Some thoughts on riding, provoked by Mr. Kirk

[hansolo758]

Elsewhere, Dave Kirk has posted a wonderful tip on riding. When I read it, I imagine I'm watching a zen master meditate. Here it is:

So in an effort to put my money where my mouth is here's a riding tip -

* ride consciously. There are some folks out there who look "right" on the bike and pedal so beautifully and you can see them from a mile away. Some seem to think that by doing huge mileage that they will develop that same smooth and powerful stroke. The mileage is certainly important but IMO the real important thing is to ride consciously. In most cases the folks that have that perfect stroke have developed it not solely by riding a lot but by riding with the technique in mind as often as possible. They are conscious of what they are doing and are actively making choices all the time as to how to pedal. If it sounds like a lot of work you are right. It's hard to ride and think at the same time especially if you are in a group. So my tip is to ride alone and ride with technique in mind. Feel what the pedal stroke is like, the timing of it. Is it smooth and round feeling or are there obvious spikes in it? Ride slowly with light pressure on the pedals and concentrate in technique. Do not try to go fast. There will be plenty of time to do that later. For now just focus on the technique itself. Make mental notes as to what feels "right" and what doesn't. If you ride slowly without the mental pressure to go fast you will be much more open to make changes to your stroke. We all have those slow recovery rides during the week. Don't just sit on the bike and mindlessly turn the pedals but ride consciously.

As you start to change your spin then you can add power to it. If you start to add power and your spin goes to **** back off and get the spin right and start the process over adding speed and power over time. You can't rush it.

The important thing in my mind is that one needs to not just spin the pedals and "try harder" but one needs to make changes to be better. Doing things the old way is, in effect, practicing bad habits. No one need to do this. The fast guys out there are often not the strongest. What they have is a combination of strength, technique and efficiency that allows them to go faster with less effort.

Ride consciously and actively.

Over and out.

dave

Now it's one thing to read something profound but quite another to apply it, and it's only this winter that I'm starting to. For a middle-aged guy working full-time, I ride when I can -- probably 4000 miles a year, mostly commuting and weekend rides. Like most folks on this forum, I have more bikes than I need and my share of lightweight bikes. Yet, it's only now in the winter that I'm really starting to understand Mr. Kirk's post. Why? Because, I'm riding heavier bikes than at other times of the year. In the winter, I ride a steel rigid mountain bike and a nothing-special aluminum cyclocross bike, both with studded tires, lights, racks, panniers and fenders. The mountain bike with just normal winter paraphernalia weighs nearly 40 lbs. My cyclocross bike is a single-speed. I also wear heavy clothes to keep warm. I ride through snow and slush and have to pedal harder. The weight, the increased pedaling effort and the lack of easier gears all force me to be conscious of my pedal stroke in a way I'm not in the summer riding my 17 pound road bike.

I know that folks like Fixed will tell me fixed gear riding will do this for me. I have a fixed gear bike. Even though I tackle hills with it in the summer, it's light enough that I can cheat by letting up on the pedal pressure every now and then. You can't cheat on a heavy bike riding through snow.

So I submit that the pursuit we all sometimes engage in of wanting lighter this and lighter that, while certainly fun, can be counterproductive not just financially, but in terms of technique. I must confess I have just as much fun on my heavy bikes in the winter as I do on my high-zoot lightweight steeds in the summer. Maybe, just maybe, the thing to do is just to go out and ride? Don't worry about being a Fred (I certainly qualify), and definitely don't worry about whether your bike is cool or lightweight.

[Lance Armstrong]

Mr. Kirk is COOL!!!!! :cool: :cool:

[paczki]

Somewhere on the web I was reading something from a "coach" who said that pedal stroke doesn't matter all that matters is wattage. The statement is straightforwardly idiotic -- as if your pedal stroke wouldn't help you to maximize your efficiency and your wattage! But it's even more idiotic than that -- a lot of what is beautiful in cycling is watching or having a fluid, effortless stroke.

I think the French have it right. Cycling isn't just about grim wattage. It's about fluidity and souplesse and a beautiful form -- it's aesthetic as well. And like chess and many other pursuits it turns out that what is beautiful is often efficient and powerful.

In this guy's defense I think he's a tri coach, so his job is to be an idiot. ;)

[fiamme red]

Somewhere on the web I was reading something from a "coach" who said that pedal stroke doesn't matter all that matters is wattage.Ti Designs? ;)

[paczki]

Ti Designs? ;)

As someone who took Ti Design's pedaling class last night, I can give a definitive no!

