TT riding style question

Quoted message said:

I noticed while running a local ITT, that a lot of the riders who passed me seemed to be pedaling
significatly lower cadences than I was. Is it typical for a rider to run a TT at lower cadences
than they might a mass- start race (where they might need quick acceleration)? Or was it more
likely just a coincidence?

Since you don't need the ability to quickly accelerate to react to attacks, some riders prefer to
run longer cranks and lower cadences for TT's.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I noticed while running a local ITT, that a lot of the riders who passed me seemed to be pedaling
significatly lower cadences than I was. Is it typical for a rider to run a TT at lower cadences
than they might a mass- start race (where they might need quick acceleration)? Or was it more
likely just a coincidence?

Since you don't need the ability to quickly accelerate to react to attacks, some riders prefer to
run longer cranks and lower cadences for TT's.

Ahhh. I didn't think about the longer cranks possibility. Thanks for the info.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

In article said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I noticed while running a local ITT, that a lot of the riders who passed me seemed to be
pedaling significatly lower cadences than I was. Is it typical for a rider to run a TT at lower
cadences than they might a mass- start race (where they might need quick acceleration)? Or was
it more likely just a coincidence?

Since you don't need the ability to quickly accelerate to react to attacks, some riders prefer
to run longer cranks and lower cadences for TT's.

Ahhh. I didn't think about the longer cranks possibility. Thanks for the info.

That sounds reasonable, but they could also be riders who are either primarily triathletes or who
started as triathletes.

Tri-geeks (I can mock them because they keep beating me in the weekly crit) have a theory that they
should use a bike position and cadence that emulates running. Whether this has a performance benefit
in triathlons I cannot say, but it results in triathletes frequently riding at cadences that look
ridiculously low to bike racers.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

> I noticed while running a local ITT, that a lot of the riders who passed me seemed to be
> pedaling significatly lower cadences than I was. Is it typical for a rider to run a TT at lower
> cadences than they might a mass- start race (where they might need quick acceleration)? Or was
> it more likely just a coincidence?

Since you don't need the ability to quickly accelerate to react to attacks, some riders prefer
to run longer cranks and lower cadences for TT's.

Ahhh. I didn't think about the longer cranks possibility. Thanks for the info.

That sounds reasonable, but they could also be riders who are either primarily triathletes or who
started as triathletes.

Tri-geeks (I can mock them because they keep beating me in the weekly crit) have a theory that
they should use a bike position and cadence that emulates running. Whether this has a performance
benefit in triathlons I cannot say, but it results in triathletes frequently riding at cadences
that look ridiculously low to bike racers.

Cadence in isolation is a red-herring. The thing that counts is cadence X torque, i.e., power. If
they're producing more power than you (for the same amount of aero drag), whether their cadence is
higher or lower than yours is not terribly important. What you want to know is what combo of cadence
and torque lets you produce the most sustainable power, not how fast (or slow) the other guys are
spinning their feet.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
>> I noticed while running a local ITT, that a lot of the riders who passed me seemed to be
>> pedaling significatly lower cadences than I was. Is it typical for a rider to run a TT at
>> lower cadences than they might a mass- start race (where they might need quick acceleration)?
>> Or was it more likely just a coincidence?
>
> Since you don't need the ability to quickly accelerate to react to attacks, some riders prefer
> to run longer cranks and lower cadences for TT's.

Ahhh. I didn't think about the longer cranks possibility. Thanks for the info.

That sounds reasonable, but they could also be riders who are either primarily triathletes or
who started as triathletes.

Tri-geeks (I can mock them because they keep beating me in the weekly crit) have a theory that
they should use a bike position and cadence that emulates running. Whether this has a
performance benefit in triathlons I cannot say, but it results in triathletes frequently riding
at cadences that look ridiculously low to bike racers.

Cadence in isolation is a red-herring. The thing that counts is cadence X torque, i.e., power. If
they're producing more power than you (for the same amount of aero drag), whether their cadence is
higher or lower than yours is not terribly important. What you want to know is what combo of
cadence and torque lets you produce the most sustainable power, not how fast (or slow) the other
guys are spinning their feet.

True, but I (the OP) was essentially wondering if a lower cadence with appropriate equipment
adjustments might allow a similar power output with less muscle fatigue since there weren't any
tactical considerations (need to accelerate to respond to an attack, for instance), at least for
some people.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

David Kerber said:

Quoted message said:

Cadence in isolation is a red-herring. The thing that counts is cadence X torque, i.e., power. If
they're producing more power than you (for the same amount of aero drag), whether their cadence
is higher or lower than yours is not terribly important. What you want to know is what combo of
cadence and torque lets you produce the most sustainable power, not how fast (or slow) the other
guys are spinning their feet.

