Over revving? Shift points

Ken Bessler said:

Following the advice I got 2 months ago from this group re: cadence, I bought a CatEye Astrale
computer and have been trying to ride at at least 90-95 rpm. I can pedal faster, but only for
1-2 minute bursts. I've got short, stocky legs - lots of power but no speed. 27" inseams on a
5'8" frame.

You have extremely short legs for your height. You are an inch taller than myself and yet your legs
are more than three inches shorter than mine, and I'm very close to average proportions.

It has been said that shorter cranks make spinning at high cadences easier, and most likely your
cranks are very long relative to the length of your legs. Unless you are already using short cranks,
shorter than the common 170 mm, I think it might be worth a try. The problem is that such cranks are
not very easy to find in all places, and for example Campagnolo has curiously decided that nobody
needs shorter than 170 mm.

Of course, if you're comfortable with pedaling at low cadences, I don't see the problem.

-as

Ken Bessler said:

trying to ride at at least 90-95 rpm. I can pedal faster, but only for 1-2 minute bursts. I've got
short, stocky legs - lots of power but no speed. 27" inseams on a 5'8" frame.

Wow, that's a huge bike frame.

<G>

Just kidding. That sounds like me; my inseam is somewhere around 29 or 30, and I'm probably 5'10".
My legs are a bit stocky. And, notably, I do better with lower cadences often.

Quoted message said:

Anyways, I've come to realise that I may be approaching this whole cadence thing from a wrong
angle. If I start in

Yup. The angle you took was not experimenting; resulting in not realizing that you're different from
everybody else.

Quoted message said:

I tried a differant approach - I said to hell with cadence and after starting out in 1st (up to 70
rpm max), I'd jamb the shifter into 6th and torque my way up to 85 rpm. BIG differance! Now I'm
crusing at 17-20 mph with little pain. If I accelerate to 95 rpm, I'm doing about 22 mph steady.

If I understand correctly, you're skipping a lot of gears and just doing one big shift. An even
better approach is to use each gear, or at least every other gear.

Quoted message said:

If I was a car I'd say my shift points are too high - instead of shifting at 90-95 rpm, I should
shift at 70-75 and cruise at 85-90, using more tourque than pure revving......

If you were a car, then it would be nuts to cruise at a faster rpm than where you shift. Luckily,
you're not a car, but you still may benefit from cruising the same speed in a higher gear. I last a
whole lot longer on level land at 40 rpm than 80 for a given speed.

Quoted message said:

Based on these readings, what would you guys think would be my ideal shift point and cruising rpm
be? I was thinking maybe shifting around 65-70 and cruising at 85-90.....

Experiment. A lot. Then, shift when you feel you're not getting as much power as you should.

Experiment even more for your cruising cadence. Try different gears at the same speed for extended
times, then try again using a different speed, and so on. Or, just try to get a feel for how you'll
last longer.

Quoted message said:

Ken

P.S. FYI the bike is a standard early 90's 12 speed Bianchi road bike with 700c23 tires and
conventional gearing.

--
Rick "We're more like an old pushrod V8 than a ricer 4" Onanian

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

Quoted message said:

Ken Bessler said:

Following the advice I got 2 months ago from this group re: cadence, I bought a CatEye Astrale
computer and have been trying to ride at at least 90-95 rpm. I can pedal faster, but only for
1-2 minute bursts. I've got short, stocky legs - lots of power but no speed. 27" inseams on a
5'8" frame.

You have extremely short legs for your height. You are an inch taller than myself and yet your
legs are more than three inches shorter than mine, and I'm very close to average proportions.

It has been said that shorter cranks make spinning at high cadences easier, and most likely your
cranks are very long relative to the length of your legs. Unless you are already using short
cranks, shorter than the common 170 mm, I think it might be worth a try. The problem is that such
cranks are not very easy to find in all places, and for example Campagnolo has curiously decided
that nobody needs shorter than 170 mm.

Of course, if you're comfortable with pedaling at low cadences, I don't see the problem.

-as

Sorry, should have mentioned I have SR alloy 170's with standard, non clip on pedals. I've tried for
the last 125 miles to raise my cruising cadence to 90-95 rpm but it's just not happening. I'm FAR
more comfortable at 85-90 rpm.

I guess it's genetics. Regardless, at lower cadence I just use a higher gear and rely on torque to
get my speed. Torque I've got plenty of!

What really impresses me is the idea I first heard of here - pulling back the pedal at the bottom of
the stroke, as if trying to scrape mud off your shoe. I can be crusing at 85 rpm in 6th (low range)
at 18 mph, then try pulling back for 10 seconds or so and suddenly I'm at 24 mph and 95-100 rpm,
looking for a higher gear!

