Mt Washington

Quoted message said:

From: "Bob" [email hidden]

I'm thinking about doing the mout Washington NH bike race 2003. I have a trek 5200 with a low
gearing of 30-25. I'm in good shape and I think I can make it up the mountain in good time, but I
still wonder about the gearing. Someone said they use a 33-32 gears and I was thinking of changing
out my rear sprocket for a low 28 tooth. Anyone do the Mt Washington bike race?

You should be fine with the 30-25. Maybe try the try the pre-race and see how you like it.

JF

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bob"

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I'm thinking about doing the mout Washington NH bike race 2003. I have a trek 5200 with a low
gearing of 30-25. I'm in good shape and I think I can make it up the mountain in good time, but I
still wonder about the gearing. Someone said they use a 33-32 gears and I was thinking of changing
out my rear sprocket for a low 28 tooth. Anyone do the Mt Washington bike race?

Hi,

I've done it (practice ride and race) and one of the things I noticed is that many folks seriously
underestimated the pitch of that hill. Also, I got advice all over the map (all from folks who'd
done it) some saying go with full MTB gearing, others saying I'd be fine with a triple and my 12-25.
I decided to go with an XTR rear der and a 14-34 cassette (specially made up at Sheldon Brown's
shop). Wimpy, I know (then again, when I look at what Heras used on the Angliru, I don't feel
*quite* as wimpy as I did), OTOH, I spun easily up the whole thing and felt pretty good at the top
(which means I prolly didn't work hard enough - that'll be this year's task).

It really depends on how strong you are, and what your climbing style
is. How's that for helpful? ;-) Train on lots of hills (duh) and do the practice ride to see if
your gearing is correct. You can also do the Whiteface race, which isn't quite as steep and is
shorter, but is still quite a climb.

Good luck!

-jennifer

--
-Jennifer reply to: jen at klau dot com

Figure out what you feel is optimal cadence, then work backward by figuring a target speed using
previous results of the climb. Or, if you have a way of measuring your LT power output (Powertap,
SRM, polar) you can use analyticcyling.com to figure out you speed and adjust the gearing to get the
cadence you want.

I can't imagine going with a 30/25. It only makes sense to have a selection of low gears, including
ones that may be lower than you need. Sticking with a 12/25 offers no advantage, because all the
cogs below 23 are useless.

I'd put on a 26T granny gear, and 14-32 cassette. If you don't need the lowest gears, all well and
good, you don't have to use them during the race. But if you do need them, and they aren't there,
life is likely to be unpleasant.

Good Luck,

Bob

Bob said:

Hi,

I'm thinking about doing the mout Washington NH bike race 2003. I have a trek 5200 with a low
gearing of 30-25. I'm in good shape and I think I can make it up the mountain in good time, but I
still wonder about the gearing. Someone said they use a 33-32 gears and I was thinking of changing
out my rear sprocket for a low 28 tooth. Anyone do the Mt Washington bike race?

You can also train on Mt. Ascutney in Vermont any time you like.

Brian Lafferty

"J & D Klau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bob"

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I'm thinking about doing the mout Washington NH bike race 2003. I have a trek 5200 with a low
gearing of 30-25. I'm in good shape and I think I

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

make it up the mountain in good time, but I still wonder about the

gearing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Someone said they use a 33-32 gears and I was thinking of changing out

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rear sprocket for a low 28 tooth. Anyone do the Mt Washington bike race?

Hi,

I've done it (practice ride and race) and one of the things I noticed is that many folks seriously
underestimated the pitch of that hill. Also, I got advice all over the map (all from folks who'd
done it) some saying go with full MTB gearing, others saying I'd be fine with a triple and my
12-25. I decided to go with an XTR rear der and a 14-34 cassette (specially made up at Sheldon
Brown's shop). Wimpy, I know (then again, when I look at what Heras used on the Angliru, I don't
feel *quite* as wimpy as I did), OTOH, I spun easily up the whole thing and felt pretty good at
the top (which means I prolly didn't work hard enough - that'll be this year's task).

It really depends on how strong you are, and what your climbing style
is. How's that for helpful? ;-) Train on lots of hills (duh) and do the practice ride to see if
your gearing is correct. You can also do the Whiteface race, which isn't quite as steep and
is shorter, but is still quite a climb.

Good luck!

