Need gearing advice . . . [Archive]

Ti Designs

03-08-2009, 09:48 PM

I guess I should be slightly more constructive (now that I've been called an idiot, a moron and an asshole via PM... Isn't that against the forum rules? I thought I read something about that.)

There are those who think they're doing something good for their body by using anti-bacteria soap and germ killing sprays and all that crap, yet they are the first ones to get sick. What they're really doing is killing off their defenses. In much the same way, the ever increasing number of gears is doing the same thing to cyclists. I can't help but laugh at the idea of using a 36/50 x 12-27 in the mountainous state of RI. I would have suggested a whole different tactic - get yourself a winter fixed gear. Two reasons: First, there's this forign concept known as base mileage. That's where you spend a solid month or two doing longish rides in a low intensity training zone - the fixed gear is perfect for that. Second, it'll force you to learn how to both turn a high cadance and deliver torque, which means you're less dependent on the gearing.

OK, a little more detail on this base mileage thing. This weekend was warm here in the northeast, the warm spell between snow storms. Lots of people who have done nothing on the bike all winter took out their fancy bikes with the carbon wheels to see what they have left from last year. And into the big chainring they went... These are your average weekend wariors who all seem to be a few pounds over where they should be, and keep that extra weight all season long. There's a reason for that. Base mileage is getting your body to tap into it's fat supply, rather than just your glycogen supply. This doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen at high intensity. There's an old saying, if you want to go fast, learn how to go slow. Now you know why. As an added bonus, if you do teach your body how to use fat, you're not going to need the super low gears, and your knees will like you that much more. I suggest the fixed gear because it keeps the heart rate steady (no coasting) and it's the bike you don't have to worry about in the winter. Forget about all those super clean bikes you've seen on the "Track bikes are so cool" thread, get it dirty, keep it dirty, put some oil on the chain once in a while, wear the rubber off the tires.

Riding a fixed gear also teaches you how to shift - that may be the dumbest sounding thing I've said here... Clunky shifts are desperation shifts, it's not about maintaining a cadence, it's "I **NEED** a lower gear". Learning to ride a fixed gear means gaining a wider range of torque, which means needing to shift less on the road bike and never getting to that NEED point. If you could stomp on the pedals for two pedal strokes, then back down on the power while you shift, it's all smooth.

What you don't want to do is get all picky about how the bike shifts, it's that slipery slop that once you start it never ends. Pretty soon you'll have a triple up front with 13 gears in back, complaining that the chain rubs on the large ring all the time and getting about 100 miles between changing chains. There was a time when hard men (I mean tough, this has nothing to do with calling your doctor after 4 hours) used 5 speed freewheels and Nuovo Record shifters that had no shifting accuracy to speak of. Nobody complained about the shifting, it didn't matter. As long as it stayed in gear (the down tube shifters had this annoying habit of moving forward and putting you into a harder gear) and ran smoothly, all was good. kinda like a fixed gear that doesn't take 15 minutes to change gear ratios on.

Just my opinion. OK, y'all can call me an idiot. Better yet, let's go for a ride so you can do it in person. Then you can show me how I need more gears and much, much lower ones...

Ken Robb

03-08-2009, 09:58 PM

Ken,

The Serotta I just purchased came with the double. I'm comparing it to the triple I've had right along on my Fuji.

I wanted the Serotta regardless - for lots of other reasons. That said this is my first experience with a double in many years and I certainly notice the difference.

All of these suggestions make sense, however. If, after more road time on routes I'm very familiar with, I can't adjust adequately I'll take the advice given and gladly make a change (compact or triple).

For me the superior ride, handling and fit more than justify a gearing adjustment.

Amen, Brother--great bike with gearing that lets you ride wherever you want is the best. I missed the part about a second bike. I thought you switched from a good set-up to one that didn't work for you. Ken

Samster

03-08-2009, 10:43 PM

Learn how to ride...now that's helpful, imo.