[Blue Jays]

The funny part is the design of cranksets only allows one to pedal in circles, yet it is very easy to identify whom is truly pedaling in circles and whom isn't!

[rounder]

I would like to see more zen from ben, but D. Kirk gives bike advice as good as anybody. Thanks Dave.

[soulspinner]

In the old days Italian coaches were seen leaning out of car doors to watch road racers technique as they spun under all conditions. Does anyone do this now????????

[RPS]

Somewhere on the web I was reading something from a "coach" who said that pedal stroke doesn't matter all that matters is wattage. The statement is straightforwardly idiotic -- as if your pedal stroke wouldn't help you to maximize your efficiency and your wattage!I hope you intended a lot of sarcasm here; otherwise the quote is probably out of context. Do these two highlighted parts even disagree with each other? :confused:

[paczki]

I hope you intended a lot of sarcasm here; otherwise the quote is probably out of context. Do these two highlighted parts even disagree with each other? :confused:

Yes sarcasm and perhaps lack of clarity. The "coach" said ignore your pedal stroke because all that matters is wattage.

[Ti Designs]

The funny part is the design of cranksets only allows one to pedal in circles, yet it is very easy to identify whom is truly pedaling in circles and whom isn't!


The crank controls the path of the pedal, thus the foot always goes around in a circle. That's not to say that the rider is always pushing the pedal in the right direction. Example: Push straight down at the bottom of the pedal stroke - how much power does that transmit to the back wheel? OK, now push harder... Force at the pedals doesn't increase power at the back wheel, force in the right direction does. I work with new riders all the time, they get to a hill and think "I have to push harder", but what they really do is push longer, so they're pushing straight down at the bottom of the pedal stroke and very often past there. Few people see this or really understand what it is that they do or see, most people see a pedal going around in circles...

I've never seen that post by Dave, but I've known since the Giro del Toga that we're on the same page. While he had almost no mileage for the season he still put 5 minutes on the group, turning those super long cranks of his in smooth circles going up the big climb of the day. While others were wishing they had lower gears Dave was at the top looking for off-road trails to ride around on (guess they don't have that many paved roads in Montana).

Here's something to think aout before you get into some hard interval work. The human body puts out a depressing amount of wattage. There's more to be saved in an efficient pedal stroke than there is to be gained in a hard workout program. What's more, if you pedal ugly at low output, it doesn't get better with effort, it just keeps getting worse. In my pedal stroke class I have riders turn circles with one foot at a time with almost no resistance at low speed. There's some "thunk"ing going on, which shows that there are still some problems that need to be worked out. Sometimes someone will say "I'm smoother with more resistance". No, they're not, that's called masking the problem. The idea is to learn the motion, the sequence of muscles firing and the timing first, and then add power. Dave's comment about taking it up slowly can't be stressed enough. The pedal stroke is like anything else you learn, skipping steps is a mistake. First you learn the motion, then you isolate muscles and learn where they fire, and more to the point where they don't. Then you practice that until you can do it in your sleep. When you have all the components you can start to add them together. If you don't get that point, go rent The Karate Kid - all is not as it seems...

[fiamme red]

There's more to be saved in an efficient pedal stroke than there is to be gained in a hard workout program. What's more, if you pedal ugly at low output, it doesn't get better with effort, it just keeps getting worse. In my pedal stroke class I have riders turn circles with one foot at a time with almost no resistance at low speed. There's some "thunk"ing going on, which shows that there are still some problems that need to be worked out.So are you an advocate of PowerCranks?

[RPS]

Yes sarcasm and perhaps lack of clarity.There is so much misunderstood about what power is, not to mention how to get more of it, that it’s sometimes hard to tell when people are being funny, sarcastic, or simply quoting whacked ideas they read on the internet and now think its gospel.

[David Kirk]

Here's something to think aout before you get into some hard interval work. The human body puts out a depressing amount of wattage. There's more to be saved in an efficient pedal stroke than there is to be gained in a hard workout program. What's more, if you pedal ugly at low output, it doesn't get better with effort, it just keeps getting worse. In my pedal stroke class I have riders turn circles with one foot at a time with almost no resistance at low speed. There's some "thunk"ing going on, which shows that there are still some problems that need to be worked out. Sometimes someone will say "I'm smoother with more resistance". No, they're not, that's called masking the problem. The idea is to learn the motion, the sequence of muscles firing and the timing first, and then add power. Dave's comment about taking it up slowly can't be stressed enough. The pedal stroke is like anything else you learn, skipping steps is a mistake. First you learn the motion, then you isolate muscles and learn where they fire, and more to the point where they don't. Then you practice that until you can do it in your sleep. When you have all the components you can start to add them together. If you don't get that point, go rent The Karate Kid - all is not as it seems...

