Different Spin Rates Causing Problem
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,989
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2493 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times
in
522 Posts
I ran this by da Vinci and received the following response:
"On our tandem, the person pedaling at a slower cadence is not contributing, nor are they robbing power from the other rider. On a traditional tandem, if one person does not keep up, the other rider is pulling there(sic) legs around and being robbed of power. Todd Shusterman"
"On our tandem, the person pedaling at a slower cadence is not contributing, nor are they robbing power from the other rider. On a traditional tandem, if one person does not keep up, the other rider is pulling there(sic) legs around and being robbed of power. Todd Shusterman"
#52
Senior Member
Thread Starter
We have been riding tandems beginning in 1980 and I thought it was this year that we truly clicked in a tandem race. My wife and I are both trackies and race road and track with focus on timed events such as road time trials and pursuit and team events such as team pursuit at the track.....
Thanks so much for this!
We recognized our issues quickly, and got pedal-based power meters. My wife is very much interested in contributing, and the power meters have been a very useful tool for her to see what I'm doing vs. what she's doing when we're on the tandem, and it especially has been enlightening for her to see that she really doesn't work hard on a bike (as a default). So she's really stepped up her game! She rides her single to work and back a couple of times each week during the good weather/long daylight part of the year (about 13 miles each way, with significant climbing), and she now has an objective metric to work with; it's really helped.
I'm confident that we'll figure this out in time, but the help is much-appreciated!
Mark
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,989
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2493 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times
in
522 Posts
Thanks so much for this!
We recognized our issues quickly, and got pedal-based power meters. My wife is very much interested in contributing, and the power meters have been a very useful tool for her to see what I'm doing vs. what she's doing when we're on the tandem, and it especially has been enlightening for her to see that she really doesn't work hard on a bike (as a default).
We recognized our issues quickly, and got pedal-based power meters. My wife is very much interested in contributing, and the power meters have been a very useful tool for her to see what I'm doing vs. what she's doing when we're on the tandem, and it especially has been enlightening for her to see that she really doesn't work hard on a bike (as a default).
#54
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Well alrighty then. I guess we'll see, won't we. Do you mind terribly if some of us take some side action as to how long before that nice rig of yours goes on consignment? Was that mean? I mean ... dude ... you are textbook. OMG. Feel free to ignore me (if I isn't already).
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 741
Bikes: Cannondale tandems: '92 Road, '97 Mtn. Mongoose 10.9 Ti, Kelly Deluxe, Tommaso Chorus, Cdale MT2000, Schwinn Deluxe Cruiser, Torker Unicycle, among others.
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 279 Post(s)
Liked 205 Times
in
129 Posts
But just because YOU feel that way doesn't mean you should impose your preferences on someone else. And I'm not even the person in question with the issue. Barking up the wrong tree. Plus, your reply does absolutely nothing to address my analogy. I'm sure my friend would love to receive a lecture from you about how crank length is irrelevant and his injury must have been imagined.
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,989
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2493 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times
in
522 Posts
But just because YOU feel that way doesn't mean you should impose your preferences on someone else. And I'm not even the person in question with the issue. Barking up the wrong tree. Plus, your reply does absolutely nothing to address my analogy. I'm sure my friend would love to receive a lecture from you about how crank length is irrelevant and his injury must have been imagined.
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Simple question: My wife is 5'4" tall, with proportional legs. She has a 175 crank on her single bike, and a 170 crank on the tandem.
Would replacing the 170 on the tandem, with something shorter, perhaps help her spin faster (and perhaps help with limiting body movement when pedaling fast)?
Would replacing the 170 on the tandem, with something shorter, perhaps help her spin faster (and perhaps help with limiting body movement when pedaling fast)?
#58
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 39 Times
in
32 Posts
Leisesturm, I agree with you that da Vinci confirms your assessment, and also adds a factor.
So, now I have some questions for you and others about IPS versus traditional tandems.
Let's start with my da Vinci.
If captain (C) and stoker (S) pedal at different rates, then the total power = 100% of the rider spinning faster, right?
If C and S spin in sync, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
Do the C & S have to be perfectly in sync to combine power or just close to the same rate?
Now, let's go to a traditional tandem, like the Trek T900 we both have.
If C and stoker pedal at different rates (with C faster), then the total power = 100% C - some factor for C pulling Ss pedals + 100% S?
If C and S spin at equal rates/power, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
I am finding this thread educational.
So, now I have some questions for you and others about IPS versus traditional tandems.
Let's start with my da Vinci.
If captain (C) and stoker (S) pedal at different rates, then the total power = 100% of the rider spinning faster, right?
If C and S spin in sync, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
Do the C & S have to be perfectly in sync to combine power or just close to the same rate?
Now, let's go to a traditional tandem, like the Trek T900 we both have.