Samster

03-08-2009, 10:45 PM

There are those who think they're doing something good for their body by using anti-bacteria soap and germ killing sprays and all that crap, yet they are the first ones to get sick. What they're really doing is killing off their defenses. In much the same way, the ever increasing number of gears is doing the same thing to cyclists.and this is even more helpful.

cody.wms

03-08-2009, 11:06 PM

Sheldon Brown's gear calculator is great. You can also see your speeds at different cadences, which is really helpful.

Personally, I use a 50/34 compact and a 13-26 10 speed cassette. This lets me run about 30mph in my top gear, great for some of the busier downhills I ride on, allowing me to keep up with traffic and be able to more easily take the lane. At the same time, it gives me around 70 inches in my cruising gear (the 50 x 18), and a low gear that I dont have to use on every ride. Most people will have 3 or 4 gears they spend the majority of time in, but it makes sense to have a range of gears that will be used.

I would see what gears you use on the Fuji and plan accordingly. It doesn't make sense to have a 53x39 and a 12-23 when your not going to use the 12 and 13 (or whatever) and wish for a 25 or a 27.

Ti Designs

03-08-2009, 11:22 PM

and this is even more helpful.

Don't forget to wash your hands after posting.

My advice to learn how to ride is valid and serious advice. If you take it as an insult it probably means you don't think you have anything to learn when it comes to riding, so you look to the gearing to make up for the rider. I spend a lot of time learning how to ride - I guess that makes just about everyone on this forum a better rider than I am (or maybe I know something you don't - no, I am not left handed). When I say "learn how to ride", which I've done before, maybe 1 out of 10 people understand what I mean, some of them even agree with me (in silence - nobody wants to be seen agreeing with the town idiot). Just can't please everyone all the time...

Ray

03-09-2009, 04:22 AM

Don't forget to wash your hands after posting.

My advice to learn how to ride is valid and serious advice. If you take it as an insult it probably means you don't think you have anything to learn when it comes to riding, so you look to the gearing to make up for the rider. I spend a lot of time learning how to ride - I guess that makes just about everyone on this forum a better rider than I am (or maybe I know something you don't - no, I am not left handed). When I say "learn how to ride", which I've done before, maybe 1 out of 10 people understand what I mean, some of them even agree with me (in silence - nobody wants to be seen agreeing with the town idiot). Just can't please everyone all the time...
Ti, I have no problem with your riding technique advice and your desire to have more people get good coaching. You're just as entitled to post this stuff well and often as Ahneida is to post about FRNs and you're even on topic!

But you don't know bupkis about this guy other than he just bought a new bike, he really likes the balance and handling of the frame, but the gearing is unfamiliar to him because its different than what he's used to. You have no idea what kind of rider he is or what kind of rider he gives a ***** about becoming. When the debate/discussion turns to 'which incredibly chi chi parts should I put on this incredibly chi chi frame, an occasional reminder about the limits of equipment isn't bad. But telling this new guy who's just trying to enjoy his new bike in a way similar to the way he enjoyed his old bike to "learn how to ride" is pretty over the top. At least IMHO. You obviously disagree. But if you say it with a bit of tact and perhaps a bit less frequently and perhaps when its a bit more relevant to the discussion, perhaps people will listen more than when it becomes a broken record. Hey, I know about broken records - I've been one myself from time to time. I'm the last guy to call anyone nasty names, but I did think this one was over the top.

I personally enjoy and value your insights on technique and how to develop more of it. But if I was Chip from RI and this was my first introduction to you, I'd put you on my ignore list and never listen to you again.

-Ray

Samster

03-09-2009, 06:36 AM

'nuff said.

RPS

03-09-2009, 06:43 AM

If he is 25, relatively fit, and will likely be getting stronger, maybe pushing bigger gears will help him get stronger. If he is 55 (or worse yet 75) and has no interest in racing or going fast, and looks forward to enjoying casual rides for totally different reasons than speed and power, then having suitable gearing is essential.

Without proper information it�s impossible to give advice of much value.

Samster

03-09-2009, 06:50 AM

. . . transitioning from a Shimano triple to a Campy double.

