Leg speed

gwhite said:

Andy Coggan said:

Quoted message said:

2) faster cadences are actually *less* efficient, not more so as you state.

What do you mean when you use the word "efficiency?"

Energy used to get a certain amount of wattage(power).

If you get 400 watts at a cadence of 100 it takes more energy than if
you do it at a cadence of 70. But for endurance atheletes they can
maintain the 100 for longer than they can the 70. (not a hard and fast
rule, but that's the idea)

So it's more efficient to do the 70 cadence but you're going to end up
being faster over the total distance with a cadence of 100 because you
can maintain that longer.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I think that you missed the point. Lance hasn't been installing lower
gears on his bike, he's only using the same gears that everyone else
has. The main reason that he is spinning 'faster' is because he is
going faster and not because his gears are lower. Anyone else out there
with him COULD change down to that gear as well but they can't spin.

Sigh....

No, actually, I think you have missed the point.

I never stated or asked that he was, or not, using different gearing, ONLY
THAT HIS BLOODY LEGS WERE SPINNING FASTER - WHILE MOVING THE SAME
GOD-DAMMNED SPEED AS HIS FELLOW RIDERS AT THAT POINT IN THE RACE !.

Hello ?, does that not make sense ?. He's spinning faster but not going
faster then his fellow riders - most likely as he's using a lower gear ?.
At a point in the beginning of the climb that included Ullrich, Basso, Vino,
et al.....Which is a riding style that's been much discussed and which he
had to train himself to do, but which others have not, seemingly to their
detriment.

Hell with it, I'm outta here.

Steve B. said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I think that you missed the point. Lance hasn't been installing lower
gears on his bike, he's only using the same gears that everyone else
has. The main reason that he is spinning 'faster' is because he is
going faster and not because his gears are lower. Anyone else out there
with him COULD change down to that gear as well but they can't spin.

Sigh....

No, actually, I think you have missed the point.

I never stated or asked that he was, or not, using different gearing, ONLY
THAT HIS BLOODY LEGS WERE SPINNING FASTER - WHILE MOVING THE SAME
GOD-DAMMNED SPEED AS HIS FELLOW RIDERS AT THAT POINT IN THE RACE !.

Hello ?, does that not make sense ?. He's spinning faster but not going
faster then his fellow riders - most likely as he's using a lower gear ?.
At a point in the beginning of the climb that included Ullrich, Basso, Vino,
et al.....Which is a riding style that's been much discussed and which he
had to train himself to do, but which others have not, seemingly to their
detriment.

Hell with it, I'm outta here.

what you are saying is correct. same speed, different cadence =
different gear.

but you should still get outta here.

while you can.

Everybody´s saying just that. But anything you do, do it according to
your body

gwhite said:

Andy Coggan said:

Quoted message said:

2) faster cadences are actually *less* efficient, not more so as you state.

What do you mean when you use the word "efficiency?"

Power output (in terms of speed on the bike) compared to power input.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Ferguson said:

gwhite said:

Andy Coggan said:

Quoted message said:

2) faster cadences are actually *less* efficient, not more so as you state.

What do you mean when you use the word "efficiency?"

Energy used to get a certain amount of wattage(power).

If you get 400 watts at a cadence of 100 it takes more energy than if
you do it at a cadence of 70. But for endurance atheletes they can
maintain the 100 for longer than they can the 70. (not a hard and fast
rule, but that's the idea)

So it's more efficient to do the 70 cadence but you're going to end up
being faster over the total distance with a cadence of 100 because you
can maintain that longer.

_ I found a reference on one or other of the bike racing sites of
a recent study that claimed that the higher your output in watts,
the higher your most efficient cadence becomes.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQtWdJmTWTAjn5N/lAQGZhAP+PV1S+2hZEYlUH3q6eg3bihLc6BaABVR9
Ttrcinu1euU3MbdaM7OyNn4KRn6WYP25qOEQ8Kkqf527b2+gSnQ9ORJBMIgcncD4
jcW18B5bodrgo/2b8gNdeRK18u4iEEj0N6aMO31WfRiPuCveldJbTAtleLd80cuY
uG6UPUfXR+w=
=utuf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:00:55 +0000 (UTC), Booker C. Bense
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

_ I found a reference on one or other of the bike racing sites of
a recent study that claimed that the higher your output in watts,
the higher your most efficient cadence becomes.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

Yes, there is some conflicting data but most of the research shows
more efficiency at lower cadences.

D

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

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan said:

Quoted message said:

2) faster cadences are actually *less* efficient, not more so as you
state.

What do you mean when you use the word "efficiency?"

The only thing one can logically mean in this context: thermodynamic
efficiency, i.e,. energy out/energy in x 100%.

BTW, note that I said that fastER cadences tend to be less efficient, i.e.,
it was a(n) (unspecified) relative comparison.

Andy Coggan

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I think that you missed the point. Lance hasn't been installing lower
gears on his bike, he's only using the same gears that everyone else
has. The main reason that he is spinning 'faster' is because he is
going faster and not because his gears are lower. Anyone else out there
with him COULD change down to that gear as well but they can't spin.

Sigh....

No, actually, I think you have missed the point.

I never stated or asked that he was, or not, using different gearing, ONLY
THAT HIS BLOODY LEGS WERE SPINNING FASTER - WHILE MOVING THE SAME
GOD-DAMMNED SPEED AS HIS FELLOW RIDERS AT THAT POINT IN THE RACE !.