If C and stoker pedal at different rates (with C faster), then the total power = 100% C - some factor for C pulling Ss pedals + 100% S?
If C and S spin at equal rates/power, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
I am finding this thread educational.
I never implied anything different from that. I feel like DaVinci agrees with my assessment actually. My post was more to inform the other poster that IPS is not limited only to hybrid tandems with the cranksets far apart and can (and is) used successfully on regular tandems.
#59
Senior Member
Simple question: My wife is 5'4" tall, with proportional legs. She has a 175 crank on her single bike, and a 170 crank on the tandem.
Would replacing the 170 on the tandem, with something shorter, perhaps help her spin faster (and perhaps help with limiting body movement when pedaling fast)?
Would replacing the 170 on the tandem, with something shorter, perhaps help her spin faster (and perhaps help with limiting body movement when pedaling fast)?
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Leisesturm, I agree with you that da Vinci confirms your assessment, and also adds a factor.
So, now I have some questions for you and others about IPS versus traditional tandems.
Let's start with my da Vinci.
If captain (C) and stoker (S) pedal at different rates, then the total power = 100% of the rider spinning faster, right?
If C and S spin in sync, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
Do the C & S have to be perfectly in sync to combine power or just close to the same rate?
So, now I have some questions for you and others about IPS versus traditional tandems.
Let's start with my da Vinci.
If captain (C) and stoker (S) pedal at different rates, then the total power = 100% of the rider spinning faster, right?
If C and S spin in sync, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
Do the C & S have to be perfectly in sync to combine power or just close to the same rate?
When pedaling normally, i.e. each pushing against a resisting force, the two riders will always be in perfect sync.
Now, let's go to a traditional tandem, like the Trek T900 we both have.
If C and stoker pedal at different rates (with C faster), then the total power = 100% C - some factor for C pulling Ss pedals + 100% S?
If C and S spin at equal rates/power, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
I am finding this thread educational.
If C and stoker pedal at different rates (with C faster), then the total power = 100% C - some factor for C pulling Ss pedals + 100% S?
If C and S spin at equal rates/power, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
I am finding this thread educational.
#61
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Based on my experience both with varying crank lengths on my singles and with various crank combinations on our tandem my answer is definitely Yes to both questions. It's inherently easier to spin high RPMs when the pedals are going around in a smaller circle and therefore slower than in a larger circle (i.e. longer cranks). And if your wife is struggling to keep up a cadence that is unnaturally high for her it could certainly be resulting in extra side-to-side body movement. Switching to a 150mm crank should make your higher cadence feel more natural to her and allow her to contribute more power instead of struggling just to keep up with the current fast pedal motion.
Cadence: Sure we all have a favorite cadence range. OTOH, it's not always possible. We're not a strong team but we ride in the mountains anyway. We have been down in the 50-60 cadence range on some steep roads. We were still putting down power? You betcha, we were both about 10 beats over LTHR, probably putting down more power than we could have at 85. Cadence is simply not as important as people think it is. Higher cadence contributes to endurance but not necessarily in a single ride, more a stage race concept. It's mostly what one is used to and one can get used to most anything. Before I knew better, I rode fast centuries at below 60. See:
Crank length: See the above argument. I'm a short legged 5'6". A fitter would probably suggest 160-165 cranks. I've ridden 170 cranks forever (almost) and have 175s on our tandem. I spin them both at 95 with no problem, though I prefer to climb in the mid 80's with both lengths. There is a simple fact mentioned in the above video: the higher the cadence, the larger proportion of aerobic energy is used just moving the legs. That's not so critical for well trained riders with a high VO2max, but it is critical for those "lesser" riders among us. You can't force a high leg speed on someone with limited aerobic ability and expect a lot of power in the pedals. That's a scientific fact.
Training, pedaling ability, and body movement: Everything is trainable, even VO2max to a small degree. Leg motion is very trainable, though it takes years. Body motion has little to do with crank length and everything to do with pedaling style. I watch my shadow and have no upper body motion either on my single or tandem. The object of the pedaling game is to provide a constant torque on the bottom bracket. Said torque is the sum of the torque of both cranks, so when one crank is in its weak spot, the other is in a strong spot. On the rollers, this produces the characteristic steady whhhrrr. The effect of all this is that all pedaling forces originate in the legs. They don't travel into the upper body except under extreme effort. It's fairly easy to train someone to pedal with no upper body motion at all, using a mirror for biofeedback. Besides that, good trainer drills are pedaling steadily for 15'-45' at a cadence just a hair below bouncing or 115-120, whichever comes first. Another drill is 2 minute one-legged pedaling drills - one leg, then the other, then both legs together, repeat until legs don't work anymore. Another drill mentioned above is 3 reps of 10' hill work in a big gear at 50-55 cadence with no upper body movement at all.
