What have you found to be "cycling myths"?
 

Pedaling in circles maybe?
Ran across this old post from RChung, very interesting and he is very wise.
What are your thoughts?


The question is simple. In fact, the answer is pretty simple, too: to go faster, longer, you need to increase the ratio of your power to the various sources of drag that're slowing you down. The reason why people can make a living at coaching shows that although the answer is simple, the path to attaining it isn't. And, as you can see from this thread, taking answers from random people on random internet fora is a crap shoot. Pedaling motion (i.e., the "smoothness" you referred to in your original subject heading) doesn't appear to be part of that path. Studies of elite cyclists show that they don't pedal any "smoother" or "rounder" than average cyclists. Pedaling circles in order to go faster is a red herring (the exception may be for MTBers, who appear to have the most even pedal force application, presumably because they ride on the sketchiest surfaces).

So, to get back to the simple answer, you need to improve your power/drag ratio. Good coaches (and sometimes good books and sometimes, though more rarely, random people on random internet fora who happen to be knowledgeable) know that cadence and pedal motion drills aren't a particularly good way to spend your time if what you're trying to do is increase your power.

[Edit:] Alex Simmons, a pretty good coach and a guy who posts to many internet fora (though perhaps not this one?), used to be a pretty fair racer, with lots of data on his own power and training. Then about 3 years ago he lost his lower left leg after an accident. Not only does he have more than a little L-R imbalance, there's no possible way for him to pedal "circles" or to "scrape mud off the bottom of his shoe" -- his prosthetic won't allow it. He'd yank his stump right out and leave the damn lower leg hanging on the pedal. All he can do is stomp, and stomp hard. Earlier this year he reported that he'd finally matched and exceeded his pre-accident FTP. I bring this up not just because it's an inspiring story, though it is. I bring it up because it's also consistent with the theory, data, and research on pedaling motion. Elite riders don't have smoother pedal motions than those of us who are non-elite. As riders improve their power, they freely choose to increase both their cadence and torque. There is no evidence that exogenously increasing either cadence or torque is a shortcut to improved power. There is no "lost" power to be found by smoothing out your pedal stroke. So the bottom line is, just focus on improving your power and reducing the various sources of drag that slow you down. Everything else is a red herring.

Myth: Carbon is safe

Myth: Carbon asplodes

Myrh: cycling shorts affect comfort on the saddle.

Shorts are better than bibs:rolleyes:

Bibs are better than shorts.

Heavier riders descend faster

i would modify Greg Lemond's "It never gets easier, you just go faster", to (for the rest of us) "it can get easier AND faster, if you allow it to".

Why would this be a myth? Descents turn the weight into an asset, and the bigger leg muscles heavier riders tend to develop on flats and especially climbing pay their biggest dividends on descents.

Half of what I read about cycling is some sort of myth. I'd start with fit: knee over pedal spindle is the optimal position.

Do a little research and you'll see.

I feel like this advice has matured and changed to be that KOPS is the best starting point from which to fine tune saddle position. After all, if not KOPS as a starting point, then what? That is hard to argue with. You don't hear too many folks saying KOPS is IT anymore.

That there is even the slightest trace of useful information on the 41

you mean somebody actually believed that there was?

Shirley, you jest.

Cycling myths - here's a great one - cycling is healthy until you get hit by a car while cycling!!!!!

Are you talking not pedaling? I consistently go down hill faster than smaller riders. I close the gap fast enough that I have to drag the brake to stay behind them or I just zip right by.

Myth: High internet forum post counts and multiple replies in every single thread make you more knowledgeable than others.

This was discussed on here a while back and consensus agreed with Chung's article and yes the man with the prosthetic leg who matched his FTP after his accident is an inspiration. Pedaling technique aka circles, scrapping mud off the bottom of shoes etc having any influence on power output is indeed a myth.

Other notable cycling myths since you asked include:
- Aero bikes are faster
- You can buy game
- PCad is brilliant
- That guy doesn't exist
- Riding behind a hot girl isn't fun
- Many on the 41 know anything about bike tech, especially bottom brackets.
- Many who posted in the that guy thread aren't that guy.

Cycling is a healthy, safe sport.

i've got a good one, but i'm on a strict post-count and arrogance diet, so i'm keeping it to myself.

Having done a little research, I assume your contention is based on the fact that acceleration due to gravity is constant irrespective of mass, yes?

While that's true, it doesn't take into account the two things that make heavier riders faster on descents.

1) Inertia is proportional to mass, while air resistance is proportional to surface area. As heavier riders have significantly more mass, but only comparatively little more surface area, this means they will be slowed less by drag than lighter riders as the air resistance will be acting against greater inertia.

2) Heavier riders tend to develop larger leg muscles and higher burst power output capabilities compared to a similarly skilled lighter rider due to the much higher power output needed for climbing. On descents the weight of those muscles becomes an asset due to inertia, while the power output no longer has to act against the much higher rolling resistance it does when climbing.

My own practical experiences mirror this as well. At 270lbs, I tend to be in the bottom 25% on Strava segments with any positive grade while I tend to be in the top 25% on Strava segments with any negative grade, with the effects of climbing vs descending increased the greater the average positive/negative grade of the segment.

Getting hit by a car or truck is healthy only if you were riding a bike when it happened... and were wearing a helmet.

Besides what you wrote, while acceleration in a vacuum is independent of mass, the force puling a falling object is not. It is that force which is partially offset by the wind resistance when cycling downhill. If you subtract the wind resistance force from the gravitational force and divide by the mass, you have the net acceleration on the bicycle which is less than G. But the higher the mass of the bicycle/rider, the higher the net acceleration assuming that surface area has indeed not increased proportionately.

Despite all this the presumption of faster descents by massier folks could still be wrong. I would be interested in hearing more from BoSoxYacht about this rather than just his cryptic, "Do a little research and you'll see".

Myth. A faster ride is a better ride.

Great idea for a thread. Too bad it went ad hominem so quickly.

I'm trying to think of advice I've received here that was just flat wrong.