Over revving? Shift points

(Andrew Bradley) 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.

Quoted message said:

Andrew Bradley

--
Rick Onanian

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

Quoted message said:

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!

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

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Ken Bessler said:

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!

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 was a car I'd say my shift points are too high

There's no need to start in "first gear" on a bike. The lowest gear is for climbing steep hills.
Find a reasonably low gear that's comfortable for starting off, and shift up as pedaling becomes
easier. There's not any particular shifting pattern that you have to follow, and you don't have to
spend time in each gear as you accelerate.

Most experienced cyclists tend to spin at between 80 and 100 rpms on the flats. Some also spin up
hills, while others prefer a lower cadence when climbing. It takes a while for spinning to feel
natural. But if you've tried and it ain't happening, then listen to your body.

Art Harris

(Jim Rogers) 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, which is balancing
efficiency at varying but often high power outputs with the ability to accellerate when needed.

JT
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit jt10000.comjt10000.comOpen ↗
*******************************************

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mzajb.774183$YN5.758369@sccrnsc01...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

What really impresses me is the idea I first heard of here - pulling

back

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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!

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mzajb.774183$YN5.758369@sccrnsc01...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

What really impresses me is the idea I first heard of here - pulling

back

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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!

"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.

Peter Cole said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"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

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

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

you

Quoted message said:

: 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

Quoted message said:

offer some truths, though you are invited to offer counter arguments and I

would love you to

Quoted message said:

demonstrate how riding a fixie is useless. Riding a fixie teaches one how

to:

Quoted message said:

spin efficiently spin at high cadences keep spinning

OK, these three items refer to "spinning". I usually take that term to just mean pedaling at high
cadence. This is true for downhill pedaling on a fixed gear, but learning to pedal fast is only
useful if you need to pedal fast, a situation that only arises in fixed gear cycling. With a
multi-speed bike, you just shift for a comfortable cadence.

Quoted message said:

ride anywhere with one gear

I'm not sure this is something that needs to be learned, so much as endured.

Quoted message said:

how not to be a lazy cyclist (pedal, coast)

If you think coasting is bad under all circumstances (something I disagree with), you don't need a
fixed gear bike to practice this.

Quoted message said:

handle a bike that will bite you if you become complacent

Any bike will bite if you become complacent. Fixed gear bikes have an additional set of hazards from
things like dropped chains or caught clothing, just working on a fixed gear can be hazardous for
your fingers. These concerns don't map well into regular bikes. If you want to learn bike handling
skills, you're better off with mountain biking or cyclecross.

Quoted message said:

and this is but a sample. All these skills transfer to a derailleured bike

and make one a

Quoted message said:

faster and safer rider.

I've ridden a fixed for several thousand miles a year for the last several years. I don't find that
it makes me faster, as a matter of fact, I think it makes me slower, it takes a while to get back
into "geared" mode. I've noticed the same thing from several club riders that ride fixed bikes
regularly. I don't think it has any impact on safety either, you just learn another set of reflexes.
It's much like switching back & forth between cars with manual & automatic transmissions.

I ride fixed gear bikes because I find them pleasant. There is more of a sense of "connectedness"
with the bike. In the winter, maintenance is easier in areas like Boston where I ride, since snow,
salt, sand and very low temperatures mess up drivetrains. I've found that fixed gear bikes on a
rolling course extract about a 10% speed penalty, so to keep up with my club mates on winter
rides, I have to work a lot harder. This helps maintain fitness during the generally shorter
winter riding hours.

Ken Bessler said:

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!

Sounds like you are shifting as if you were driving a car. This is not the best. I start out, say
from a stoplight, in the gear I think I will want to cruise in. Acclerating a bicycle (wheels and
all) to cruising speed is not the chore that it is for a car. It only takes a few turns of the
cranks to get going. No need for low gears for that. Low gears are for hills.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You _`\(,_ | soon find out the
pig likes it! (_)/ (_) |

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

Quoted message said:

Ken Bessler said:

Anyways, I've come to realise that I may be approaching this whole

cadence

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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!

Sounds like you are shifting as if you were driving a car. This is not the best. I start out, say
from a stoplight, in the gear I think I will want to cruise in. Acclerating a bicycle (wheels and
all) to cruising speed is not the chore that it is for a car. It only takes a few turns of the
cranks to get going. No need for low gears for that. Low gears are for hills.

Thanks for the tip - I was starting out in 1st, pedeling to 95 rpm, then shifting to 2nd, etc. just
like a car. Now, I'm in HI range, starting out in 1st but then shifting to my cruising gear (usually
4th). I shift at 75 rpm.

My legs feel much better and I'm getting much faster!

Ken

(John Forrest Tomlinson) said:

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.

This may be true of "push-push" style pedalling, but I know that I've pulled out of maladjusted
clipless pedals on the upstroke, with the pedal as close to the rear of the bike as possible, with
my foot going straight up once the pedal released it.

Quoted message said:

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

Okay, for that definition, true.

Quoted message said:

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

You're right. I confused you with Peter Cole, who wrote it in
groups.google.comgroupsOpen ↗ Sorry about that.

Quoted message said:

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)?

A more accurate description would be nice, but "round" communicates it extremely well to people who
aren't familiar with the idea; it becomes very easy to describe how it's done at that point. More
accurate and almost as useful would be "Applying pedalling force through the whole circle of the
pedal", but that's pretty cumbersome.

Quoted message said:

JT

--
Rick Onanian