Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

Training on heavy bike

Notices
Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

Training on heavy bike

Old 09-03-11, 03:00 PM
  #1  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Cammykinnis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 18

Bikes: 2010 Scott Speedster S30

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Training on heavy bike

Is it advantageous to train on a heavier bike and race on a light bike? I think it makes sense that the heavier the bike, the more force you have to put into it to move it. Switching to a lighter bike, you could pedal with the same force at a greater speed or something like that. Thoughts?
Cammykinnis is offline  
Old 09-03-11, 04:01 PM
  #2  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
No, not really. The issue for training is not how fast the bike moves, but how much power you generate. You can train just as hard on a light bike as a heavy one, you just go faster for the same power output. And your maximum power, functional threshold etc. don't change because you get on a different bike. Or to put it another way, if you train at 400watts on a light bike you are working just as hard as if you train at 400 watts on a heavy one.

There is certainly a difference in feel. If you ride a heavy bike for a while, you feel as if you're flying when you go back to the light one. But that's just in your head, it doesn't mean that training on the heavier bike has given you any physical adaptations that you wouldn't have got otherwise.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 09-03-11, 04:54 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
^^^What he said. Better to train on the bike you're planning to race. It won't hurt to use a heavy bike but it won't help either.
gregf83 is offline  
Old 09-03-11, 05:21 PM
  #4  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Cammykinnis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 18

Bikes: 2010 Scott Speedster S30

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ah right. That makes sense. Thanks a lot!
Cammykinnis is offline  
Old 09-03-11, 08:17 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It is better to train on what you enjoy the most so you will ride more. If you get a heavy bike and it is frustrating or boring you wont ride as much. Also if the fit is different you will get use to that a little more than your fast bike.
Christobevii3 is offline  
Old 09-14-11, 04:59 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Garfield Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 7,079

Bikes: Cervelo Prodigy

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 87 Times in 67 Posts
Training in higher elevation is what the riders do. I was told that once you get above 7,000 feet elevation, then you feel the extra effort due to the thin air.
Garfield Cat is offline  
Old 09-14-11, 06:04 PM
  #7  
some guy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Posts: 166

Bikes: yes sure do

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Garfield Cat
Training in higher elevation is what the riders do. I was told that once you get above 7,000 feet elevation, then you feel the extra effort due to the thin air.
I went to Mount Evans this summer ( 14 000 feet ) and you get light-headed WALKING! And some dudes were biking up the mountain and hanging out on top. DAYUM
poxpower is offline  
Old 09-14-11, 08:19 PM
  #8  
Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I would think it is, I always thought it would be better, and I still think it is. However, on a weekly bike site that sends out a variety of articles written by experts, they said riding a heavier bike doesn't get you stronger. I still don't know why.
Lawrence08648 is offline  
Old 09-15-11, 09:29 AM
  #9  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
I ride our tandem with my much lower wattage wife. From our climbing rate in the mountains I was able to calculate our combined wattage and thus my share of the work, because I know my climbing rate on my single on those same roads. For me, it's the same as riding a very aerodynamic single bike weighing 114 lbs. We ride our tandem a lot, in fact I almost never ride my singles any more. So this illustrates your question very well.

The answer is that it changes your strengths, but doesn't make you faster. On my singles, I'm about the same speed on flat and climbs as I was before we started doing all this tandeming. However now I have a tendency to spend a lot more time out of the saddle on my single, especially on shorter climbs. In the gym, I use about the same weights for squats and leg sled that I did before, so my legs are not technically any stronger. However they do respond better to short efforts requiring strength. This difference is so small that I don't think you'd get much out of a 40 lb. bike. But riding a fully loaded tourer in the mountains at lactate threshold might cause some adaptations. Whether those adaptations would help or hinder you would depend on what you are trying to do and your personal physiology.

Gearing on a heavy bike is very important for creating adaptations that might transfer to a lighter bike, because cadence must remain the same as it is on your light bike. We run a 26 X 34 granny on the tandem. For example, training on a single speed bike does not increase one's speed on a geared bike more than doing the same training on a geared bike.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 09-16-11, 08:32 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by Lawrence08648
I would think it is, I always thought it would be better, and I still think it is. However, on a weekly bike site that sends out a variety of articles written by experts, they said riding a heavier bike doesn't get you stronger. I still don't know why.
Because, unlike when you are lifting weights, on a bike you have gears that can be adjusted to find a comfortable cadence. If you use a heavier bike you will just adjust the gears and your cadence for a given set of conditions and end up putting out the same power as you would on a lighter bike but at a slower speed.