Besides training both captain and stoker to be able to pedal well at various cadences, when it's all said and done, in this situation the captain is just going to have to train to produce the same power while riding at a lower cadence. It's not that hard. Probably involves some stomp and sprint intervals, low cadence work, maybe some gym work. Take @Hermes at his word. it's going to take work, patience, and time. There's no mechanical fix, only training and patience. Forget the mechanical fix.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
I agree with your first line above. Since you can't expect a high leg speed from the OPs stoker you should give her shorter cranks to reduce her leg speed when the OP is wanting to pedal at a higher cadence. That is a 'mechanical fix' that works for many people to adapt when they have a different preferred cadence. I don't notice much difference either when switching between 170mm and 175mm cranks, but when I ride with 165mm or shorter cranks I definitely prefer a higher cadence and correspondingly lower gears for a given riding speed. Given the large difference the OP reports between him and his stoker there should be a very substantial reduction in her crank length to get her leg speed down to an acceptable rate so she can contribute her share of the power.
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,989
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2493 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times
in
522 Posts
I agree with your first line above. Since you can't expect a high leg speed from the OPs stoker you should give her shorter cranks to reduce her leg speed when the OP is wanting to pedal at a higher cadence. That is a 'mechanical fix' that works for many people to adapt when they have a different preferred cadence. I don't notice much difference either when switching between 170mm and 175mm cranks, but when I ride with 165mm or shorter cranks I definitely prefer a higher cadence and correspondingly lower gears for a given riding speed. Given the large difference the OP reports between him and his stoker there should be a very substantial reduction in her crank length to get her leg speed down to an acceptable rate so she can contribute her share of the power.
#64
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Maryland
Posts: 54
Bikes: DaVinci Joint Venture Ti S&S, DaVinci Symbiosis 27.5", Trek Emonda SLR 7, Motobecane Century Ti ETap AXS, Motobecane Fantom Ti hardtail, Diamondback Haanjo Carbon, Motobecane Fantom 4x4 29'er, SE F@R fatbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Leisesturm, I agree with you that da Vinci confirms your assessment, and also adds a factor.
So, now I have some questions for you and others about IPS versus traditional tandems.
Let's start with my da Vinci.
If captain (C) and stoker (S) pedal at different rates, then the total power = 100% of the rider spinning faster, right?
If C and S spin in sync, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
Do the C & S have to be perfectly in sync to combine power or just close to the same rate?
Now, let's go to a traditional tandem, like the Trek T900 we both have.
If C and stoker pedal at different rates (with C faster), then the total power = 100% C - some factor for C pulling Ss pedals + 100% S?
If C and S spin at equal rates/power, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
I am finding this thread educational.
So, now I have some questions for you and others about IPS versus traditional tandems.
Let's start with my da Vinci.
If captain (C) and stoker (S) pedal at different rates, then the total power = 100% of the rider spinning faster, right?
If C and S spin in sync, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
Do the C & S have to be perfectly in sync to combine power or just close to the same rate?
Now, let's go to a traditional tandem, like the Trek T900 we both have.
If C and stoker pedal at different rates (with C faster), then the total power = 100% C - some factor for C pulling Ss pedals + 100% S?
If C and S spin at equal rates/power, then is the total power 100% C + 100% S?
I am finding this thread educational.
Having four DaVinci's in the basement at the moment (but trying to reduce that to 3... check tandemclassifieds.com if you want one!) I have some experience with the DaVinci drivetrain including using various crank lengths on different bikes. On our new road tandem we tried 160mm rear cranks - not for cadence reasons but for fit reasons. At 5'00" my wife has short legs and the difference between 165mm and 160mm was very apparent to her. It reduces the amount her leg has to bend at the top when the saddle height is set correctly for the leg extension at the bottom. The shorter the legs, the more a small change in the diameter of the circle being pedaled matters. I'm sure a 5mm change would not make nearly as big a difference to me with much longer legs and 175mm cranks.
But as for the spin and power. With a few exceptions already noted (Counterpoint, etc) the riders can't spin at different rates on a traditional tandem and can't deliver power to the drivetrain at different rates on a DaVinci. So on most tandems either the stoker is able to put power down at the current cadence (contributing), just able to keep up with the motion but not able to put any power down (neutral), or actually being pulled along by the captain (negative input). But in all cases the riders are turning the same cadence.
On a DaVinci only the third scenario changes. You can have the stoker providing power (contributing), just able to spin but not putting any power in (neutral), or not able to keep up (still neutral, but the phase of the pedals will constantly change and you'll hear the left freewheel clicking). I'm a bit surprised how rare it is for one of us to pull the pedals even a single click ahead. When it does happen it usually means we're spinning above 100 rpm and one of us is tired.