I got out today for the first time on the Serotta tg I purchased over the winter. I've been mostly riding a Fuji (aluminum/carbon) for the last three years and the differences in ride quality, etc. are amazing to me.

On this 20 or so mile ride I concentrated mostly on shifting and the feel of gear transitions. I noticed much more feedback with the Campy shifting.

At the same time I spent most of the ride in the smaller chainwheel (52/39) and really noticed the shorter gear range available on hills. I also had a couple rough, clunky shifts under a load that would have been much smoother with the triple.

Do you have any advice or tips that will help? Is my early experience atypical?

Thanksmy preference (and that's all it is) is 48/34 in front and 11/21 in back (record 10). for the hills of missouri, 34-21 is about all i ever need going up (except for one particular 25% pitch out where Louis lives). 48-11 is all i ever need in terms of flats/downhills. everything in between is fine too. if you can try a compact for free somehow, it will give you a sense what will work for you on your particular riding terrain. but as some other posters in this thread have already suggested, you typically don't need 30 speeds. for that matter, you typically don't need 20 either. pick your biggest usable gear and your smallest gear you need to use, and the rest will fill in by itself.

the only downside to all this is that campy compact isn't cheap. if it turns out you like it, maybe try to engineer a trade, or prowl on ebay.

otherwise, getting a larger rear cluster may be the cheaper option.

good luck.

flickwet

03-09-2009, 06:53 AM

Cause by listening to him I transformed my riding, I have learned to incorporate my glutes to a far greater extent WOW I mean a huge difference. OK, maybe the "learn to ride..."thing seemed a bit harsh but out of context or off the cuff statements containg alot of real knowledge are valuable. I get the fixed thing on the other hand I work hard on the trainer all winter and hit the SS mtb ASAP, spinning out on the flats and hammering up the rises absolutely does wonders for my conditioning, instead of adjusting my gearing to maintain my best cadence, Whoever sent Ti the mean PM just realize that this dude can and will change your cycling life, if you listen.

sg8357

03-09-2009, 07:12 AM

Learn how to ride...

Revealed, Ti Designs is the reincarnation of Henri Dresgrange.

Scott G.

Samster

03-09-2009, 08:03 AM

Whoever sent Ti the mean PM ...[snipped]
it's odd that people do stuff like this. 90% of this stuff is just-for-fun. for the record i have nothing against anyone... except our last two presidents.

Pete Serotta

03-09-2009, 08:26 AM

THis is the time to build base miles.....Put a larger cassette on the bike (or if it is 8 speed and your other bike is 8 speed, you can just switch wheels. I am betting you other wheel is a 27 largest cog if it is SHIMANO. is CAMPY it is probably a 25 or 26. I use to switch shimano and campy 8 back and forth with minor adjustment.

Once you get the base miles in, you can decide more on the proper gears for you...>KEY is to use whatever gears get you on the bike and out riding. I very seldom ride with a 23 in the rear, although lots of folks do in this area. I have found a 25 works better for me.. Each to their own AS LONG AS THEY GET OUT AND RIDE.

Feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance in gear selection.

PETE

fiamme red

03-09-2009, 08:35 AM

I suggest the fixed gear because it keeps the heart rate steady (no coasting)I don't get this. When you're on a geared bike and reach a steep hill, you can gear down to keep your heart rate steady. On a fixed-gear, you have to get out of the saddle and push hard to get over.

ChipRI

03-09-2009, 08:38 AM

A few thoughts after reading your comments -

- I realize now that some background would have been helpful from the beginning. I'm 59 and started riding a couple of years ago after open heart surgery to repair a faulty mitral valve. That first summer I was restricted from my usual activities - golf and tennis - but cycling was allowed. I began with a flat-barred road bike (Fuji) with 27 gears (105 triple). Certainly wasn't hard to get used to and I quickly regained my cardio fitness and really started to enjoy it. For me, however, it's strictly recreational. With the exception of the occasional charity ride, I'm usually out solo when my schedule allows. Last year I averaged about 100 miles/week.