True, but I (the OP) was essentially wondering if a lower cadence with appropriate equipment
adjustments might allow a similar power output with less muscle fatigue since there weren't any
tactical considerations (need to accelerate to respond to an attack, for instance), at least for
some people.

Making the "appropriate equipment adjustments" you're talking about is also called "shifting your
gears," so the answer is yes.

Robert Chung said:

David Kerber said:

Quoted message said:

Cadence in isolation is a red-herring. The thing that counts is cadence X torque, i.e., power.
If they're producing more power than you (for the same amount of aero drag), whether their
cadence is higher or lower than yours is not terribly important. What you want to know is what
combo of cadence and torque lets you produce the most sustainable power, not how fast (or slow)
the other guys are spinning their feet.

True, but I (the OP) was essentially wondering if a lower cadence with appropriate equipment
adjustments might allow a similar power output with less muscle fatigue since there weren't any
tactical considerations (need to accelerate to respond to an attack, for instance), at least for
some people.

Making the "appropriate equipment adjustments" you're talking about is also called "shifting your
gears," so the answer is yes.

BTW, the topic of optimal crank length gets discussed quite often. Here's a pointer to a thread from
2001 that discusses Jim Martin's research findings that support the notion that crank length doesn't
matter all that much.

tinyurl.comku2wOpen ↗

The bottom line of that research is that you can choose your crank length based on personal
preference or on aerodynamics or on almost anything without having to worry that the wrong choice
will adversely affect your performance. The flip side of that is that "optimal" crank length won't
improve your performance, either.

Quoted message said:

The bottom line of that research is that you can choose your crank length based on personal
preference or on aerodynamics or on almost anything without having to worry that the wrong choice
will adversely affect your performance. The flip side of that is that "optimal" crank length won't
improve your performance, either.

Just a couple of points to ponder:

1) Mountain bikes tend to have longer cranks than road bikes, ostensibly to so higher torque can be
produced for climbing.

2) Cadence miss-match can be issue for some tandem teams. One method of addressing this problem is
varying crank-length, i.e, increasing crank length for the rider preferring the higher cadence,
or vice versa.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Chris Neary said:

Just a couple of points to ponder:

1) Mountain bikes tend to have longer cranks than road bikes, ostensibly to so higher torque can
be produced for climbing.

I would think this effect is small, and even if it wasn't the same thing could be accomplished with
a change to a lower gear. BTW, mountain bikers tend to have the least variance between the max and
min torque within the pedal stroke. One might think that longer cranks would increase this
difference.

Quoted message said:

2) Cadence miss-match can be issue for some tandem teams. One method of addressing this problem is
varying crank-length, i.e, increasing crank length for the rider preferring the higher cadence,
or vice versa.

I've heard this is so, particularly while climbing, but I would suspect torque mismatch more than
cadence mismatch. This is just a guess because although I've seen some power data, I've never seen
any from tandems. Nonetheless, the stuff I've seen from single cyclists makes me think that during
climbs they tend to change gears to modulate torque, not cadence. But perhaps you will come to a
different conclusion--one of the data sets that made me think this is discussed here:
mywebpage.netscape.comcomponents.htmlOpen ↗

I (obviously) think these data say that cadence X torque is a more complete story than cadence
alone, but perhaps you'll see it differently.

In article said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
>> I noticed while running a local ITT, that a lot of the riders who passed me seemed to be
>> pedaling significatly lower cadences than I was. Is it typical for a rider to run a TT at
>> lower cadences than they might a mass- start race (where they might need quick acceleration)?
>> Or was it more likely just a coincidence?
>
> Since you don't need the ability to quickly accelerate to react to attacks, some riders prefer
> to run longer cranks and lower cadences for TT's.

Ahhh. I didn't think about the longer cranks possibility. Thanks for the info.

That sounds reasonable, but they could also be riders who are either primarily triathletes or
who started as triathletes.

Tri-geeks (I can mock them because they keep beating me in the weekly crit) have a theory that
they should use a bike position and cadence that emulates running. Whether this has a
performance benefit in triathlons I cannot say, but it results in triathletes frequently riding
at cadences that look ridiculously low to bike racers.

