LMaster

There is a reason people don't spin that fast. It's not the most efficient.

I hope we can agree at least that what truly matters is how much wattage one can put out. That's what drives the bike. So they question then is "at what cadence do I get optimal wattage output". Figure that out, then ride at that cadence. Job done.

For most people that cadence is 90-100, which is why you don't see TdF guys spinning 130 or grinding 55. At those levels they cannot produce the same wattage/hp as they can in their optimal range.

torque cyclist

I absolutely agree with that. at very high rpm I don't feel very efficient. for me I could find 70-80 be my most efficient. right now my cruising around estimates for wattage are between 120 and 170, depending on how long I will be out for.

howellhandmade

Feel can lie to you. As you ride more and become more efficient, the cadence that "feels" comfortable will become higher. Racing is the point of the spear. There's a reason you see racers pedaling above 90 rpm. Also a reason you don't see them pedaling much over 100. If there was any advantage to pedaling slower, they would do it.

torque cyclist

I will definitely work on being more comfortable with 80-90 rpm "cruise" while probably maintaining the total output 120-170 watts. perhaps once I get that nailed down I will try and use that cadence in a slightly higher gear.

RChung

This is a painful thread to read. There is a lot of bad advice being given. Even some of the posts with good advice have some bad advice sprinkled in.

The best advice in this thread is gregf83's.

The second best advice in this thread is mine, which is to pay attention to gregf83.

mr_pedro

Couple of questions:
The speed you mention above seems to be calculated from rpm and gears, can you measure speed directly and what is your real world actual average speed over your training rides and how long are they?

How much is your body fat %, are we talking 15% or 30%?

How many hours per week are you riding?

torque cyclist

I used a few things. my rpm (rough) gear ratio calculator and time it took to go a known distance. My ride length depends on mood and what I have time for. it can be a multi hour ordeal or a half an hour ride around the neighborhood. as far as body fat, not entirely sure... but i'm not in very good shape.

mr_pedro

If you are currently averaging 12 mph and are out of shape and want go 20 mph there are many steps in-between. But they all include riding 5-10 hrs per week, loosing weight and increasing cadence.

torque cyclist

well technically in order to go 20mph, I need to raise my cadence.

hamster

You are focusing on the wrong side of the equation. In order to go 20 mph, you need X sustainable watt. (Where X depends on your exact bike configuration and setup.) If you have heart & lungs to do X sustainable watt, you can do it at 60 rpm or at 90 rpm, it does not make all that much difference. (Most cyclists would find that it's better to do it at 90, because trying to maintain high power at 60 quickly burns out legs and trying to do that repeatedly can hurt knees.)

I understand that you have equipment limitations (48x14 low gear & 26" wheels) and that is something you want to deal with anyway, sooner or later. This subforum is called "road cycling" and that implies a road bike (700c wheels with thin tires and drop bars). You can get one used for 200-300 bucks in a decent shape.

You need to do something about measuring equipment too. Numbers you're quoting are too vague to be useful. Wired bike computers with speed sensors are dirt cheap. Strava smartphone app + some hills would give you a better feel for your estimated power.

mr_pedro

Ah, yes your right, I don't know what I was thinking. I just plotted it in the calculator at: Bicycle Bike Gear Ratio Speed and Cadence Calculator
To do 20 mph in 48x14 with 26" wheels and 1.5" tires you need to be going at a cadence of 68. Okay, problem solved.

Kopsis

Everyone is telling you not to worry about torque because muscle tissue is not uniform. It is a mix of muscle fiber types. On one end of the scale you have Fast Glycolytic (FG) fibers that produce lots of force but fatigue quickly. On the other end you have Slow Oxidative (SO) fibers that produce much less force but can do so repeatedly for long durations. Your weightlifting is relying heavily on FG fibers and that's why you can only do a few reps at max load. Even if you de-load 50% it's doubtful that you'd get more than 50 reps. That's one minute on the bike at 50 RPM. That's why increasing the max force (torque) you can apply isn't going to get you anywhere.

So for any significant distance, we're stuck relying on the SO fibers. Since they have a significantly lower force (torque) output but high fatigue resistance, running at the max RPM maximizes power output. Max RPM is dependent on the nervous system driving the muscles. Above a certain rate, you just can't fire the fibers efficiently due to the limits of the biochemical reactions involved. For a trained cyclist that's typically in the range of 90-100 RPM. Once you get there, then increased power comes from increasing the force output per firing of the SO fibers. That comes from tried and tested cycling training techniques described here and elsewhere.

never_recover

This will probably get lost among all the posts saying you should always be spinning 100 RPM, but riding for hours at 200 W and 100 RPM will do nothing for your ability to sustain 300 W and 100 RPM (principle of specificity). This has been my experience anyway, having tried all training "protocols" that I know of.