Steve, if you watch the videos you can see that Lance doesn't pedal much
faster than anyone else until he attacks. When he's in the pack there are
probably 30% of the riders with the same cadence as he has.

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

Quoted message said:

Yes, there is some conflicting data but most of the research shows
more efficiency at lower cadences.

So, theoretically, Lance has lost the last six Tours.

David Ferguson said:

Steve B. said:

Look at Armstrongs leg speed.

Seems nobody's learned the basics, except Lance

SB

Yeah, that's it, nobody else thought of a high cadence except
Armstrong. :-/

It's not for everyone. Spinning takes less power but is more demanding
overall. Try it and look at your heart rate over the same
time/distance.

Personally I have a very tough time spinning fast. When I try to turn
over the pedals at 110 rpm uphill like Lance does, I really appreciate
the gulf, not merely in power, but in TECHNIQUE that exists between
amateurs and top professionals.

Tom Kunich says...

Quoted message said:

Steve, if you watch the videos you can see that Lance doesn't pedal much
faster than anyone else until he attacks. When he's in the pack there are
probably 30% of the riders with the same cadence as he has.

I've got plenty of video showing Lance at a higher cadence in a paceline and
certainly not attacking. Lance Chronicles, a few stages this Tour, etc. 30%?
Not sure about that. I kinda doubt it.

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, there is some conflicting data but most of the research shows
more efficiency at lower cadences.

So, theoretically, Lance has lost the last six Tours.

Not at all... it just means that efficiency is pretty much irrelevant.
It's like designing a race car to get the best gas mileage (high
efficiency), forgetting that for racing you need to go FAST.

Lower cadences tend to be more efficient... if you are worried about
burning as few calories and oxygen as possible... but I'm pretty sure
that none of the riders in the Tour are concerned about that.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:42:33 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Yes, there is some conflicting data but most of the research shows
more efficiency at lower cadences.

So, theoretically, Lance has lost the last six Tours.

It just means he's THAT much better than everyone else.

danko said:

There was something about his cadence. Chris Carmichael realized that
LA has xtraordinary cardiovascular capacity and endurance so they
decided to take advantage of that plus they borrowed pedaling technique
from mtbcycling because of its high efficiency

If you replace Chris Carmichael with Dr. M. Ferrari you are
right on the money. Dr. F has published on the topic.

danko said:

There was something about his cadence. Chris Carmichael realized that
LA has xtraordinary cardiovascular capacity and endurance so they
decided to take advantage of that plus they borrowed pedaling technique
from mtbcycling because of its high efficiency

If you replace Chris Carmichael with Dr. M. Ferrari you are
right on the money. Dr. F has published on the topic.

Andy Coggan said:

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

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan said:

Quoted message said:

2) faster cadences are actually *less* efficient, not more so as you
state.

What do you mean when you use the word "efficiency?"

The only thing one can logically mean in this context: thermodynamic
efficiency, i.e,. energy out/energy in x 100%.

Thanks. Since different definitions are commonly used regarding bike
riding/racing, I don't assume a writer is referring to the fundamental
thermodynamic definition of efficiency.

Quoted message said:

BTW, note that I said that fastER cadences tend to be less efficient, i.e.,
it was a(n) (unspecified) relative comparison.

Regardless of what definition is used, efficiency approachs zero as
cadence approaches zero*, and also approachs zero as it increases
"without limit." So there has to be at least one "max" between these
("ultra-low and ultra-high"😉 although that says little regarding how
"broad" a peak(s) may be.

* Otherwise a discontinuity would have to exist between zero cadence --
which produces zero power -- and some arbitrarily low cadence. One
could say zero cadence is indeterminant, but I see that as pointless
quibble.

Ron Ruff said:

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, there is some conflicting data but most of the research shows
more efficiency at lower cadences.

So, theoretically, Lance has lost the last six Tours.

Not at all... it just means that efficiency is pretty much irrelevant.
It's like designing a race car to get the best gas mileage (high
efficiency), forgetting that for racing you need to go FAST.

Lower cadences tend to be more efficient... if you are worried about
burning as few calories and oxygen as possible... but I'm pretty sure
that none of the riders in the Tour are concerned about that.

Relating to the "Ullrich grabs a bite" thread, this might explain Jan's
low cadence. He's afraid of losing too much weight in the TdF and
hurting is winter shape.

gwhite said:

Regardless of what definition is used, efficiency approachs zero as
cadence approaches zero* [...]

* Otherwise a discontinuity would have to exist between zero cadence --
which produces zero power -- and some arbitrarily low cadence. One
could say zero cadence is indeterminant, but I see that as pointless
quibble.

But that's just it. The fraction a/b where both a and b tend to zero, is
usually indeterminate. Zero over zero is not zero.

--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Ewoud Dronkert said:

gwhite said:

Regardless of what definition is used, efficiency approachs zero as
cadence approaches zero* [...]

* Otherwise a discontinuity would have to exist between zero cadence --
which produces zero power -- and some arbitrarily low cadence. One
could say zero cadence is indeterminant, but I see that as pointless
quibble.

But that's just it. The fraction a/b where both a and b tend to zero, is
usually indeterminate. Zero over zero is not zero.

If you're able to show that a/b, i.e. the efficiency, has an upper and
lower bound for a,b -> 0, i.e. cadence nearing zero, his reasoning makes
sense.