- My reason for posting the question is based on my inexperience with different set-ups. All of your suggestions make a lot of sense and I'll start with the simplest first - broadening the range of my cassette. The Sheldon Brown metrics were helpful in identifying my comfort zone, which seems to be the middle-to-larger cogs within the middle chain wheel.

- I greatly appreciate all of your helpful comments, Ti Designs included. I've taken the time to read some of his prior posts on gearing and technique and they make a lot of sense.

- In my short time on this forum I've seen some well-meaning threads deteriorate into personal criticism. I'm not sure about past animosities or where "the bodies are buried" but I'd rather not see this thread go in that direction. Thanks again to all for taking the time to help me along.
:beer:

Pete Serotta

03-09-2009, 08:44 AM

The vast majority of folks here are recreational riders and love the sport. Anyting we can do to assist let us know. I am 62 and far from a racer. (wish that was 26 but .... ;) ;) )

johnnymossville

03-09-2009, 08:47 AM

I'd go with a compact over a triple. I got a chance to ride a trek madone last summer for quite awhile and I feel it's range of gearing is more of a plus than a minus for overall riding enjoyment.

Ti Designs

03-09-2009, 09:17 AM

I personally enjoy and value your insights on technique and how to develop more of it. But if I was Chip from RI and this was my first introduction to you, I'd put you on my ignore list and never listen to you again.

Point taken. Many of my posts are out of frustration, if you couldn't tell. I'm a cycling coach preaching the gospel of technique work and base mileage and the whole world is focused on equipment and pro racing. My truth is out there on the road in what I or any of my riders can do on the bike. On the internet that doesn't come across, it's my word about technique vs. anyone else's understanding of physics.

johnnymossville

03-09-2009, 09:26 AM

Pete Serotta

03-09-2009, 09:31 AM

I enjoy your posts and value your knowledge and experience that you share with us......THANKS

paczki

03-09-2009, 09:33 AM

I don't get this. When you're on a geared bike and reach a steep hill, you can gear down to keep your heart rate steady. On a fixed-gear, you have to get out of the saddle and push hard to get over.

Ti would say your using too big a gear on your fixie, lower the gearing and spin more on the descents. That's the point.

Ed (Ti) sometimes feels a bit like -- to draw an analogy -- everyone plunks down their money for a Stradavarius but no one wants to learn to play it. And that's the beauty of owning a Strad, playing Bach on the damned thing. If you don't learn to play it it's nice to look at, but you're missing out on one of life's great pleasures. Same with that Colnago! A life time of pleasure for a bit of elbow, no, knee grease.

William

03-09-2009, 09:38 AM

More Ti info on gearing linked at bottom of page. I'll put it right here as well.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=6349

Ti can be grumpy but he has good info when he delves into it. :beer:

William

"When I was a kid we used to ride fixed gears to school barefoot in the snow, up hill...both ways....and had to wrap barbed wire around our wheels for traction...and we didn't have those fancy schmancy tire levers to change flats...we had to use our teeth....and WE LIKED IT!!!!" :D ;) :beer:

R2D2

03-09-2009, 09:44 AM

Ti's advice is tried and true.
It the days of friction shifters and 5 and 6 speeds we had a rule.
When you can spin a 42x17 (or 19) over anything it was time to get up on the big ring.
Usually took 300 miles or so on the little ring to get there.
e-richie emphasized it when he instructed Sandy to just go spin and try to maintain 90 rpm's.
Spin and do miles.
Speed and strength will follow.

Ahneida Ride

03-09-2009, 09:46 AM

I ride with a 22/29 ... I think I'll now go to 20/29 .

Pete Serotta

03-09-2009, 09:48 AM

I ride with a 22/29 ... I think I'll now go to 20/29 .

the 20 is out of stock,,,they only have 16s

RPS

03-09-2009, 09:48 AM

I ride with a 22/29 ... I think I'll now go to 20/29 .That still leaves you lots of room to upgrade to a 20/34. ;)

RPS

03-09-2009, 09:54 AM

Ken Robb

03-09-2009, 09:54 AM

my preference (and that's all it is) is 48/34 in front and 11/21 in back (record 10). .

the only downside to all this is that campy compact isn't cheap. if it turns out you like it, maybe try to engineer a trade, or prowl on ebay.

otherwise, getting a larger rear cluster may be the cheaper option.

good luck.