-jennifer

--
-Jennifer reply to: jen at klau dot com

Quoted message said:

Figure out what you feel is optimal cadence, then work backward by figuring a target speed using
previous results of the climb. Or, if you have a way of measuring your LT power output (Powertap,
SRM, polar) you can use analyticcyling.com to figure out you speed and adjust the gearing to get
the cadence you want.

This sounds like a sensible plan.

Quoted message said:

I can't imagine going with a 30/25. It only makes sense to have a selection of low gears,
including ones that may be lower than you need. Sticking with a 12/25 offers no advantage, because
all the cogs below 23 are useless.

I guess you mean that you couldn't imagine personally going with a 30/25. For many people, a 30/25
is a very workable low gear. Afterall, when Hamilton set his record he used a
39/25. I personally have done Mt. Washington with a 22/21 (a ratio half-way between a 30/28 and a
30/29) and was able to maintain a relatively high cadence of 80rpm.

As far as the smaller rear sprockets, they are still useful. Although the grade on Mt. Washington is
generally quite steady, it can vary a bit in some sections. In particular, there is the "cow
pasture", a lengthy and relatively flat stretch just below the summit, where speeds are higher and
smaller sprockets can come in handy. There is also the dead flat 200 yards at the very start of the
race, where a good selection of smaller sprockets can help one to jockey for position before the
climbing begins, so you don't have to thread your way through the pack as people adjust to their own
personal climbing speeds.

Mark McMaster [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Figure out what you feel is optimal cadence, then work backward by figuring a target speed using
previous results of the climb. Or, if you have a way of measuring your LT power output (Powertap,
SRM, polar) you can use analyticcyling.com to figure out you speed and adjust the gearing to get
the cadence you want.

I can't imagine going with a 30/25. It only makes sense to have a selection of low gears,
including ones that may be lower than you need. Sticking with a 12/25 offers no advantage, because
all the cogs below 23 are useless.

I'd put on a 26T granny gear, and 14-32 cassette. If you don't need the lowest gears, all well and
good, you don't have to use them during the race. But if you do need them, and they aren't there,
life is likely to be unpleasant.

I too think that makes sense for a pure hill climb race; that is, having plenty enough low gears.
But a 30+t cog and a change to a triple (granny) will be a maintenance hassle for race prep. You
need to change the rear derailleur, because I don't think road derailleurs are rated for much more
than 28t or so. You might need to change the f-der. You might need to change the BB spindle. You
might need to change the left brifter to a triple model if you use Shimano. You'll need to adjust
the cables and indexing after the derailleur changes. Sounds like a big PITA assuming you are
starting with the standard double chainring
130/135 BCD crank. Of course, now I re-read the original post, and he's got a triple, so probably
just the r-der needs changing.

I've experimented with some very long and very steep climbs here in NorCal. For me, the long
climbing experience gets very unpleasant if I can't sustain my cadence up to around 50 rpm. And that
is just what keeps me from being miserable, not what helps me maximize my power output (my speed). I
think it is a decent gearing goal, even if it can't always be met, to have a gear you can turn at 80
rpm while climbing. Short climbs don't matter nearly as much. That ends up meaning very low gears
for long steep climbs.

I changed to the older Ritchey 110 BCD double crank this past year, just so I could get over some of
these nasty local mountains in decent style. With this crank, I can get a low of 33x28 and all I
have to do is slip on the special cassette and bolt on the 33t chainring (I have a DA "triple" r-der
always on the bike). No adjustments or other hardware changes are necessary. The 33x28 is
approximately equal to a 39x33. Jeanson went up Washinton in a 39x28 this past year, IIRC. I doubt a
33x28 would be "too low" for me there. My low is about 14% lower than what Jeanson used. My low is
only enough to keep me from being miserable on some of the mountain roads around here. I could use
lower, but will likely leave my bike as it is.

To tell the truth, I don't think there is much about a hill climb race that is very pleasant.

Quoted message said:

Bob said:

Hi,

I'm thinking about doing the mout Washington NH bike race 2003. I have a trek 5200 with a low
gearing of 30-25. I'm in good shape and I think I can make it up the mountain in good time, but I
still wonder about the gearing. Someone said they use a 33-32 gears and I was thinking of
changing out my rear sprocket for a low 28 tooth. Anyone do the Mt Washington bike race?

Robert Chung said:

"The Pomeranian" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I've experimented with some very long and very steep climbs here in NorCal. For me, the long
climbing experience gets very unpleasant if I can't sustain my cadence up to around 50 rpm. And
that is just what keeps me from being miserable, not what helps me maximize my power output (my
speed). I think it is a decent gearing goal, even if it can't always be met, to have a gear you
can turn at 80 rpm while climbing.