The notion that a heavier bike somehow puts a greater load on the cyclist is false. If it were true, you could achieve the same effect on a lighter bike by shifting up one gear and maintaining the same cadence.
gregf83 is offline  
Old 09-16-11, 10:29 AM
  #11  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83
Because, unlike when you are lifting weights, on a bike you have gears that can be adjusted to find a comfortable cadence. If you use a heavier bike you will just adjust the gears and your cadence for a given set of conditions and end up putting out the same power as you would on a lighter bike but at a slower speed.

The notion that a heavier bike somehow puts a greater load on the cyclist is false. If it were true, you could achieve the same effect on a lighter bike by shifting up one gear and maintaining the same cadence.
There is a difference, however. A light bike "gets out of the way" of a strong pedal stroke. It accelerates as the pedal force peaks, so that the peak force duration is relatively short. A very heavy bike, however, does not accelerate away from the pedal at the same cadence, so the high force duration lasts longer.

When I first started tandeming, my legs hurt like the very devil after 30 miles, and I was accustomed to riding doubles and 400s in the mountains on my carbon single. The hills also last a lot longer and the descents are shorter. My tandem cadence is usually the same as my single cadence, BTW, so it's not that. Now I can ride centuries on the tandem, which is hard because the duration is longer than on my single and I still spend more time in Z4 than on my single, but my legs have adapted.

It's hard for me to tell if this has resulted in an improvement on my single because I'm now 66 instead of 63 when I started tandeming and yearly power drop-off has gotten faster since I've cleared 60. My guess is that it's a wash, though friends tell me that my short attacks are pretty convincing. It would be interesting for a younger person to experiment with this. Do hilly group rides on a 100 lb. bike, backing off your competitors one level.

I have a couple of champion ultra racer friends who, in their younger days, would come out to the group rides pulling a large dog in a kiddie trailer. They would still drop us on the hills, and we weren't that slow, most of us finishing RAMROD in the first 100. It was pretty funny, average duffers compared to the real deal. I don't know if they got anything out of that other than being able to ride with us and still have fun.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 09-16-11, 11:19 AM
  #12  
OM boy
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,340

Bikes: a bunch

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 502 Post(s)
Liked 623 Times in 425 Posts
I ride my Marin Treviso (neuron steel) with a bit heavier wheelset and heavier training rubber on my weekday rides (except hillclimb day). It weighs in at 19.75 lbs.
I ride my sworks tarmac on the weekends - not really super light - 18.2 lbs, but better wheels and rubber.
I do ride a higher gear and faster on the tarmac, and it feels great after being on Old Iron all week.
Why not ride the tarmac all the time?
Good tires ain;t cheap, good wheels ain;t cheap.
I'd rather not trash wheels and tires when I bump around by my lonesome...
When I ride with the younger guyz, the tarmac comes out cause I need all the help I can get.
I ride an alu frame Marin w/ Forte Titans on Hillclimb Tue. cause my sweat eats thru anything else... and I sweat buckets on hillclimb tue.
Titans are heavy, but they freighttrain on the descent - and that's what I'm about...
cyclezen is offline  
Old 09-16-11, 01:03 PM
  #13  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
There is a difference, however. A light bike "gets out of the way" of a strong pedal stroke. It accelerates as the pedal force peaks, so that the peak force duration is relatively short. A very heavy bike, however, does not accelerate away from the pedal at the same cadence, so the high force duration lasts longer.
Sorry, not convinced. The "peak force duration" is by definition merely a function of your cadence, not of the weight of your bike. If I pedal at 100 rpm on a road bike my "peak force duration" is exactly the same as if I pedal at 100 rpm on my tourer with 50lbs of gear.

