Spinning

Spinning is usually when you ride lightly with higher RPMs. Thats how I take it. Others might think something else. Also, there are spinning classes which are on stationary bikes, or on a bike on a trainer, indoors. I usually do this in the winter when daylight is short. There used to be ones near where I lived. Any one else care to comment?

RWyness said:

I am fairly new to road bike racing and have come across the terminology 'spinning' quite a lot. Could someone explain exactly what it involves technique-wise. I imagine it relates to an increase in pedal revolutions i.e. changing into a lower gear before a climb so that you don't lose your momentum. Any advise would be appreciated.

P.S Currently cycling about 25 miles a day and a 65mile ride, with 700m of climbing, once a week.

Cheers

Rob

spinning = lower effort, higher RPMs. Trains a more efficient pedalling action. A definite training technique that is often neglected these days.
You won't often employ this on a climb, however.

ed073 said:

spinning = lower effort, higher RPMs. Trains a more efficient pedalling action. A definite training technique that is often neglected these days.
You won't often employ this on a climb, however.

it's actually *less* efficient.

gross mechanical efficiency is higher at lower cadences, rather than higher cadences at a given workload. as the workload increases, then the actual absolute most efficient cadence will increase.

additionally, in research using force instrumented pedals better cyclists push down more and pull up less, than less good cyclists who push down less and pull up more, even though the pulling up produced small propulsive forces for the bike.

the reason we tend to pedal at a lower cadence uphill compared to the flat are to do with the laws of physics -- we're riding at a slower velocity, and don't have low enough gears to pedal at the same flat cadence we use

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

it's actually *less* efficient.

gross mechanical efficiency is higher at lower cadences, rather than higher cadences at a given workload. as the workload increases, then the actual absolute most efficient cadence will increase.

additionally, in research using force instrumented pedals better cyclists push down more and pull up less, than less good cyclists who push down less and pull up more, even though the pulling up produced small propulsive forces for the bike.

the reason we tend to pedal at a lower cadence uphill compared to the flat are to do with the laws of physics -- we're riding at a slower velocity, and don't have low enough gears to pedal at the same flat cadence we use

ric

There has to be an optimum RPM otherwise we would all be pushing massive gears any ideas what it is? If I push less than about 85 RPM my knees suffer and my legs feel heavy and I tire faster. My own optimum seems to be around 95 RPM any faster and I bounce and can't keep a good rhythm (sp?)

and mechanical efficency doesn't always carry over to bio systems otherwise tandems would have the pedals set at 90 deg to smooth out the power transfer a'la 4 stroke engines.

Regards

Steve D

sdorrity said:

There has to be an optimum RPM otherwise we would all be pushing massive gears any ideas what it is? If I push less than about 85 RPM my knees suffer and my legs feel heavy and I tire faster. My own optimum seems to be around 95 RPM any faster and I bounce and can't keep a good rhythm (sp?)

Regards

Steve D

the most efficient cadence is generally quite low -- around 60 to 70 revs/min. the most optimal cadence will be somewhat higher -- around 80 to 100 revs/min and is best chosen via self optimisation and will alter due to environmental, and topographical conditions along with absolute power output.

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

the most efficient cadence is generally quite low -- around 60 to 70 revs/min. the most optimal cadence will be somewhat higher -- around 80 to 100 revs/min and is best chosen via self optimisation and will alter due to environmental, and topographical conditions along with absolute power output.

ric

That feels about right, on long hills I don't like being below 70 RPM or my legs just fade, I have a pretty wide gear range tho and make full use of them all.

Steve D

sdorrity said:

That feels about right, on long hills I don't like being below 70 RPM or my legs just fade, I have a pretty wide gear range tho and make full use of them all.

Steve D

apologies, the 80 - 100 revs/min is generally for the flat. on the hills it maybe lower due to available gearing, topographical conditions, and your fitness (i.e., if you're not a pro it maybe impossible to ride at > 80 revs/min on hills)

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

apologies, the 80 - 100 revs/min is generally for the flat. on the hills it maybe lower due to available gearing, topographical conditions, and your fitness (i.e., if you're not a pro it maybe impossible to ride at > 80 revs/min on hills)

ric

Thanks Ric, I understood your drift, I just found it interesting that my 'normal' riding cadence was within those parameters ie 90+ on the flats and 70-ish on hills. I'm hitting the pyrenees in 10 days time so that my change!

I actually spent quite a bit of time working on increasing my cadence from around 70RPM a few years back when knee problems really started to kick in. a combination of higher RPM, and having properly fitted bike and shoes (courtesy of cyclefit in London) seems to have sorted the problem out so far.

Thanks for the input

Steve D

sdorrity said:

There has to be an optimum RPM otherwise we would all be pushing massive gears any ideas what it is? If I push less than about 85 RPM my knees suffer and my legs feel heavy and I tire faster. My own optimum seems to be around 95 RPM any faster and I bounce and can't keep a good rhythm (sp?)

and mechanical efficency doesn't always carry over to bio systems otherwise tandems would have the pedals set at 90 deg to smooth out the power transfer a'la 4 stroke engines.