Do you have a power meter, or have you done controlled experiments examining power with cadence
and gear by gradient?

No. The "maximize my power" claim is based solely on some presumptions, some circumstantial
evidence, and other subjective (and repeated) experiences I try to be objective as possible about. I
see no reason why the max horsepower v. rpm curve (for a human) would have a broad and flat
distribution. (Most motors don't. Why would a bio-motor?) That is to say, I presume that the max
horsepower at 50 rpm, 80 rpm, and 110 rpm will not be identical.

How much different is a valid question, but bike racing is about performance at the margin. Even a
margin of 1% is huge in something like a hill climb race. And I suspect the difference is a good
deal more than that. I'd be more than happy to do the "real" research for a quite reasonable price
(no more than what I get paid now)! Any takers?

I hate long climbs at 40 rpm, that much is for sure. People like Jobst Brandt do it okay, but I
think that is highly unsual.

"The Pomeranian" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

No. The "maximize my power" claim is based solely on some presumptions, some circumstantial
evidence, and other subjective (and repeated) experiences I try to be objective as possible about.
I see no reason why the max horsepower v. rpm curve (for a human) would have a broad and flat
distribution. (Most motors don't. Why would a bio-motor?) That is to say, I presume that the max
horsepower at 50 rpm, 80 rpm, and 110 rpm will not be identical.

How much different is a valid question, but bike racing is about performance at the margin. Even a
margin of 1% is huge in something like a hill climb race. And I suspect the difference is a good
deal more than that.

Well, I agree with your latter point but even if it isn't flat, what makes you think the max is
where you think it is?

Here's some data of power by cadence for a guy doing a 40K TT (collected from a Power Tap--hence,
the holes in the cadence numbers at 94, 99, and 102rpm):
mywebpage.netscape.comcadence plot1.pngOpen ↗

Here's some data for a completely different guy doing hillclimb intervals using a Polar S710:
mywebpage.netscape.comcadence plot2.pngOpen ↗

What do you see?

Plot the standard deviation and my guess is that neither of those charts mean much.

M

Quoted message said:

Here's some data of power by cadence for a guy doing a 40K TT (collected from a Power Tap--hence,
the holes in the cadence numbers at 94, 99, and 102rpm):
mywebpage.netscape.comcadence plot1.pngOpen ↗

Here's some data for a completely different guy doing hillclimb intervals using a Polar S710:
mywebpage.netscape.comcadence plot2.pngOpen ↗

What do you see?

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Very interesting data though I don't get what you mean by the cadence/power being more complicated
that on first look.

Some guys (not anyone in this thread, of course) seem to think that the relationship *is* simple,
and that power is a function of cadence. Guys who have never seen power data think that one can and
should find an optimal cadence, and stick to it. (Some people who *have* seen power data seem to
think so, too). The extreme case is guys who look at record holders who ride on even courses and
extrapolate from that that we should all and always ride at 100rpm. I tend to think that the optimal
cadence varies by goal, situation, and condition, and that it is a response rather than a factor
(i.e., dependent instead of independent variable). I've often been told that one should spin at X
rpm, but I've never heard the added qualification, "on the flat, and Y rpm on a hill of W
percent grade."

Quoted message said:

It would appear to me that when someone starts putting out a great deal of power the cadence
necessarily slows.

Nope, but when someone starts putting out a great deal of force the cadence generally slows. You can
generate high power at many different cadences.

Quoted message said:

From: J & D Klau

Quoted message said:

You can also do the Whiteface race, which isn't quite as steep and is shorter, but is still
quite a climb.

-jennifer

There's a Whiteface "race?" All I ever heard of was sneaking up early in the morning so you can be
down before the gates open. What is this about a race?

Jim

There's been that road race up there for years. The broker who did our house sale won it as a Cat 2
many years ago. Brian

--
Together We Can End Violence, Exploitation and War Visit UU PeaceWork, AFSC and True Majority
home.earthlink.netindex.htmlOpen ↗ afsc.orgafsc.orgOpen ↗ truemajority.orgtruemajority.orgOpen ↗
"Jim Flom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: J & D Klau

Quoted message said:

You can also do the Whiteface race, which isn't quite as steep and is shorter, but is still quite
a climb.