Ken

It is a bicycle not a car.

You don't need to "rev up" through the gears to gain speed. Start in a high gear, using you stocky legs, and power up to speed.

Then spin, just because your bike has a first gear doesn't mean you have to use it everytime you start from a dead stop, or ever.

Don't change gears at every you think you should, ride your bike in a gear that has you going at your average speed but, spinning faster than normal. Power up the hills and spin down and on the flats, you'll get a better work out and improve you technique(why your spinning to begin with) and raise your cadence at the same time.

Eric

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

Quoted message said:

Following the advice I got 2 months ago from this group re: cadence, I bought a CatEye Astrale
computer and have been trying to ride at at least 90-95 rpm. I can pedal faster, but only for
1-2 minute bursts. I've got short, stocky legs - lots of power but no speed. 27" inseams on a
5'8" frame.

Anyways, I've come to realise that I may be approaching this whole cadence thing from a wrong
angle. If I start in 1st gear and pedal up to 95 rpm before shifting, I get great acceleration but
according to the Astrale, I'm only managing to cruise at 12-13 mph in 3rd or 4th gear. My legs
hurt! <snip>

You don't say how long you have been riding. If you're relatively new to the sport keep working at
your cadence. It takes a while to develop muscle memory. Over time you'll be pleased with the
efficiency and ease that comes with a naturally higher cadence. Developing your personal sweet spot
just takes a little time.

Pedaling at a high cadence with no load is painful. Kind of like trying to throw a ping pong ball
with all your might. The only thing you'll do is toss you arm out of joint. Watch other riders who
seem to pedal smoothly and powerfully. You'll notice that a group of strong riders all seem to shift
at the same point as they begin a climb. There is a certain level of resistance or lack of it that
seems to dictate a "shift point". Go with what feels right and recognize that what feels right will
evolve as your skill does. It's a months and years thing, not weeks. Enjoy the journey. Bill

Rick Onanian said:

(John Forrest Tomlinson) said:

At very low power outputs it is possible to power the pedals equally all around the pedal stroke.
At firm outputs (perhaps 200 watts or more for a fit person) the pedal stroke is not even all
around. And

I agree that it's uneven; but that doesn't mean that power is not applied at all.

Quoted message said:

at even higher power outputs the pedal stroke is less round with no power at all on the upstroke
other than energy used to get your leg back up.

Why would the power on the upstroke disappear? I'll believe that it stays constant while the
additional power of the downstroke results in your speed gains, but the upstroke power still exists
at the same level as before, and adds as much propulsion.

No. A fair amount of energy in pedaling is dealing with the mass of your legs. What you call an
"upstroke" is just fighting the mass of your legs and lifting them up. Yes, you are using power to
do this. But no, in a measurement at the pedals, there is no power lifting the pedal up. In most
people, in fact, a measurement at the pedal during the upstroke shows they are in fact still
"pushing" down on the pedals! Though much or all of this push is just the weight of their leg.

Quoted message said:

You were saying that "round" pedalling is a myth, and that the only way to go faster is to push
down harder.

"Round pedalling" -- if it means apply power equally all around the pedal is a myth at any
meaningful power output.

I never said the only way to go faster is to push down harder.

Quoted message said:

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought you meant that no power existed in the back and up
strokes.

The is no power in the upstroke -- you're doing well if you can get your muscles to stop the
momentum of your leg and pull your leg back up.

It *might* (I don't know and haven't read studies about this) be the case that a good back stroke at
the bottom of the pedal helps with power -- or at least concentrating on the back stroke helps
lengthen the period at which you apply power down and also might help you stop your leg and turn it
around more effectively.

Quoted message said:

Even if it was only a tool, that would be valid in and of itself. By your definition, it helps you
feel what's going on; but even if it only got you psyched up to go faster, you still end up going
faster for having used the tool. However, I know that when I add power to a part of the stroke that
was previously unpowered, it will result in additional propulsion.

In my opinion, "round pedalling" is a flawed description of what is going on. Sure, the term can be
a tool to practice something that "works." But wouldn't it be better to describe it accurately (and
keep doing it, of course)?

JT

Ken Bessler <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Sorry, should have mentioned I have SR alloy 170's with standard, non clip on pedals. I've tried
: for the last 125 miles to raise my cruising cadence to 90-95 rpm but it's just not happening. I'm
: FAR more comfortable at 85-90 rpm.

