Anybody notice?

Quoted message said:

Most of the riders that break away from, or are able to stay with Lance Armstrong this year, are
using his "downshift and spin" technique?

Think they're finally getting the message? ;-3)

It's hardly Lance's technique. "Spin to win" has been around a very long time. Phil Brown

[email hidden] (Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"😉 wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Most of the riders that break away from, or are able to stay with Lance Armstrong this year, are
using his "downshift and spin" technique?

Think they're finally getting the message? ;-3)

Yes. Wasn't Ullrich supposed to be copying Armstrong too? - anybody counted his cadence?

You would have thought that optimal cadence on a hill would be the same as for the flat apart from a
slight reduction to account for the "biopace effect".

If we had all been raised on mountain bikes instead of the five/ten speed racer would this approach
to hills have come naturally?

Andrew Bradley

(Andrew Bradley) said:

[email hidden] (Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"😉 wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Most of the riders that break away from, or are able to stay with Lance Armstrong this year, are
using his "downshift and spin" technique?

Think they're finally getting the message? ;-3)

Yes. Wasn't Ullrich supposed to be copying Armstrong too? - anybody counted his cadence?

I read several years ago (when Lance had only won a TdF or two) that Ullrich had said he had tried
upping his cadence on climbs and it hadn't worked for him. I remember thinking at the time, "Ullrich
only tried it, Lance committed to it."

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net home.earthlink.net~jeverett3Open ↗

(Andrew Bradley) said:

You would have thought that optimal cadence on a hill would be the same as for the flat apart from
a slight reduction to account for the "biopace effect".

If we had all been raised on mountain bikes instead of the five/ten speed racer would this
approach to hills have come naturally?

My natural inclination is to spin up steep grades until I blow up. I have found recently that by
consciously trying to push a higher gear slower (like 60rpm or less), I can climb faster with less
wheezing. It's one of the first things I learned from my cyclocomputer, which I had avoided ever
using until a few weeks ago.

I'll concede that my performance issues are unrelated to those of a fast cyclist.

Chalo Colina

[email hidden] (Chalo) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(Andrew Bradley) said:

You would have thought that optimal cadence on a hill would be the same as for the flat apart
from a slight reduction to account for the "biopace effect".

If we had all been raised on mountain bikes instead of the five/ten speed racer would this
approach to hills have come naturally?

My natural inclination is to spin up steep grades until I blow up. I have found recently that by
consciously trying to push a higher gear slower (like 60rpm or less), I can climb faster with less
wheezing. It's one of the first things I learned from my cyclocomputer, which I had avoided ever
using until a few weeks ago.

Interesting. How does 60RPM feel on the flat? 60RPM or less feels fine to me on a climb but not
on the flat. Perhaps breathing is the limiting factor for some of us, with lower RPM requiring
less oxygen.

There is a study showing that pedal speed variations due to low momentum affect preferred cadence,
so those wishing to spin up hills might like to fit an elliptical (traditional timing) inner ring.
(The idea being that you want to be around one particular pedal speed during the most powerful part
of the stroke.)

Anybody out there with a Biopace big ring and round inner? This too would presumably iron out some
of the cadence discrepancy.

Andrew Bradley

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Andrew Bradley) wrote:

My natural inclination is to spin up steep grades until I blow up. I have found recently that by
consciously trying to push a higher gear slower (like 60rpm or less), I can climb faster with less
wheezing. It's one of the first things I learned from my cyclocomputer, which I had avoided ever
using until a few weeks ago.

I think it's accepted that lower cadences are more cardio-vascular efficient. Low cadences mean
higher peak muscular forces/contraction, so they accelerate fatigue, it's a trade-off. Usually,
muscular fatigue is less of a limit in short efforts.

Mountain bikers spin up steep climbs for entirely different reasons. Rough, varied terrain and
steep climb angle favors smooth, steady power for balance and maintaining momentum, high cadence
delivers that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My natural inclination is to spin up steep grades until I blow up. I have found recently that by
consciously trying to push a higher gear slower (like 60rpm or less), I can climb faster with
less wheezing. It's one of the first things I learned from my cyclocomputer, which I had avoided
ever using until a few weeks ago.

Interesting. How does 60RPM feel on the flat? 60RPM or less feels fine to me on a climb but not
on the flat. Perhaps breathing is the limiting factor for some of us, with lower RPM requiring
less oxygen.

There is a study showing that pedal speed variations due to low momentum affect preferred cadence,
so those wishing to spin up hills might like to fit an elliptical (traditional timing) inner ring.
(The idea being that you want to be around one particular pedal speed during the most powerful
part of the stroke.)

Anybody out there with a Biopace big ring and round inner? This too would presumably iron out some
of the cadence discrepancy.

Andrew Bradley

Just my opinion, but climbing is all about how you produce the most energy (watts) with out blowing
up. When you spin at a higher rate you tend to stay seated. Climbing from the seat takes less energy
than climbing out of saddle, however you won't be able to accelerate or react as quickly.

I read (I forget the source) that they (Bruyneel, etc) were working with Lance on developing a
higher cadence to keep him in the saddle longer and conserving some of his energy. I think that a
high cadence is great if you have the cardio and pulmonary system to handle it. As for myself, 6'4"
and 190lbs, I tend to work better by stressing my muscular system - 60-70 rpms. If I go into the 80+
range my HR goes to my lactate threshold rather quickly. It becomes a trade-off on how much you want
to work the cardio/pulmonary side versus the muscular side.

If you have lungs like a canary crank those RPMS, don't worry about me I'll be huff'n along latter.

Ciao

PS - I don't think that high rpms will work well for Ullrich, I think his strengths are in his
musculature while Lances strength is his lungs & Heart (x2).