Amen to this. I might be wrong but cycling seems to be one of the only sports I can think of where the basic motion isn't the main focus. Good alpine ski racers don't start by bombing down the hill. Great nordic skiers focus on technique first and the fitness follows. Tennis players don't focus on the running back and forth on the court and doing intervals but instead focus on their stroke. It seems that many think that we learned to pedal a bike as a kid and that that there is little room to improve that skill or little benefit from doing so. If one watches the best riders out there they will see a combination of very strong technique and a high level of fitness. One without the other won't get you too far and focusing on fitness without the efficiency that comes with skill will be an exercise in frustration.

We all have at least one guy in our club who stacks on huge mileage and hard training (intervals and hill repeats - etc.) yet gets shucked when the ride gets hard. The response often seems to be putting even more miles in and "trying harder" and still the results don't come. They often seem to resent the fact that some of the guys in their club put in 1/2 their mileage and get good results and wonder why they have to work so hard in comparison. In so many cases I think this boils down to technique and efficiency.

Time to make some sparks.

dave

P.S. I'm very pleased that the OP got something out of my writing. It's hard to tell when sitting alone in the office if it makes sense or not. I'm glad you benefited from my efforts. Good on you.

[Pete Serotta]

Thanks Dave :D :D :D

[Tobias]

This issue comes down to what a person believes regarding the importance of genetics versus technique as it relates to producing “power”.

If you happen to believe that it’s mostly technique that can be learned as some are suggesting, then everyone should be able to “learn” how to become a great or at least competitive cyclist. On the other hand, if you happen to believe that the ability to generate “power” is mostly a function of genetics and that technique is merely the icing on the cake, then becoming resentful for not being competitive with your friends at a club level is counterproductive.

Personally, I think science has confirmed that the vast majority of our talent (i.e. – more of a gift) to generate power is genetic (which includes the ability to become fit). Technique is important to differentiate between those who are similarly gifted, but will never make an average rider a champion.

Basic sports like cycling and running that require a lot of power should not be confused IMHO with sports requiring a lot of “skill”. Skills can be influenced much easier than the size of your lungs. :rolleyes:

[hansolo758]

The crank controls the path of the pedal, thus the foot always goes around in a circle. That's not to say that the rider is always pushing the pedal in the right direction. Example: Push straight down at the bottom of the pedal stroke - how much power does that transmit to the back wheel? OK, now push harder... Force at the pedals doesn't increase power at the back wheel, force in the right direction does. I work with new riders all the time, they get to a hill and think "I have to push harder", but what they really do is push longer, so they're pushing straight down at the bottom of the pedal stroke and very often past there. Few people see this or really understand what it is that they do or see, most people see a pedal going around in circles...

I've never seen that post by Dave, but I've known since the Giro del Toga that we're on the same page. While he had almost no mileage for the season he still put 5 minutes on the group, turning those super long cranks of his in smooth circles going up the big climb of the day. While others were wishing they had lower gears Dave was at the top looking for off-road trails to ride around on (guess they don't have that many paved roads in Montana).

Here's something to think aout before you get into some hard interval work. The human body puts out a depressing amount of wattage. There's more to be saved in an efficient pedal stroke than there is to be gained in a hard workout program. What's more, if you pedal ugly at low output, it doesn't get better with effort, it just keeps getting worse. In my pedal stroke class I have riders turn circles with one foot at a time with almost no resistance at low speed. There's some "thunk"ing going on, which shows that there are still some problems that need to be worked out. Sometimes someone will say "I'm smoother with more resistance". No, they're not, that's called masking the problem. The idea is to learn the motion, the sequence of muscles firing and the timing first, and then add power. Dave's comment about taking it up slowly can't be stressed enough. The pedal stroke is like anything else you learn, skipping steps is a mistake. First you learn the motion, then you isolate muscles and learn where they fire, and more to the point where they don't. Then you practice that until you can do it in your sleep. When you have all the components you can start to add them together. If you don't get that point, go rent The Karate Kid - all is not as it seems...

Thanks. That helps a lot, also.

[RPS]

When calculating power, there is no correction factor for “smoothness” or technique. Ugly watts are the same as smooth watts. Like in the roll-over minutes commercial, they spend the same.

[David Kirk]

When calculating power, there is no correction factor for “smoothness” or technique. Ugly watts are the same as smooth watts. Like in the roll-over minutes commercial, they spend the same.