: I guess it's genetics. Regardless, at lower cadence I just use a higher gear and rely on torque to
: get my speed. Torque I've got plenty of!

: What really impresses me is the idea I first heard of here - pulling back the pedal at the bottom
: of the stroke, as if trying to scrape mud off your shoe. I can be crusing at 85 rpm in 6th (low
: range) at 18 mph, then try pulling back for 10 seconds or so and suddenly I'm at 24 mph and 95-100
: rpm, looking for a higher gear!

My thoughts on this: I have a fixed wheel road bike with 165mm cranks and a another derailleured
bike with 170mm cranks. There is no appreaciable difference in my ability to maintain a given
cadence between either of these bikes. So, I'm suggesting that the problem is not in the equipment.

I also think that it's a mistake to ride your bike and shift as if it were a car. As I perceive my
own riding - I've been at it a while - shifting occurs for different reasons, depending on the
context and that takes a while to have an instinct for. I won't drone on about why and when I
change, other than to say, I doubt anyone always changes to maintain a set cadence.

On cadence, you will find it takes a while to be able to spin comfortably around 95-100rpm. Getting
back into training, it takes me a few weeks before I can spin at 100rpm without noticing, ie, all
day. Spinning at those speeds isn't something that happens easily; it has to be learned and refined
as opposing muscles must fire and relax in precise coordination.

Certainly clippless pedals do help with smooth power delivery but also remove the energy needed to
keep your feet positioned on the pedals and allow you to learn that relaxing through the stroke is
very important for high cadences.

If you really want to know about spinning, ride a fixie. Now, that's where any [censored] stops. Being
about to spin at 120rpm+ down long descents isn't about prowess. It's about survival!

Cheerz, Lynzz

Ken Bessler said:

Sorry, should have mentioned I have SR alloy 170's with standard, non clip on pedals. I've tried
for the last 125 miles to raise my cruising

What really impresses me is the idea I first heard of here - pulling back the pedal at the bottom
of the stroke, as if trying to scrape mud off

If you like that, you'll love what you get with toe clips or a clipless system. I felt the same
way, went to clips, enjoyed, went to clipless, enjoyed even more. I still have to make a conscious
effort to spin and apply torque through the full circle, but when I do, I get a great workout (and
great speed).

Quoted message said:

Ken

--
Rick Onanian

(John Forrest Tomlinson) said:

At very low power outputs it is possible to power the pedals equally all around the pedal stroke.
At firm outputs (perhaps 200 watts or more for a fit person) the pedal stroke is not even all
around. And

I agree that it's uneven; but that doesn't mean that power is not applied at all.

Quoted message said:

at even higher power outputs the pedal stroke is less round with no power at all on the upstroke
other than energy used to get your leg back up.

Why would the power on the upstroke disappear? I'll believe that it stays constant while the
additional power of the downstroke results in your speed gains, but the upstroke power still exists
at the same level as before, and adds as much propulsion.

You were saying that "round" pedalling is a myth, and that the only way to go faster is to push
down harder. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought you meant that no power existed in the back
and up strokes.

Quoted message said:

When you feel you are "round" pedalling you are providing power around a larger portion of the
pedal stroke than if you feel choppy, which can help you, but you sure are not actually providing
uniform power

If you are providing power around a larger portion of the stroke, then does it need to be uniform to
be propulsive? Is propulsive even a word? 😉

Quoted message said:

all the way around the stroke. So the concept of "round" is a tool -- a feeling to look for to be a
little more efficient. But it's "round" is not really round.

Even if it was only a tool, that would be valid in and of itself. By your definition, it helps you
feel what's going on; but even if it only got you psyched up to go faster, you still end up going
faster for having used the tool. However, I know that when I add power to a part of the stroke that
was previously unpowered, it will result in additional propulsion.

The unevenness of the "round" would not make the stroke any less round; that's nominally impossible,
at least with clipless pedals. It would just be uneven power around, which is better than parts of
the stroke having no power at all.

Quoted message said:

JT

--
Rick Onanian

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Based on recent threads, I, too, have been working on my cadence. I have heard a thousand times
that spinning between 90 and 110 is the most efficient,

Whoever says that is wrong. The most efficient cadence varies with the power output (and of course
varies from person to person). For any particular person going slow (for that person) the most
efficient cadence is lower than when that same person is going faster/harder.

90rpm or a little more is probably the most effective cadence for road racing

Yes, I meant to say this. I am trying to become a more effective road racer, so that's why I wanted
to try to increase my cadence.

However, I still contend that, as I get used to it, it feels much more natural at any overall speed.