Your argument holds water only if you are reducing your cadence in response to the weight of the bike and thus turning the ride into more of a strength workout than an aerobic workout. This is quite likely, but you could achieve the same effect by simply moving up a few gears on the road bike.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 09-16-11, 03:27 PM
  #14  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by chasm54
Sorry, not convinced. The "peak force duration" is by definition merely a function of your cadence, not of the weight of your bike. If I pedal at 100 rpm on a road bike my "peak force duration" is exactly the same as if I pedal at 100 rpm on my tourer with 50lbs of gear.

Your argument holds water only if you are reducing your cadence in response to the weight of the bike and thus turning the ride into more of a strength workout than an aerobic workout. This is quite likely, but you could achieve the same effect by simply moving up a few gears on the road bike.
As I said, I pedal the same cadence (75-95 depending on terrain) on the tandem that I use on my single. You might give it a try - bring your tourer's weight up to about 120 lbs., ride with your group and report back. The tourists that we've ridden with seldom really go.

Think about this: so you're on the flat hanging on the back of your paceline on your 120 lb. tourer at 22 mph, riding your normal 95 cadence. Your paceline goes up a little incline, and because you're already pretty stressed from holding 22 on your tourer, you go a little off the back. So you have to get back on, except that you're accelerating 100 lbs. more than you are used to. The sensation of pedaling is completely different. F=MA, right? If we push M way up, and only cut A a little, F has to increase. Except F can't increase because you're already hammering on the pedals, so the only thing to increase is the dwell time of F. Does that make sense? So maybe it's 28 mph for you, but the idea is the same. That's the sensation, anyway.

It's the same on hills. Every little change in incline and I'm foxed by the acceleration problem. Steady-state sitting is about the same, but standing is way different, because on a racing single it leaps forward every pedal downstroke, but not so much on the 120 lb. bike. If this were not true, there wouldn't be special light climbing wheels.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 09-16-11, 09:06 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
There is a difference, however. A light bike "gets out of the way" of a strong pedal stroke. It accelerates as the pedal force peaks, so that the peak force duration is relatively short. A very heavy bike, however, does not accelerate away from the pedal at the same cadence, so the high force duration lasts longer.
If you shift up a gear or two on your lighter bike it would feel much closer to the heavier bike.

When I first started tandeming, my legs hurt like the very devil after 30 miles, and I was accustomed to riding doubles and 400s in the mountains on my carbon single. The hills also last a lot longer and the descents are shorter. My tandem cadence is usually the same as my single cadence, BTW, so it's not that.
You were likely just putting out more power and working harder on the tandem. It's somewhat like riding in a group. It's natural to ride a little harder and put out more power when you're on the front pulling.

It would be interesting for a younger person to experiment with this. Do hilly group rides on a 100 lb. bike, backing off your competitors one level.

I have a couple of champion ultra racer friends who, in their younger days, would come out to the group rides pulling a large dog in a kiddie trailer. They would still drop us on the hills, and we weren't that slow, most of us finishing RAMROD in the first 100. It was pretty funny, average duffers compared to the real deal. I don't know if they got anything out of that other than being able to ride with us and still have fun.
Using a heavier bike in a group with slower riders would allow you to get a better workout than a light bike. Or just put on some fenders and wear baggy clothes.
gregf83 is offline  
Old 09-17-11, 12:26 AM
  #16  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83
If you shift up a gear or two on your lighter bike it would feel much closer to the heavier bike.

You were likely just putting out more power and working harder on the tandem. It's somewhat like riding in a group. It's natural to ride a little harder and put out more power when you're on the front pulling.

Using a heavier bike in a group with slower riders would allow you to get a better workout than a light bike. Or just put on some fenders and wear baggy clothes.
I've been keeping track of my time-in-zone and TRIMPS for 10 years or so. Not that different on tandem than on single. On some rides, a little more tough time-in-zone on the tandem because of the longer time on the same hills, but there's also a tendency to back off the intensity on the long climbs for the same reason. Have done a long group ride every week with the same folks for about 13 years. Went from hanging off the back to leading and then back to hanging off the back on the tandem now. So I don't know really, but it is different riding a single now. One would have to experience it and do some testing. I did that one winter with a SS/FG ride series where we rode every steep hill in the area. But NG trying that with this because I'm too old to get a result. It seems to take time for these sorts of adaptations. Took me 3 years and I probably have another couple years of adaptation to go before I'm done. It's also possible that one wouldn't get the adaptation if one went back and forth between light and very heavy bikes. I don't have the answers, just a result that it is different. Most of my captain buddies have noticed the same thing. They call it "tandem power."
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 09-17-11, 08:09 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
OldsCOOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: northern michigan
Posts: 13,317