-jennifer

There's a Whiteface "race?" All I ever heard of was sneaking up early in

the

Quoted message said:

morning so you can be down before the gates open. What is this about a

race?

Quoted message said:

Jim

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Reply-To: "Brian Lafferty"

You can also train on Mt. Ascutney in Vermont any time you like.

Brian Lafferty

... said the anti-hillclimb rebel. ;-)

FREE Mt. WASHINGTON!!! All hillclimbs should be free (or under $5)!!

Brian

Robert Chung said:

"The Pomeranian" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

No. The "maximize my power" claim is based solely on some presumptions, some circumstantial
evidence, and other subjective (and repeated) experiences I try to be objective as possible
about. I see no reason why the max horsepower v. rpm curve (for a human) would have a broad and
flat distribution. (Most motors don't. Why would a bio-motor?) That is to say, I presume that
the max horsepower at 50 rpm, 80 rpm, and 110 rpm will not be identical.

How much different is a valid question, but bike racing is about performance at the margin. Even
a margin of 1% is huge in something like a hill climb race. And I suspect the difference is a
good deal more than that.

Well, I agree with your latter point but even if it isn't flat, what makes you think the max is
where you think it is?

Where do you think I think it is? I don't think it is 50 rpm.

Quoted message said:

Here's some data of power by cadence for a guy doing a 40K TT (collected from a Power Tap--hence,
the holes in the cadence numbers at 94, 99, and 102rpm):
mywebpage.netscape.comcadence plot1.pngOpen ↗

Here's some data for a completely different guy doing hillclimb intervals using a Polar S710:
mywebpage.netscape.comcadence plot2.pngOpen ↗

What do you see?

On cadence-plot1.png I see that the rider chose to pedal primarily in the 88 to 108 rpm range. The
highest power samples were in the high 80 to 105 range. But that seems probable because that's were
most of the samples are. High single point samples might not be sustainable. The red line peaks
between 90 and 100, so that suggests that may be where peak "sustainable" power is. The red line is
somewhat flat, but the number of samples is much less for the lower and higher cadences. "Flatness"
does not say that the red line values are sustainable for these other cadences with lower sample
counts. The concentration of samples in the "middle" cadences suggests the red line (average for rpm
I assume) value is sustainable for the middle vlaues. Did the rider "naturally move away" from the
lower and higher cadences because of the incentive of greater speed (power) at the middle cadences?
Is that what the graph says?

So similar data runs for identical time periods should be made with the rider focusing more on both
higher and lower cadences rather than the middle cadences. The difficulty with that is the fact that
it is a different run at a different time. I don't know what the stability of the rider's power
capability is over long time periods (like 1+ weeks). I don't know what the stability of the rider's
psychological focus is over longer time peroids. (I don't know that separate runs can assume "all
other things equal."😉 Because of these uncertainties, I would demand multitudinous sample runs over
all the conditions over time. The uncertainties demand statistical significance (high number of
sample runs), if one really wants to be scientific about it. By nature, the sample runs can't be
done "blind" because the subject has to be instructed to focus on particular cadences and try "just
as hard" with each. The price for meaningful data is rising and I still have no bidders.

On cadence-plot2.png, again this different rider has chosen to put his/her cadence up around 95 rpm
for most samples. There (in the red line) appears to be higher power output at lower cadences, but
the sample numbers are low and again this may point to unsustainability, and probably does
considering the rather significant power output.

So what does it mean that the two different riders seemed to choose a cadence of about 95 rpm? Why
would they choose this cadence? Maybe they looked at their speedometers and found they could get a
tad more sustainable speed when focusing on these cadences. That would be a very basic negative
feedback system. I still don't know how flat the max horsepower v. rpm curve is for most humans, and
I still don't see a reason to assume it is flat.

Michael Hoyt said:

Plot the standard deviation

RBR does not have many "standard deviants" Most are "mensa deviants".......

and my guess is that neither of those charts mean

Quoted message said:

much.

M

Quoted message said:

Here's some data of power by cadence for a guy doing a 40K TT (collected from a Power Tap--hence,
the holes in the cadence numbers at 94, 99, and 102rpm):
mywebpage.netscape.comcadence plot1.pngOpen ↗

Here's some data for a completely different guy doing hillclimb intervals using a Polar S710:
mywebpage.netscape.comcadence plot2.pngOpen ↗

What do you see?

"The Pomeranian" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What do you see?