True but:

I have Campy 9 spd w/Ritchey compact 50-34 on the Hampsten and a TA Zephry 48-38-28 and 10 spd 13-29 Chorus on LOOK KG 381 so you can use cranks other than Campy with an otherwise Campy drivetrain to spend less or broaden your gearing options.

Bradford

03-09-2009, 09:59 AM

I'm a cycling coach preaching the gospel of technique work and base mileage and the whole world is focused on equipment and pro racing.
Although I understand your position, and there have been times in my life when I dedicated the kind of focus and time to sports that you preach, you certainly must understand that many of us just don't have that kind of time.

For me, I'm happy just to get out and ride the one or two 75 minutes slots I get per week. So the concept of working on my techinique or putting in base miles is just silly. Between my job, which puts me on the road 4 days for most weeks, and my son, who takes up the rest, my weeks are pretty full. If Little Bradford didn't take naps I'd never get to ride.

So go easy on the preaching and try to remember that not all of us have a life that is focused around cycling. For us, having a tripple is a great option to squeeze out as much enjoyment as we can from a sport that we love on our own terms, not those defined by someone else.

Ray

03-09-2009, 10:08 AM

That still leaves you lots of room to upgrade to a 20/34. ;)
Nope, too low. I had a 22x34 on a cross bike once. Found myself on a 23-24% slope on a dirt road in Utah on the fifth day of a pretty tough tour with plenty of climbing in my legs already. I needed all the help I could get. But the 22x30 was as low as I could go and stay upright and even that was sketchy. A 24x30 works better. Its one thing to barely be moving and stay balanced on a steep slope - I do that more regularly than I care to think about. But when you have too low a gear and you're spinning like crazy and you're STILL barely moving, its more exhausting trying to maintain your balance than it is to turn a slightly higher gear. I thought that there was no such thing as TOO low a gear, but I was wrong. I feel as though I've thoroughly plumbed the depths of this issue and should be able to answer any questions anyone might have. :D

-Ray

Samster

03-09-2009, 10:23 AM

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=6349this is the second time i've encountered this post and it makes so much sense. sadly, i mostly don't ride/shift/gear this way. and i enjoy my compact. lots of ways to skin the cat, but some are more efficient than others.

Elefantino

03-09-2009, 10:30 AM

I like reading Ti's posts, too.

If you get past the sardonism, there's good stuff always. Always.

And we're all family here. Anyone who calls him an idiot is, well, an idiot.

Pete Serotta

03-09-2009, 10:46 AM

I ride with a 22/29 ... I think I'll now go to 20/29 .

Ray is talking about a twenty tooth chain ring (TA) and a 29 tooth cassette.....He does not use a compact

Ahneida Ride

03-09-2009, 11:06 AM

I have enough "structure" in my life ...

Cycling is an escape. The fewer the rules the better.
My only rule is to ride safe.

and I DO have the 20 and I am seriously considering installing it just
to annoy the fashion police.

I have poor Knees. If I apply any muscle to the pedals thru my knees,
well, I won't be a cyclist for long.

Ride what ever gearing works for ya .. depending on your physical
attributes and restraints.

Oh yea ... on of my local runs has a 18% slope. ;)
the other a 16% slope

RudAwkning

03-09-2009, 11:11 AM

Point taken. Many of my posts are out of frustration, if you couldn't tell. I'm a cycling coach preaching the gospel of technique work and base mileage and the whole world is focused on equipment and pro racing. My truth is out there on the road in what I or any of my riders can do on the bike. On the internet that doesn't come across, it's my word about technique vs. anyone else's understanding of physics.

Ti. I never disagree with anything you say. It's your approach. You need to learn how to NOT say stuff like "Learn how to ride", "I can't help but laugh at the idea of", or (and I'm paraphrasing) "come ride with me so I can show you how wrong you are".

