And that's why stationary bikes freak me out. Seeing that move like that while under force, that and the pedalling while going nowhere thing...

"Come on!"

I pretty much approach every hill with an ounce of fear and caution because of this. I have the brake for when I need it but am also working on being able to bring myself to a stop without it when possible. Knowing how fast I can comfortably spin and how to improve that came from wanting to know how to stay in control of the bike during descents, where I feel very much OUT of control right now, especially if things start escalating. To make matters a little more complicated, my bike came with a 50:16 gearing, which makes for some low rpms during most of the riding. I have a 17 tooth cog on order and will start with that - should I also be thinking about a 49 tooth ring to go with that? Or should I just plan my routes to include more open hills to roll down for practice?

What's a picture going to prove? A video is better.


You knew what?

Manskers video shows a sprint at 9-10 seconds. I'm hitting the close to the same cadence over 20-30 seconds (i'm last in the video at 2m20s).

Good job and nice video, but I think that's closer to 180-200RPM then 250. Look at the video of Manksker and create a drum beat of his cadence in your head. Then look at your video.

If you really want, I can use quicktime and do a frame by frame calculation.

Also, you'd be faster if you raised your saddle a lot.

I'd like to see how this spins out with proper saddle position... I'm thinking that things will slow down as those legs will be travelling farther when they are moving with proper range of motion.

In the real world I have got up to 180rpm on descents pushing 82 gear inches and maintained a very smooth cadence and secret for this is not to let the pedals drive your feet but for you to keep driving those pedals with enough power to maintain that cadence and pedal contact as if you back off the ride might get a little bumpy.

I have always run a brake which makes bleeding off speed much easier than trying to resist a crank and drive that has that much kinetic energy and it takes a fairly perfect setup and well developed technique to spin effectively at high rpm.

I always say I spin like a gerbil on crack... now I just do it with a lower gearing.

This is a good thread!

This reminds me of those guys that come in here and try to brag about their high speed based on a Strava reading. That video doesn't offer any evidence of being able to spin 250 rpm. It's just some bros on stationary rollers playing a game. I like to play video games too, but you don't see me passing that **** off as real life.



Also, you can see your speed in the top right corner, you appear to average 82 km/h. Your total time to 500 meters was 21+ seconds, which confirms your average speed. Your max appears to be around 84 km/h. At these speeds, in a reasonable track gearing of around 94 inches your cadence would be around 190-200. In order to hit 250rpm your speed would need to be around 110 km/h. Which we can clearly see, it is not. The gearing would have to be significantly lower for your estimate to be true.

I can post up the math later if you're interested.

Yes, please do that. Using basic math is a lot easier however.

Certainly, that's a given. We don't get to choose our bikes or gearing. You'll notice we are wearing regular tennis shoes and street clothing and are not clipped in. Being several beers in probably doesn't help the speed either.



You guys are hilarious. Why are you so mad?

Perhaps the red time was averaging 82 but i'm in blue. If you look at the video i'm clearly hitting 90's and let up a few seconds before the end.

Go look up the results and look at the fastest times:

I'm hitting 18's over 500m on a 47x15 gear; tell me what the cadence is for that. Yes, and please post the math.

Edit - online calculators:
Calculate speed from time - https://www.machinehead-software.co.u...time_calc.html
Calculate cadence from speed - https://www.bikecalc.com/speed_at_cadence

science

the internet is where real masculinity happens

but the internet is way too big for just one man, thats why we need so many of them

Everyone who is upset, please raise your hand.

According to the segement in the video you referenced; it took you 21.575 seconds to cover 500 meters. In an earlier segment we cannot see your finishing time but I really doubt it was 18 seconds. You just backed the math out with your calculators to give you the number you wanted. Which would be 100 km/h, 18 seconds to cover 500 meters which gives a cadence of 250 rpm. Put your pants out before they catch my couch on fire.

Now back to the segment you referenced; where you stated you were at or over 250 rpm for "20-30" seconds. Here in reality, you finished the 500 meters in 21.575 seconds.

That's 83.43 km/h.

Given a gearing of 47/15 with 23c tires your average cadence would be 211.645 rpm.

It's hard to tell but it looks like you topped out at 90ish km/h. You just didn't have enough of a lead on the other rider who never topped 85 km/h for us to believe you hit 100 km/h.

Anyone who's interested in the math can find a nice summary here:https://www.tariksaleh.com/bike/geartospeed.pdf

Look up the results? It's a roller race, what results?

Did you get UCI points for your sweet performance?

C'mon bro.

we need to have some truce PMs around here

I make a point of not responding to them.

Gets in their head, yo.