Because of these uncertainties, I would demand multitudinous sample runs over all the conditions
over time. The uncertainties demand statistical significance (high number of sample runs), if one
really wants to be scientific about it. By nature, the sample runs can't be done "blind" because
the subject has to be instructed to focus on particular cadences and try "just as hard" with each.
The price for meaningful data is rising and I still have no bidders.

On cadence-plot2.png, again this different rider has chosen to put his/her cadence up around 95
rpm for most samples. There (in the red line) appears to be higher power output at lower cadences,
but the sample numbers are low and again this may point to unsustainability, and probably does
considering the rather significant power output.

Hmmm. Wow, you were trying hard.

1. I should have mentioned that the red lines are a sorta kinda smoothed mean (it's actually a
locally-weighted regression line, but I can't remember at this moment how wide the rpm window is,
or the weighting function. Not that important anyway). The Power Tap data are collected at
2.52-second intervals, while the Polar data are at 5-seconds. Each figure represents about an
hour's worth of data.

2. Here's what I see, and I always think it's funny how people can look at the same data and come
to different conclusions (but then, anyone who reads the OT rbr posts knows this to be so). I've
had the chance to look at several other power data sets (including Dede Demet's Montreal WC
data), and what I see is that the relationship between cadence and power is not as simple as it
seemed you were saying. You're exactly right, there need to be lots of controlled tests. This is
why I was wondering in your post (where you were so sure about the relationship between rpm and
power) whether you had a power meter and had done such tests. Nonetheless, my provisional
thinking is that this relationship varies quite a bit from person to person, and that gradient
has a lot to do with it. That's what I got from the comparison between the plots: the first is a
flat 40K TT, the second is a series of hill intervals. I actually don't know if either rider
should be riding at higher or lower cadences--all we know is what they were doing, not what they
should have been doing. BTW, the hill interval data are identifiable because the rider was using
a Polar S710, and I was able to look at the altitude info. I think this is a useful feature for
power meters. Although Dede Demet's data were collected from an altimeter-less Power Tap, you
can still spot how the power-cadence relationship is heavily determined by the hills.

Quoted message said:

I still don't know how flat the max horsepower v. rpm curve is for most humans, and I still don't
see a reason to assume it is flat.

It sounds like you're ascribing a position to me that I do not hold. I wasn't challenging you, I was
asking if you had done the experiments. Since you hadn't I thought you'd be interested in seeing how
the steepness of the climb seems to have an effect.

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

Quoted message said:

1. I should have mentioned that the red lines are a sorta kinda smoothed mean (it's actually a
locally-weighted regression line, but I can't remember at this moment how wide the rpm window
is, or the weighting function. Not that important anyway). The Power Tap data are collected at
2.52-second intervals, while the Polar data are at 5-seconds. Each figure represents about an
hour's worth of data.

Very interesting data though I don't get what you mean by the cadence/power being more complicated
that on first look. It would appear to me that when someone starts putting out a great deal of power
the cadence necessarily slows. Indeed, we even see that with Lance where I measured his cadence on a
flat TT at 120-130 and on climbs at 90-100. If one of the world's fittest men cannot maintain a high
cadence when climbing I don't know who could.

Pertaining to power output on the flats, I wonder what the graphs would look like if you were using
very large gears to achieve the speed.

Robert Chung said:

Hmmm. Wow, you were trying hard.

Since I wasn't, I guess I should take that as a compliment. In a longhanded way I was trying to say
I wasn't sure what to make of it... yet. I've seen a few data graphs throughout the years.

Quoted message said:

1. I should have mentioned that the red lines are a sorta kinda smoothed mean (it's actually a
locally-weighted regression line, but I can't remember at this moment how wide the rpm window
is, or the weighting function. Not that important anyway). The Power Tap data are collected at
2.52-second intervals, while the Polar data are at 5-seconds. Each figure represents about an
hour's worth of data.

2. Here's what I see, and I always think it's funny how people can look at the same data and come
to different conclusions (but then, anyone who reads the OT rbr posts knows this to be so).
I've had the chance to look at several other power data sets (including Dede Demet's Montreal
WC data), and what I see is that the relationship between cadence and power is not as simple
as it seemed you were saying. You're exactly right, there need to be lots of controlled tests.

The trouble is that this ends up being a social science because we can't put the subject in a lab
for extended periods the way we could mice and machines. The bottom line is that good general
conclusions would seem to be expensive.