You have "It's all about ego" as your title and in the past you've had "If riding a bike is easy, why do so many people suck at it" as your signature.

When I encounter your posts, I can't help but read them in the voice of Ben Stiller as White Goodman.

Stop being a douche and more people will listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on-lPdEsaFc

RPS

03-09-2009, 11:24 AM

Nope, too low. I had a 22x34 on a cross bike once. Found myself on a 23-24% slope on a dirt road in Utah on the fifth day of a pretty tough tour with plenty of climbing in my legs already. I needed all the help I could get. But the 22x30 was as low as I could go and stay upright and even that was sketchy. A 24x30 works better. Its one thing to barely be moving and stay balanced on a steep slope - I do that more regularly than I care to think about. But when you have too low a gear and you're spinning like crazy and you're STILL barely moving, its more exhausting trying to maintain your balance than it is to turn a slightly higher gear. I thought that there was no such thing as TOO low a gear, but I was wrong. I feel as though I've thoroughly plumbed the depths of this issue and should be able to answer any questions anyone might have. :D

-RayRay, the lowest gearing I've ever used on a road "tandem" bike is 26 front, 28 back and with 25-inch OD tires. Having almost come to a dead stop once, I�m not sure I would dismiss a 22/34 so quickly.

When I plugged the 22/34 into my spreadsheet I get 4.1 MPH at 80 RPM, and that seems quite usable to me -- particularly on a tandem. In the Texas Hill Country where you can find 20 percent grades, 4 MPH is not out of the question when tired or "pulling" your stoker. Last year we had a stretch at 3 MPH with 39/27 which was considerably too high.

BTW, I rode along side a very heavy and out-of-shape friend with a 24T chainring on his Ultegra triple who had an 11-32 MTB cassette on back and he used every single gear to climb one stretch of very steep pavement.

IMHO it comes down to whatever works for a given rider. Some can spin well while climbing and others can balance at very low speeds with little effort.

Ahneida Ride

03-09-2009, 07:32 PM

Periodically, I climb up the Mtn. access road at Okemo Vt.

Dang if I have not been passed by a guy on a clunker Mtn bike ...

ii sometking like 24/34. Guy has a smile on his face. just spins and
flys by. :crap:

Ti Designs

03-09-2009, 10:23 PM

I don't get this. When you're on a geared bike and reach a steep hill, you can gear down to keep your heart rate steady. On a fixed-gear, you have to get out of the saddle and push hard to get over.

I really can't answer this without doing exactly what I'm accused of doing...

Here goes anyway...

There are different ways of riding out of the saddle. When I'm coaching I explain it as two very different positions with some grey area between them. There is sprinting position where the rider is pulling up on the handlebar while pushing down on the pedal on that side, literally trying to pry the bike apart to deliver power. In this case there is a long list of muscles involved including glutes, quads, calfs, abs... The torso is almost horizontal, strength is used to generate power, not gravity. On the flip side there is climbing out of the saddle, using almost no energy - this is totally different, takes some time to really get, but allows the rider to stabalize their heart rate and breathing. The idea is to get the upper body as upright as possible, making a column of weight directly over the hip. Then, shift forward, getting the hip directly over the pedal that's going down. Think about keeping the forward leg as straight as possible, which limits the use of the quads. It should feel like you're dropping your hip into the pedal, not firing your leg muscles. There are two tricks here, first you need to be in a high enough gear to support your body weight on the pedal going down, but not so high that the pedal doesn't move. Second, you have to learn how to control where your body weight is on the pedal, so you're not pushing down on the bottom. If you get the climbing method, and you get the sprinting method, climbing hills with changing grades gets much better. You gear the bike for the less steep parts and climb them by just dropping the body weight from the hip onto the pedal. When you get to a steeper part you maintain momentum by bringing down the torso a little and pulling on side of the bar that the pedal is going down. This is a grey area between sprinting and climbing technique - think of it as helping out gravity a bit. As soon as the grade eases out it's right back to pure climbing technique to bring down your heart rate, but the speed is still there.