I love the DaVinci drivetrain, but i don't think it does any more to solve this issue than a traditional drivetrain set out of phase. It is easier to experiment with different out-of-phase options, but on the other hand it is probably pretty tricky to reliably get the exact same out-of-phase position of the cranks. I suppose it is something the team could learn with practice, but if you prefer to be out of phase all the time a regular drivetrain (or a locked-down DaVinci) would work better.
#65
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
I agree with your first line above. Since you can't expect a high leg speed from the OPs stoker you should give her shorter cranks to reduce her leg speed when the OP is wanting to pedal at a higher cadence. That is a 'mechanical fix' that works for many people to adapt when they have a different preferred cadence. I don't notice much difference either when switching between 170mm and 175mm cranks, but when I ride with 165mm or shorter cranks I definitely prefer a higher cadence and correspondingly lower gears for a given riding speed. Given the large difference the OP reports between him and his stoker there should be a very substantial reduction in her crank length to get her leg speed down to an acceptable rate so she can contribute her share of the power.
The fact that generations of cyclists of various sizes have "made do" with the same stock 170 cranks with no complaints rather argues for adaptation being the important thing rather than a particular mechanics.
For a much more extensive, better reasoned, and more experienced discussion of crank length vs. leg length vs. power, etc. than I can give, see Steve Hoggs: https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...gth-which-one/
Warning: the good stuff is near the bottom of this long article, so read all the way down and the comments.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
Last edited by Carbonfiberboy; 07-13-18 at 11:40 AM.
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,952
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix, Canyon Inflite AL SLX, Ibis Ripley AF, Priority Continuum Onyx, Santana Vision, Kent Dual-Drive Tandem
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked 726 Times
in
436 Posts
#67
Banned
OK but that's the idea need a lot more moving parts in the drive train
to actually have the stoker pedalling at a different cadence...
probably have to get the frame fabricated around that.
counterpoint was a stoker recumbent in front captain steering in a diamond upright in back
those likely had a countershaft and that input rate different from the final drive..
....
to actually have the stoker pedalling at a different cadence...
probably have to get the frame fabricated around that.
counterpoint was a stoker recumbent in front captain steering in a diamond upright in back
those likely had a countershaft and that input rate different from the final drive..
....
Last edited by fietsbob; 07-13-18 at 01:19 PM.
#68
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#69
Uber Goober
One point of confusion on the da Vinci drivetrain- the riders (if pedaling normally) are both pedaling at exactly the same cadence, but not necessarily in sync in the sense that both have the right foot up at the same time- so it can look funny if you're not use to seeing it. I've run across a number of people who confused independent coasting with independent shifting, tho.
Always reminds me of this:
Always reminds me of this:
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
#70
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 39 Times
in
32 Posts
We get funny looks on our da Vinci when we reach the turn around point of our ride on the river levee. I take a break and stand on my pedals (without pedaling) for a bit while the stoker pedals.
[QUOTE=StephenH;20446100]One point of confusion on the da Vinci drivetrain- the riders (if pedaling normally) are both pedaling at exactly the same cadence, but not necessarily in sync in the sense that both have the right foot up at the same time- so it can look funny if you're not use to seeing it.
[QUOTE=StephenH;20446100]One point of confusion on the da Vinci drivetrain- the riders (if pedaling normally) are both pedaling at exactly the same cadence, but not necessarily in sync in the sense that both have the right foot up at the same time- so it can look funny if you're not use to seeing it.
#71
Uber Goober
You know, another possibility- put the shifters on the stoker's handlebars and brakes on the captain's handlebars.
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
#72
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Fall City, WA
Posts: 11
Bikes: Rodriguez Adventure Touring, Rodriguez Tandem, Trek Mtn Bike
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As is the case with many of you, my stoker has a significantly lower cadence than I do. It is especailly an issue when we are climbing - either we are spinning way too fast for her to feel like she is contributing or we are in a higher gear and I feel like I’m struggling. Over the years it has been a better adjustment for us to spin a cadence maybe a tad faster than she is comfortable with and for me to do the majority of the adapting.
#73
Senior Member
Thread Starter
As long as this has been resuscitated, I'll bring you all up to date on our progress.
We're doing fine. For anything at 2% grade or less, there's really no problem. We're still working on steep hills; when we find ourselves on a double-digit incline, where I have to give it my all, it can be tough for us.
But we're getting there!
We're doing fine. For anything at 2% grade or less, there's really no problem. We're still working on steep hills; when we find ourselves on a double-digit incline, where I have to give it my all, it can be tough for us.
But we're getting there!
#74
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,498
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7345 Post(s)
Liked 2,452 Times
in
1,430 Posts
@WrenchSpinnr, thanks for confirming that my theory is the way to go. That's pretty much what we do now. I have to bear it in mind. Glad you've made progress, @124Spider.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.