Quoted message said:

This is why I was wondering in your post (where you were so sure about the relationship between
rpm and power) whether you had a power meter and had done such tests. Nonetheless, my provisional
thinking is that this relationship varies quite a bit from person to person, and that gradient has
a lot to do with it.

I don't know what "quite a bit" is, especially among select groups of experienced racers. Naturally
there is no reason to presume different individuals are identical -- the fact that "different people
*are* different by definition" would lead to the opposite presumption. What is "quite a bit?"

I'm not sure why gradient would be too much of a factor (or any factor?) regarding power v. rpm.
Maybe it is, but I just don't know why it would be... yet. Traditionally riders have used lower
cadences for climbing but I attribute this as much to limitations in race bike gearing as anything.
All racers basically had the same equipment limitations, so the playing field was pretty level and
it didn't matter if cadences dropped, as long as they all dropped. As we move to 10sp cassettes and
triple fronts w/ front indexing, we might start to see cadences for flat
v. climbing converge because gearing tradeoffs, as an unseparable parameter, will vanish. It is too
early to tell. The climbs need to be "long" to begin to sort out the difference.

Quoted message said:

That's what I got from the comparison between the plots: the first is a flat 40K TT, the second is
a series of hill intervals. I actually don't know if either rider should be riding at higher or
lower cadences--all we know is what they were doing, not what they should have been doing.

I suppose that as a social science, we should ask if the "body has a wisdom" about this. Riders are
incentivized to do as well as possible In seeking the optimum because of the reward incentive, they
"listen to their bodies." The question is are they being fooled by the body or is the body telling
the truth? Are they interpreting the message rightly? Have other social influences come into play
that distort the results? For example, a popularized theme of "spin to win" that may or may not have
been sufficiently scrutinized. Or is the spin-to-win advice generally good but properly vague, and
based on 100 years of bike racing experience?

Quoted message said:

BTW, the hill interval data are identifiable because the rider was using a Polar S710, and I was
able to look at the altitude info. I think this is a useful feature for power meters. Although
Dede Demet's data were collected from an altimeter-less Power Tap, you can still spot how the
power-cadence relationship is heavily determined by the hills.

Quoted message said:

I still don't know how flat the max horsepower v. rpm curve is for most humans, and I still
don't see a reason to assume it is flat.

It sounds like you're ascribing a position to me that I do not hold.

No, I'm not assuming you think anything in particular. I'm restating mine so it isn't forgotten, as
happens sometimes in usenet forums. I'm pointing out that the graphs, while interesting, didn't
change my presumption.

Quoted message said:

I wasn't challenging you, I was asking if you had done the experiments.

I wish, but a power meter is expensive and so way down on my list.

Quoted message said:

Since you hadn't I thought you'd be interested in seeing how the steepness of the climb seems to
have an effect.

I was interested and it was interesting. Thanks. But I could not conclude anything from it, other
than the riders seemed to prefer "95 rpm" for events that apparently were trying to get the most
joules out possible for some time period.

I think it is important to note that mass start races don't at all require "most joules out" for the
length of the race. For mass start races, it is only "most joules out" at specific times. For the
rest of the time in a mass start race, conservation of energy and prevention of fatigue are more
important, and this is so one can maximize the joules when it will pay off in spades. Energy
conservation and fatigue consideration may call for a different cadence than the "max joules out
over a set time" that TTs require, as those also are likely to have a peak (without trying to say
how sharp that peak is). Again, there is no reason to assume those different condition cadences are
the same, although perhaps they are not far apart.

An illustrative analogy is my car motor. The best fuel economy (conservation of energy) occurs at an
rpm different (lower) from max horsepower. I don't know why a bio-motor would be conceptually
different, although the distinctions may not be as sharp and they certainly aren't as easily tested.
It takes a certain amount of energy to move the legs around in a circle, even with no resistance.
The faster the rotation, the more energy. While energy conservative pedaling in a race is not a zero
resistance condition, a bit lower cadence might make sense. As ever, it is a balance of constraints
that depend upon the specific goal.

So does a riders attraction towards a cadence mean something? I don't know, but I don't think
incentivized preferences can be easily cast off.

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

Quoted message said:

The trouble is that this ends up being a social science because we can't put the subject in a lab
for extended periods the way we could mice and machines. The bottom line is that good general
conclusions would seem to be expensive.

Are they? Do you ride the way you think you should ride or the way that feels natural to you?