Jim

Peter Cole <[email hidden]> wrote:
: "Lindsay Rowlands" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: "]news:[email hidden]...
:>
:> If you really want to know about spinning, ride a fixie. Now, that's where any [censored] stops.
:> Being about to spin at 120rpm+ down long descents isn't about prowess. It's about survival!

: It's also a pretty useless skill. Riding a fixed gear bike just teaches you how to ride a fixed
: gear bike.

Oh, I beg to differ! Obviously you are shooting from the hip with buttons pushed. Allow me to offer
some truths, though you are invited to offer counter arguments and I would love you to demonstrate
how riding a fixie is useless. Riding a fixie teaches one how to:

spin efficiently spin at high cadences ride anywhere with one gear keep spinning how not to
be a lazy cyclist (pedal, coast) handle a bike that will bite you if you become complacent

and this is but a sample. All these skills transfer to a derailleured bike and make one a faster and
safer rider. If you disagree then all those pros who train on a fixie as well need you to tell them
that they're wasting their time.

And you need to tell people like Bradley McGee, Baden Cooke, Robby McKewen that the many miles they
did on the track on a fixie was a waste of time and they should hand back their stage wins and green
jerseys from recent Tour de France races.

Cheerz, Lynzz

In article said:

Peter Cole said:

"Ken Bessler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "Round" pedaling is a myth. To go faster, press down harder on the pedals.

If it's a myth, then *why* does it work?

It doesn't.

It works for me. When I make a conscious effort to apply torque in all parts of the stroke, my
speed goes up more than when I make a conscious effort to push down harder for only the down
section of the stroke.

What do you think happens when you apply power in other parts of the stroke? Does the law of
conservation of energy have some corollary that energy can cease to exist when applied to certain
parts of a bicycle pedal stroke? Or does the wind resistance against the pedal change as it goes
through it's stroke, and eat up the added energy via air drag on the pedal's back/up motion?

Or do you just think that those muscles are entirely ineffective? Maybe yours are...but mine work.
--
Rick Onanian

Careful, Rick. It's not that hard to instrument a pair of pedals and map the force vectors all
around the crank rotation. Every investigation that I have seen shows no vectors pointing upwards
anywhere. With highly trained cyclists.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

Rick Onanian:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And how can you have loads of power but no speed? Poor aerodynamics?🙂

I think he meant that his legs produce loads of torque but no high RPMs -- which could be
expressed as loads of power but no leg-speed.

I'm sure that's what he meant, having picked up the strange and pretty useless definition of "speed"
touted by much of the coaching community
- who also seem to attach numerological significance to 90 RPM.

Andrew Bradley

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

"Ken Bessler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "Round" pedaling is a myth. To go faster, press down harder on the

pedals.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it's a myth, then *why* does it work?

It doesn't.

It works for me. When I make a conscious effort to apply torque in all parts of the stroke, my
speed goes up more than when I make a conscious effort to push down harder for only the down
section of the stroke.

If you check out:

analyticcycling.comPedalForcesAtPedal Page.htmlOpen ↗

you'll see a typical pedal force model.

Larger forces can be applied on the upstroke, but in practice this is only used in anaerobic
(sprint) situations. Steady-state cycling is aerobically limited, so enlisting lots of muscles
doesn't help, in fact it actually hurts steady state performance. The hip and leg extensors are the
big muscle groups, and by themselves will load the CV system to its limit. Firing up the flexors
takes an additional chunk out of the finite VO2 budget. If you do a lot of riding at your limit in
an evenly matched group (AKA racing) this becomes obvious very quickly.

Positive foot retention systems (straps, clipless pedals) improve efficiency by preventing foot
slip without isotonic/isometric forces (which don't contribute to propulsion), not by enabling
"round" pedaling.

On a related issue, high-cadence pedaling is generally less efficient. As JT points out, road racers
uses higher-than-efficient cadences because they allow faster accelerations, which is the name of
the game in road racing. The same cyclists will usually pedal at a lower cadence when efficiency is
all that matters, such as time trialing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > "Round" pedaling is a myth. To go faster, press down harder on the

pedals.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> If it's a myth, then *why* does it work?

It doesn't.

It works for me. When I make a conscious effort to apply torque in all parts of the stroke, my
speed goes up more than when I make a conscious effort to push down harder for only the down
section of the stroke.

If you check out:

analyticcycling.comPedalForcesAtPedal Page.htmlOpen ↗

you'll see a typical pedal force model.