If I understand you properly, I disagree -

Let's say you can produce 400 watts of power. If you apply it effectively you will use the vast majority of that power to propel you forward up the road. If you are ineffective (like pushing on the pedal at bottom dead center) you are still pushing on the pedal but it doesn't make you go anywhere.

To me it's not only how much power you can generate but also how you spend it.

Dave

[cp43]

When calculating power, there is no correction factor for “smoothness” or technique. Ugly watts are the same as smooth watts. Like in the roll-over minutes commercial, they spend the same.

I took this to be talking about power at the wheel. So, in one sense I agree, if you're getting the same power at the wheel you'll go just as fast. However, if those are ugly watts you're using more energy to produce them, and you'll tire more quickly.

[RPS]

If I understand you properly, I disagree -
......snipped...........
To me it's not only how much power you can generate but also how you spend it.

DaveWith all due respect Dave, power by definition doesn't work that way. We are not talking about "effort" which is what I would guess you and many here keep referring to -- but effort is a far cry from power. If a rider produces 400 watts that is just about all we need to know. It's not open to interpretation -- not really. 400 watts of power is, well, 400 watts of power. It’s also a little more than 1/2 horsepower, etc...

It's like saying a young lady weighs 120 pounds. It doesn’t matter whether she is cute or ugly, she still weighs 120 pounds.

It's obvious many people on this forum have their own definition of what "power" means to them. Rather than derail and/or highjack this thread, I'll start a separate one to discuss the meaning to see if there is interest. It's too difficult to discuss when we are talking about different things.

Let's say you can produce 400 watts of power. If you apply it effectively you will use the vast majority of that power to propel you forward up the road. If you are ineffective (like pushing on the pedal at bottom dead center) you are still pushing on the pedal but it doesn't make you go anywhere.In this example, you are no longer producing 400 watts. ;)

[David Kirk]

With all due respect Dave, power by definition doesn't work that way. We are not talking about "effort" which is what I would guess you and many here keep referring to -- but effort is a far cry from power. If a rider produces 400 watts that is just about all we need to know. It's not open to interpretation -- not really. 400 watts of power is, well, 400 watts of power. It’s also a little more than 1/2 horsepower, etc...

It's like saying a young lady weighs 120 pounds. It doesn’t matter whether she is cute or ugly, she still weighs 120 pounds.

It's obvious many people on this forum have their own definition of what "power" means to them. Rather than derail and/or highjack this thread, I'll start a separate one to discuss the meaning to see if there is interest. It's too difficult to discuss when we are talking about different things.

In this example, you are no longer producing 400 watts. ;)

I'm with you. You are correct that I'm mixing terms. If the rider uses bad technique he will put out an effort that will result in less power getting to the rear wheel and ground. The rider will get just as tired and feel they are putting out the same effort as their equally fit identical twin but they will go slower.

So yes I stand corrected in that respect. I think you will agree that two identical riders that can produce the same power but have differing levels of skill and technique will go different speeds. Power without technique is inefficient. One needs both power and technique to go as fast as possible.

Dave

[Ti Designs]

If a rider produces 400 watts that is just about all we need to know.

And this number tells us what???

[giordana93]

And this number tells us what???

and to second that thought, while complementing dave's "mixing of terms," 400 watts is only an instantaneous, usually peak, measurement. how many of you have ridden with guys able to put out huge power in "ugly" watts, but the energy costs for it are so great (i.e. they are inefficient producers of power) that by the end of a hard ride they can barely stay at the back of the train because they are spent?

[happycampyer]

While it's true that 400 watts is 400 watts, no matter who produces it, IMO there is a difference in how it is produced, which I take to be Dave's and Ti Design's point. No doubt, fitness and strength have a lot to do with one's ability to produce and sustain a given wattage, but technique, riding position, etc. also influence one's ability to produce, sustain and recover from a given effort.

For example, as I made adjustments to my fit, one of the things that I noticed was that when my saddle was too low my quads would end up doing a disproportionate amount of work. I could still produce x watts (say 110% of my threshold power), but if I sustained that wattage for 20 minutes, I really felt it the next day. Even a 1cm difference meant that my glutes and hamstrings were more engaged so that the muscle fatigue was more balanced—I wasn’t any more fit, but I could tell that I was using my muscles more efficiently, and my recovery was quicker.

My pedal stroke is far from perfect, but I’m a firm believer that a smooth pedal stroke means less wasted energy for any given wattage output. There’s a video on VeloNews TV that has a high-tech demo of this effect—if you go to “Tech” and scroll down to the “Telemetric Analysis” video, you can see an EMG readout of a cyclist’s pedal stroke. Pretty cool IMO.