So in a sense the OP is right, torque is definitely part of the equation

torque cyclist

yeah the watts are the power that moves you forward. just bringing up torque and rpm as they are the factors of making watts. I actually have a real old (80's) road bike. unfortunately its tires are probably that old too, and is going to need a few once overs. I should be able to get near my speed goals by going to that style bike. reason I have the mtb is that it is very versatile. I can do road cycling or cut through a rutted up field with no worries. hopefully I can get the old bike sitting in my yard on some usable tires.

jsutkeepspining

I don't know, when i ride around in z2 all winter somehow magically i'm pretty fast by the end of winter without any intervals. YMMV, but just riding for this guy will make him faster. He doesn't need intervals yet becuase they would be just as effective as just riding. He's putting out 120-170 watts, it's not like he's at 5.5 w/kg looking to jump to 5.7 w/kg.

op quit worrying about all these details. work on riding more, and spinning more, and trust that the advice of people who are successful in cycling is good.

Germany_chris

just ride yer bike and it doesn't matter what bike. Put the nerd glasses down, turn off Strava and your GPS and ride, run some too it'll help.

squatchy

He obviously doesn't really want to learn anything. He comes back to argue his point over and over. That's the definition of stupid if you ask me. Some people are so stupid they don't even know they are stupid!

Garfield Cat

And maybe get a bike that weighs less than 45 pounds.

torque cyclist

that I make the case that a certain amount of force is needed at a specific rpm to achieve the wattage needed for a given speed? I've read that over long rides that a higher cadence, 90-100 is the way to go as cardio is easier to recover from. That there are different muscle fibers for different tasks. I've seen a lot on here, and am going to try the tips out. it's just the thought of increasing force will equal more power (which is true), but as is said here doing so can limit duration based on how muscles work. I've done alright at around 150w at low rpm for around a few hours which got me thinking.

Garfield, as far as the bike goes I somewhat like the challenge. I have an old road bike that needs some tires and maybe some fixing and I should be good to go. I can ride it now, but am really scared of the tires bursting.

Elvo

Why not just get a power meter and you can derive the torque from rpm and power?

achoo

Oh yes it will.

By raising the amount of power you can generate through aerobic fat metabolism, you not only raise your threshold power, you increase your endurance AND you wind up leaving more glycogen for anaerobic efforts.

Doing intervals at 350W won't do that.

Do 3-4 3+ hour rides a week in z2 during the off season - AND STAY IN Z2. And don't stop pedaling at all.

K.Katso

Seriously, assuming you are not a troll (I'm going out on a limb here) you should probably learn how to eat first. At 5'5" and 195lbs you should be worried about your weight instead of your power output. I'm 4" taller and 55lbs lighter than you. Work on eating better and riding off those excess pounds and the rest will come.

torque cyclist

despite all that, my heart rate and blood pressure is all normal. I mean, even if my weight drops my output doesn't just increase. my power to weight will, but not output. I plan on losing weight, but also getting into weight lifting, if I can find myself a friend willing to lift with me. probably will slim down to maybe 170.

hamster

Cyclists often worry that their heart rate and blood pressure is too low. As in, 100/60 and 45 bpm resting heart rate.

I'm close to your height, I weigh 150 and I consider myself somewhat overweight to be a good cyclist. My ideal cycling weight is 135. It's not that big of a deal on flats, but I am perceptibly too slow on hills compared to other serious locals.

As far as I know, if I were to give up cycling and take up bodybuilding, I can get to 165-170 without steroids by improving my muscle mass and keeping my body fat percentage as low as possible. Anything beyond that means excess fat or steroids.

LMaster

Yea, at 5'5" if you way 170 you are either carrying excess fat or are pretty dang massive (muscle wise) for your size. That's like 5'10" 200 or 6'2" 230. Anybody that is legitimately lean at those weights has a TON of muscle.

I'm a stockier build than your typical distance runner look (but definitely not close to anything someone would mistake for big) and at race lean I am around 135-140 and 3 inches taller than you.

Moral: 170 lbs isn't going to be lean at all for you unless you are absolutely exploding with muscle.