanDiegoSteve

Is 53-11 back!

A great way to top off my week! The lighter side of cycling rides on.

kandnhome

Actually, I'm just about positive that cadence has nothing to do with wattage. Watts are a measure of work, which is not force, but force over time. So at 100 cadence you'll be putting out 1/2 the force per pedal stroke as a guy/gal going the same speed at 50 rpm. However, assuming both riders are identical (in terms of mass, size, etc), they will both exert the same amount of work to maintain the same speed, regardless of cadence.

Analyticcycling.com seems to back me up on this.

hope it helps

superstator

Exactly. The wattage you put out is a sum of the energy required to defeat wind resistance, gravity, and rolling resistance. A higher cadence might increase the mechanical resistance you have to overcome in the cranks, but it would be an imperceptable amount. It could also cause you to change your form, becoming more or less aerodynamic.

What it really changes is the way your body delivers the energy - a lower cadence (at the same speed) will usually be a more anaerobic effort than a higher one.

Avalanche325

When you spin fast you are more aerobic. This can be maintained for long periods of time because your body can fuel your muscles. When you pedal slowly it is more anaerobic, so you are burning your muscles up. This cannot be maintained for as long a period.

Insanecyclist

I never measure my cadence however I know I ride a high cadence and this dosen't seem to slow me down or fatigue me faster.

InsaneCyclist

boyze

The power (wattage) needed to propel a bike at a specific speed is a constant regardless of cadence assuming identical rider weight, riding position and bike set up. But the power the rider actually develops is much higher - that's why we sweat. The difference is the what is called efficiency of the engine, in this case the rider - his/her cardio, biomechanics...... Each rider will have a different efficiency curve as a function of cadence. Some will be more efficient at higher rpms and vice versa. Training can change the curve. Look at Lance vs Ullrich - roughly same power(Ullrich is probably putting more out due to his size) but have different crank speeds. For racing, cadence is important for another reason - accelerations. If you're already at max cadence then there's no more throttle available to accelerate so you need to shift which takes time. But if you leave some throttle margin you can respond immediately to an acceleration without shifting to catch the wheel. Once at speed and on the wheel then shift.

All this is very analogous to car mechanics and racing, for those that still drive

53-11 alltheway

Cadence does figure into the power formula ( in terms of efficiency)

A. Shorter gear= lower force but more pedalstrokes to do the same amount of work (travel set distance with bike)

B. Higher gear= greater force but less pedal strokes to do same amount of work (travel set diatance on bike)



Power will be the same if A. and B. travel the same distance(this is the work) in the same amount of time. That is if A. and B. MPH is the same they will require the same wattage. (AS refered to correctly by Boyze in above Post)

Efficiency is another story. Which method is more efficient A. vs. B is a good question? THere is evidence that as cadence gets too high (not sure where this point is) efficiency drops off dramatically-->muscles that just pushed don't have enough time to relax and the opposing side that is now pushing has to do some negative work.

Follow me now....If Cadence gets too high and negative work occurs Efficiency will be worse because legs have to do work involved with traveling disatnce + negative work to fight opposing muscles/ time.

P.S. I think what is confusing you is that there is the work involved with pedaling the bike in a particular gear ratio vs. the translation of that work into actually moving the bike. What is lost in the process is what determines the "efficiency".

Boyze mad a nice analogy with cars. Going 65 mph requires the same power, but 5th gear does it more efficiently than 4th gear.

53-11 alltheway

Analytical cycling is a good website, but they cannot take into account all variables. Calculations there are based on "ideal" conditions. The human body's efficiency is the varaible they cannot account. Therefore true wattages the body has to produce will most likely be higher than ideal wattage neccessay to propel bike over set diatance in set time.

To get a better idea of this I have devised a simple test.....more accurate measurement would involve lab equipment . You would measure avg heart rate while producing identical power in the two different gears (say 11T vs. 12T). If avg heart rate is lower with 11T going 25 mph than 12T going 25 mph (say over the span of a 5 miles).....probably 11T is more efficient

jazzy_cyclist

I'm a newbie in the biophysics realm (hell, I just like to ride my bike), but in practical terms, this agrees with most of what I've read so far.

I like to push the big gear when I can, but it stresses my knee and I have a harder time maintaining it if there are hills.

-Jim

53-11 alltheway

Depends on how you train. You also did not account for effiency of higher gearing in your statement.


Going anaerobic only happens when your local circulation in legs and cardiac output cannot maintain blood flow to active muscles.

I wonder what cadences the 1 hpur record was set with? seriously doubt cadences of 140-150 were used to set that endurance record. I'll bet anything cadences were below 120!

53-11 alltheway

1 hour endurance record consistently set with cadence of 100!! by almost all cyclists.

I knew it all along. Endurance is not to be found with super high cadences!!!

You might think you look cool spinning your butt off....but I'll just pass you with my 53-11.

TheKillerPenguin

LoL, thats how I worked on my MTN bike. Would spin generally at 50-60 and think that was the way to go. My legs would burn, my lungs would be fine. I suppose one has to find the cadence where both their lungs and legs are affected to be at highest efficancy?

53-11 alltheway

THat's just a local circulation problem (not cardiac output problem) easily solved by training at higher intensity every once in a while( think interval traing to solve this). Lactic acid is a stimulus to the body to promote increased vascularization and circulation (over time of months circulation will improve, not immediately though)to the body part affect( in every physiolog text book. No BS here)