Cadence in isolation is a red-herring. The thing that counts is cadence X torque, i.e., power. If
they're producing more power than you (for the same amount of aero drag), whether their cadence is
higher or lower than yours is not terribly important. What you want to know is what combo of
cadence and torque lets you produce the most sustainable power, not how fast (or slow) the other
guys are spinning their feet.

Fair enough. So why do road and crit racers spin their feet faster, and why do TT racers spin
slower, and why do Tri-geeks spin slowest of all?

Who is right, or is it going to vary wildly depending on personal physiology and training? Which is
more important to ideal cadence: physiology or training?

All this for TTs, of course; it's assumed that spinning has the advantage of better acceleration in
the variable environment of crits and road races.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:55:54 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> from WAC Bennett Review of Arts

and Literature said:

Fair enough. So why do road and crit racers spin their feet faster, and why do TT racers spin
slower, and why do Tri-geeks spin slowest of all?

Road racers spin fast for two reasons. One, this puts the majority of the effort into the
cardiovascular system, minimizing lactic acid development in the legs and keeping those muscles in
the race for the long haul. Two, you can respond to quick accelerations faster in a lower gear by
accelerating faster yourself. Crit riders have the same considerations, but probably the cardio
factor is the biggest.

TT racers spin slower because they are pushing huge gears (duh). They do this to maximize power
output over the course. You'll notice that they've positioned themselves for power, too -- seat far
forward, back flat, etc... Tri-geeks have the same consideration to a greater degree, and then they
have smaller wheels, so a slower cadence is actually spinning the wheels faster.

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace Are we live or on tape?
3:56:19 PM 23 August 2003

Ryan Cousineau said:

Who is right, or is it going to vary wildly depending on personal physiology and training? Which
is more important to ideal cadence: physiology or training?

It appears to vary (at least some) depending on personal physiology. For a given power output, some
people prefer to pedal slower at higher torque, while others prefer to pedal faster at lower torque.
The distribution of fiber type appears to influence this choice: the more slow twitch fibers a
person has, the slower the preferred cadence and the higher the torque.

Your second question is meaningless unless you specify torque since ideal cadence will depend on the
power level.

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith

/\/\ said:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:55:54 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> from WAC Bennett Review of
Arts and Literature wrote:

Quoted message said:

TT racers spin slower because they are pushing huge gears (duh). They do this to maximize power
output over the course. You'll notice that they've positioned themselves for power, too -- seat
far forward, back flat, etc... Tri-geeks have the same consideration to a greater degree, and then
they have smaller wheels, so a slower cadence is actually spinning the wheels faster.

That's not right. Gears allow you to pick any cadence with any size of wheels. If tri-geeks do run
650c wheels, that just means they need to go from a 52 to a 56 front ring or something.

sheldonbrown.comgearsOpen ↗

52x11 on a 700c 23mm tire gives a 9.3 gain ratio. 56x11 on a 650c 23mm tire gives a 9.3 gain ratio.

For the same gearing, smaller wheels make your wheels spin _slower_. If a tri-geek used the
same-tooth gearing on his 650c bike as a TTer did on their 700c bike, then for the same cadence in
the same gear, the TTer would be going faster.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:23:57 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> from WAC Bennett Review of Arts

and Literature said:

That's not right.

YEs, I realized that about 3 hours after making the post. I plead lack of coffee.

--
home.sport.rr.comcuthuluOpen ↗ human rights = peace I invented skydiving in 1989!
11:43:39 PM 23 August 2003

Robert Chung said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Who is right, or is it going to vary wildly depending on personal physiology and training? Which
is more important to ideal cadence: physiology or training?

It appears to vary (at least some) depending on personal physiology. For a given power output,
some people prefer to pedal slower at higher torque, while others prefer to pedal faster at lower
torque. The distribution of fiber type appears to influence this choice: the more slow twitch
fibers a person has, the slower the preferred cadence and the higher the torque.

BTW, I didn't mean to suggest that physiology is even the largest determinant of "optimal" cadence
and torque. At the bottom of the webpage I referred to earlier in this thread
<http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rechung/wattage/components/components.html> is a graph of cadence and
torque from the same guy in three different types of races: a road race, a crit, and a TT. I've seen
other data sets that show that riders will use different combinations of cadence and torque to
achieve the same power level on the hilly and flat parts of the same ride.

In article <[email hidden]>, Kevan Smith
<[email hidden]/\/\> says...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:23:57 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> from WAC Bennett Review of

Arts and Literature said:

That's not right.

YEs, I realized that about 3 hours after making the post. I plead lack of coffee.

You are forgiven <GGG>.

....

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.