Regards

==========================================================

It is said that the secret to speed is spinning high gears. Has anyone made
a table of the changes in crank torque when different chainwheel/sprocket
ratios are used, such as using a 76/16 instead of 52/11 for almost the same
gearing effect when travelling at the same speed.

n crowley said:

==========================================================

It is said that the secret to speed is spinning high gears. Has anyone made
a table of the changes in crank torque when different chainwheel/sprocket
ratios are used, such as using a 76/16 instead of 52/11 for almost the same
gearing effect when travelling at the same speed.

It works out that 53 x 11 = 127.3 inches and 80 x 16 = 127.1 inches.
That is probably as close as one can get for torque comparison purposes.
The question that arises is, does the reduction in crank torque of the
larger chainwheel still give an overall advantage when additional weight
and wind resistance is taken into account.

ric_stern/RST said:

the reason we tend to pedal at a lower cadence uphill compared to the flat are to do with the laws of physics -- we're riding at a slower velocity, and don't have low enough gears to pedal at the same flat cadence we use

ric

I don't understand that sentence. It's absolutely wrong. All cyclists climb with lower cadence.
My bike has got enough low gears (22x32 is my lowest gear) but I still don't spin on climbs as fast as I do it on flats. My climbing cadence is 10-20 rpms lower than on flats. I tire too fast if I go up with "flats" cadence.
Did you consider an energetic approach? May be energetic efficency becomes primary factor during climbing? That's why we spin slower.

dot said:

I don't understand that sentence. It's absolutely wrong. All cyclists climb with lower cadence.
My bike has got enough low gears (22x32 is my lowest gear) but I still don't spin on climbs as fast as I do it on flats. My climbing cadence is 10-20 rpms lower than on flats. I tire too fast if I go up with "flats" cadence.
Did you consider an energetic approach? May be energetic efficency becomes primary factor during climbing? That's why we spin slower.

sorry, i should have prefaced my comments by saying on a road bike, which typically may have a lowest gear of 39 x 23 or 24. there's nothing intrinsically wrong with pedalling a lower cadence uphill (unless it's very low e.g., < 50 revs/min as this may limit you).

ric

n crowley said:

It works out that 53 x 11 = 127.3 inches and 80 x 16 = 127.1 inches.
That is probably as close as one can get for torque comparison purposes.
The question that arises is, does the reduction in crank torque of the
larger chainwheel still give an overall advantage when additional weight
and wind resistance is taken into account.

Why would doing this make any useful difference at all?

ric_stern/RST said:

sorry, i should have prefaced my comments by saying on a road bike, which typically may have a lowest gear of 39 x 23 or 24. there's nothing intrinsically wrong with pedalling a lower cadence uphill (unless it's very low e.g., < 50 revs/min as this may limit you).

ric

strange answer 🙁
MTB-ers spin lower rpms too so I'm curious why they do it? They can shift to lower gears (we all know 20x34 is possible on MTB) but almost any rider prefers to spin slower going uphill.

dot said:

strange answer 🙁
MTB-ers spin lower rpms too so I'm curious why they do it? They can shift to lower gears (we all know 20x34 is possible on MTB) but almost any rider prefers to spin slower going uphill.

sorry, what's strange about the answer? i'm agreeing with you (people prefer a lower cadence when climbing)

ric_stern/RST said:

sorry, what's strange about the answer? i'm agreeing with you (people prefer a lower cadence when climbing)

I asked why cyclists tend to do it.

dot said:

I asked why cyclists tend to do it.

because pedalling at high cadences is inefficient. it feels better

ric

ric_stern/RST said:

because pedalling at high cadences is inefficient. it feels better

ric

Thank you. I supposed that 🙂

dot said:

I don't understand that sentence. It's absolutely wrong. All cyclists climb with lower cadence.
My bike has got enough low gears (22x32 is my lowest gear) but I still don't spin on climbs as fast as I do it on flats. My climbing cadence is 10-20 rpms lower than on flats. I tire too fast if I go up with "flats" cadence.
Did you consider an energetic approach? May be energetic efficency becomes primary factor during climbing? That's why we spin slower.

Which brings up a fascinating question, in my mind.

Why wouldn't a rider gear their bike so that their lowest gear was specifically for the worst part of their worst climb? Everyone talks about climbs being really tough, but if your gear ratio compensates for the climb, so you can spin at the same RPMs, wouldn't the climb require the same level of exertion over time (not distance) as riding on the flats? So a 1 mile climb ridden at 1/2 the speed but twice the gear ratio (I'm probably not saying that right, but you understand) would tire you out exactly the same amount as 2 miles of flat ridden in the same time?

Seriously, if you've got 9 gears, couldn't you reserve one of them for the bad part of the climb?

I'm just wondering about the psychological element of climbing. It's kind of depressing to be pedaling the same cadence and going so much slower. I'm just thinking that, by pedaling a slower cadence, it balances it out in your mind.

Of course, the math for this is definitely tricky. What climb percentage equals 2x effort, but then subtract wind resistance, which will vary depending on the two speeds, etc.

------------------------------------
I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part of the body, and then one day I thought, "Look who's telling me that."