Larger forces can be applied on the upstroke, but in practice this is only used in anaerobic
(sprint) situations. Steady-state cycling is aerobically limited, so enlisting lots of muscles
doesn't help, in fact it actually

hurts

Quoted message said:

steady state performance. The hip and leg extensors are the big muscle

groups,

Quoted message said:

and by themselves will load the CV system to its limit. Firing up the

flexors

Quoted message said:

takes an additional chunk out of the finite VO2 budget. If you do a lot of riding at your limit in
an evenly matched group (AKA racing) this becomes obvious very quickly.

Positive foot retention systems (straps, clipless pedals) improve

efficiency

Quoted message said:

by preventing foot slip without isotonic/isometric forces (which don't contribute to propulsion),
not by enabling "round" pedaling.

On a related issue, high-cadence pedaling is generally less efficient. As

JT

Quoted message said:

points out, road racers uses higher-than-efficient cadences because they

allow

Quoted message said:

faster accelerations, which is the name of the game in road racing. The

same

Quoted message said:

cyclists will usually pedal at a lower cadence when efficiency is all that matters, such as time
trialing.

From what I understand from the talk that the guy at www.slowtwitch.com gave a few months ago, a
lower cadence is aerobically more efficient, and a higher cadence is muscular-ly more efficient. If
you watch the RAAM guys, they're turning 70-75rpm all day long...

Hence the old adage: if your lungs are burning, turn a bigger gear slower, and if your legs are
burning turn a smaller gear faster.

Mike

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:9ghjb.66301$vj2.38591@fed1read06...

Quoted message said:

From what I understand from the talk that the guy at www.slowtwitch.com gave a few months ago, a
lower cadence is aerobically more efficient, and a higher cadence is muscular-ly more efficient.
If you watch the RAAM guys, they're turning 70-75rpm all day long...

For long distance events (century & up) I use a higher cadence, it's not so much an efficiency thing
as an endurance thing. At the same power level, lower cadences mean higher peak pedal forces, which
has a number of consequences, accelerated muscle fatigue being just one of them.

Rick Onanian said:

Peter Cole said:

"Ken Bessler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "Round" pedaling is a myth. To go faster, press down harder on

the pedals.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it's a myth, then *why* does it work?

It doesn't.

It works for me. When I make a conscious effort to apply torque in all parts of the stroke, my
speed goes up more than when I make a conscious effort to push down harder for only the down
section of the stroke.

What do you think happens when you apply power in other parts of the stroke? Does the law of
conservation of energy have some corollary that energy can cease to exist when applied to certain
parts of a bicycle pedal stroke? Or does the wind resistance against the pedal change as it goes
through it's stroke, and eat up the added energy via air drag on the pedal's back/up motion?

Or do you just think that those muscles are entirely ineffective? Maybe yours are...but mine work.

At very low power outputs it is possible to power the pedals equally all around the pedal stroke. At
firm outputs (perhaps 200 watts or more for a fit person) the pedal stroke is not even all around.
And at even higher power outputs the pedal stroke is less round with no power at all on the upstroke
other than energy used to get your leg back up.

When you feel you are "round" pedalling you are providing power around a larger portion of the pedal
stroke than if you feel choppy, which can help you, but you sure are not actually providing uniform
power all the way around the stroke. So the concept of "round" is a tool -- a feeling to look for to
be a little more efficient. But it's "round" is not really round.

JT

"Ken Bessler" :

Quoted message said:

Following the advice I got 2 months ago from this group re: cadence, I bought a CatEye Astrale
computer and have been trying to ride at at least 90-95 rpm.

Someone here told you you had to pedal that fast?

Quoted message said:

I can pedal faster, but only for 1-2 minute bursts. I've got short, stocky legs - lots of power but
no speed. 27" inseams on a 5'8" frame.

You illustrate a point I've been trying to make for a while - that on standard cranks (OTBE) the
long of leg will be able to (and will want to) pedal faster than the short. I put it down to the
reasonable expectation that long muscles can (and prefer to) contract faster than short ones in
absolute terms.

More info on this idea at cranklength.infocadenceOpen ↗

And how can you have loads of power but no speed? Poor aerodynamics?🙂

You may have been influenced by the various coaching categorisations of the ingredients that make up
the complete rider - speed, strength, endurance, power speed-endurance ... Pretty woolly stuff I've
always thought even when "speed" is qualified to foot-speed.

I'd be aiming for maximum road-speed over various distance regardless of all the rest. Only you can
know what cadence is right.

Andrew Bradley

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

Quoted message said:

I tried a differant approach - I said to hell with cadence

This is the correct approach. Cycling is highly self-optimizing, you will develop your own natural
style if you stop practicing esoteric pedaling techniques, just go with the flow.