Bikes: '77 Colnago Super, '76 Fuji The Finest, '88 Cannondale Criterium, '86 Trek 760, '87 Miyata 712

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times in 313 Posts
Originally Posted by chasm54
No, not really. The issue for training is not how fast the bike moves, but how much power you generate. You can train just as hard on a light bike as a heavy one, you just go faster for the same power output. And your maximum power, functional threshold etc. don't change because you get on a different bike. Or to put it another way, if you train at 400watts on a light bike you are working just as hard as if you train at 400 watts on a heavy one.

There is certainly a difference in feel. If you ride a heavy bike for a while, you feel as if you're flying when you go back to the light one. But that's just in your head, it doesn't mean that training on the heavier bike has given you any physical adaptations that you wouldn't have got otherwise.
There is definately a degree of resistance that adds into this though I'm not wanting to train on my 32lb mountain bike to get what's needed. To rule out any benefit of putting a heavy bike into one day per week would be an inadequate assessment. How it applies to the lighter road bike usage is dependant on the user as is the significance of such training.

My serious bike is the Trek in my sig line, the fun bike is the Moto. After riding a century last month I laid off the Trek for a week and just did more casual, shorter distance rides (but did generate some speed). When I grabbed the Trek it was bliss.

I'd train with what I'd be riding competively or what you are training for. Another bike is fun but it really isnt serious training.
OldsCOOL is offline  
Old 09-17-11, 09:33 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,009

Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 43 Times in 34 Posts
i think there could be a benefit to training when using heavy equipment that supports better overall training session.

for example, using heavier tires to reduce the frequency of flats

using a backpack or camel back to carry higher quality recovery fluid or food.

but as others suggest - training and reproducing race conditions and equipment is very important for learning about the "feel" of your bike on race day.
Richard Cranium is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 12:33 PM
  #19  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Carbonfibreboy, I understand what you are saying. I tour regularly, sometimes quite heavily loaded. My expedition tourer weighs about 36lbs and on my last long tour I hauled about 50lbs of gear. So I'm very familiar with the difference in feel, and in particular with the difficulty of maintaining momentum on hills when heavily laden. As it happens, at the end of that last tour I chased a couple of roadies into Toronto. They were out training on a Sunday, and were clearly irritated by the old guy with multiple panniers who kept catching them on the flat after they'd dropped him on the (very modest) climbs.LOL

There's no doubt that the workouts on the loaded tourer, and for different reasons on my fixie, are different from those on my road bike. But to be honest I think that most of the difference is simply that I tend to work harder on thoe bikes. On the roadie, even when I am aiming for a strength session, I'll tend to use the gears to moderate the stress in a way that isn't possible with the fixie or when heaving the weight. Were I disciplined enough to put out the same power on the road bike all the time, I'm sure there'd still be a difference in feel, but I'm not convinced there'd be a difference in training benefit.

Last edited by chasm54; 09-19-11 at 12:37 PM.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 02:14 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chasm54
No, not really. The issue for training is not how fast the bike moves, but how much power you generate. You can train just as hard on a light bike as a heavy one, you just go faster for the same power output.
But..... Isn't that what the OP was asking? if you simply go faster on a lightweight bike for the same amount of power, isn't that what you would want? And isn't that what you would want for race day?

Some people train using heavier, or non-aero wheels. Then they rent lightweight or aero wheels for race day. Isn't that akin to training on a heavier bike and racing on a lighter bike?

I read somewhere once that you should train with 'low technology', but race with ' high technology'. I think it may have even been said on BF.
idoru2005 is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 02:26 PM
  #21  
It's ALL base...
 
DScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Power is power.
DScott is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 02:54 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by DScott
Power is power.
https://home.trainingpeaks.com/articl...-analysis.aspx
asgelle is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 08:43 PM
  #23  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by chasm54
Carbonfibreboy, I understand what you are saying. I tour regularly, sometimes quite heavily loaded. My expedition tourer weighs about 36lbs and on my last long tour I hauled about 50lbs of gear. So I'm very familiar with the difference in feel, and in particular with the difficulty of maintaining momentum on hills when heavily laden. As it happens, at the end of that last tour I chased a couple of roadies into Toronto. They were out training on a Sunday, and were clearly irritated by the old guy with multiple panniers who kept catching them on the flat after they'd dropped him on the (very modest) climbs.LOL

There's no doubt that the workouts on the loaded tourer, and for different reasons on my fixie, are different from those on my road bike. But to be honest I think that most of the difference is simply that I tend to work harder on thoe bikes. On the roadie, even when I am aiming for a strength session, I'll tend to use the gears to moderate the stress in a way that isn't possible with the fixie or when heaving the weight. Were I disciplined enough to put out the same power on the road bike all the time, I'm sure there'd still be a difference in feel, but I'm not convinced there'd be a difference in training benefit.
I agree with a lot of this. The heavy bike does force you to put out more power than you might choose to on a light bike. If one has acquired a sense of being able to make a bike "go," it's hard to give up that sensation simply because one is on a heavy bike. OTOH, I think many tourers don't delight in that sensation. I see some folks even walking. Heck, I wouldn't walk until I saw the bloody rags of my quads come popping out of my shorts. So there's that.

And be that as it may, such training does have an effect on my legs. So if one hasn't tried it, it may be incorrect to knock it down by quoting first principles. One doesn't always arrive at the correct answer by reasoning from first principles. Hence the need for the scientific method. I get the feeling that those who say it can't work are being rather too Aristotelian and forgetting the advances made during and since the Renaissance.

The other thing I thought of on yesterday's Sunday group ride, is that while climbing on the tandem I'm doing muscle tension intervals (MTI) a lot of the time, just at a much higher cadence than is usually prescribed. Which is pretty funny considering Coggan's and asgelle's shootdown of my advocation of such training in the current mashing thread.

My conclusion is that the benefit comes from the fact that a heavy bike cannot be accelerated by pedal pressure of short duration. One simply isn't strong enough. Instead, one is forced to maintain a constant torque on the bottom bracket, which is the same thing that one is able to simulate through MTI, though at such a low cadence that it isn't maintainable for very long. I think this is the same thing that the "all you need to do can be done on a light bike" folks are saying, while at the same time denying the benefits of MTI.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 08:53 PM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,514
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1028 Post(s)
Liked 447 Times in 263 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
My conclusion is that the benefit comes from the fact that a heavy bike cannot be accelerated by pedal pressure of short duration.
And have you considered the converse, that once up to speed, a heavy bike takes less constant pedal pressure than a light one to maintain speed? Wouldn't this negate any training benefit from accelerating the heavy bike?
asgelle is offline  
Old 09-19-11, 09:52 PM
  #25  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by asgelle
And have you considered the converse, that once up to speed, a heavy bike takes less constant pedal pressure than a light one to maintain speed? Wouldn't this negate any training benefit from accelerating the heavy bike?
Yes, but I don't think that an advantage except in the special case of tandems. Single bike wind resistance is going to be independent of weight so watts will be the same, except with a touring bike when watts will be higher for a given speed. It's my opinion that one will last longer if one doesn't peak one's pedal pressure too much. Would you agree? One has to integrate pedal pressure around the stroke to get power. For instance, I find it easier to maintain speed on the flat on a road bike with clipless rather than with platforms.

One of my points is that, since the bike is so much heavier, even if one were riding platforms on the flat, one would get a different feel because the bike doesn't accelerate noticeably during the downstroke, so that pressure and pedal rate is more constant throughout the power portion of such a stroke. The bike is always pushing back.

And there are no flat roads. Every time one comes to a slight incline, one is off the back and has to accelerate to get back on. There's that limit to convenient pedal pressure again.

That's how one gets by on a tandem with one's wife, though. Watts/lb. may suck, but there's a 40% wind resistance advantage except in a crosswind. So the hope is to get off the front and hurt the single riders enough so they are a little softened up for the climbs. It's no good if they can stick our wheel. And tandems are notorious for slingshotting short rollers. So that is an advantage, but it's not very large because single riders learn pretty quickly to give it everything they've got at the top of the hill and get on.
Carbonfiberboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.