Samster

03-10-2009, 08:06 AM

On the flip side there is climbing out of the saddle, using almost no energy - this is totally different, takes some time to really get, but allows the rider to stabalize their heart rate and breathing. The idea is to get the upper body as upright as possible, making a column of weight directly over the hip. Then, shift forward, getting the hip directly over the pedal that's going down. Think about keeping the forward leg as straight as possible, which limits the use of the quads. It should feel like you're dropping your hip into the pedal, not firing your leg muscles. There are two tricks here, first you need to be in a high enough gear to support your body weight on the pedal going down, but not so high that the pedal doesn't move. Second, you have to learn how to control where your body weight is on the pedal, so you're not pushing down on the bottom. If you get the climbing method, and you get the sprinting method, climbing hills with changing grades gets much better.i often feel like i recover on moderate climbs out of the saddle. most of the people i ride with don't believe me when i tell them this, but i think you just explained it. thanks.

RPS

03-10-2009, 08:47 AM

On the flip side there is climbing out of the saddle, using almost no energy - this is totally different, takes some time to really get, but allows the rider to stabalize their heart rate and breathing.That's a trick I want to learn. ;)

BTW, I happen to agree with you on technique stuff, can't disagree more on the implied science.

RPS

03-10-2009, 08:52 AM

I don't get this. When you're on a geared bike and reach a steep hill, you can gear down to keep your heart rate steady. On a fixed-gear, you have to get out of the saddle and push hard to get over.Your heart rate is greatly affected by how much �power� you are creating, not necessarily by how �hard� you push on anything, including the pedals of a bike.

Force alone doesn�t define how much power your body is generating, and therefore can�t predict your heart rate with any accuracy unless other factors are known � like the relative speed that force is being used to create power to get the bike up the hill.

It�s essential to understand the difference between forces applied to pedals (and torque to cranks) and power which involves speed (both cadence and bike travel speed). Much confusion arises from not differentiating between muscular effort to generate a force and subsequent power generation.

As a simple test, stand still on the floor on one leg. You are applying your full body�s weight on the floor yet are doing no work (because of no relative motion). Notice your heart rate is normal. Although you are pushing on the floor (as if it were a pedal) very hard with your full weight, you are doing no work and are therefore generating no power. Your heart rate accordingly will remain very low.

What Ti Design described above is about improving �technique� to make the rider more efficient while climbing. It does not change the laws of physics that to climb a certain hill at a certain speed you still have to generate a certain amount of power (yes, as in doing work per unit time).

I can often slow my heart rate while climbing out of the saddle by using a taller gear so that I have more resistance and can therefore pedal slower to the point of generating less power. That often slows my heart rate significantly but will also slow how fast I climb. For the most part (except for marginal efficiency improvements due to technique) I can�t have both � fast climbing and slow heart rate.

fiamme red

03-10-2009, 09:00 AM

I really can't answer this without doing exactly what I'm accused of doing...

Here goes anyway...

There are different ways of riding out of the saddle. (snip)Ti, I agree with you about the technique of climbing out of the saddle. I do (perhaps unconsciously) practice it. When riding my fixed-gear, I have no problem keeping my heart rate fairly constant while climbing out of the saddle for long periods (5-10 minutes) on steady, moderate grades (up to about 6%).

But on a steep hill, if your goal is to keep your heart rate steady (you were discussing base miles, I think), the geared bike is the better choice. If you're facing a 15% short climb, on a geared bike you can shift down to keep your heart rate steady. That may mean that you're climbing very slowly. But on a fixed-gear, you don't have the choice to climb a 15% hill slowly, or you'll lose all momentum and topple over. Unless you get off and walk, the fixed-gear will make your heart rate spike on those steep climbs.

RudAwkning

03-10-2009, 09:31 AM

I really can't answer this without doing exactly what I'm accused of doing...

Here goes anyway...

There are different ways of riding out of the saddle. When I'm coaching I explain it as two very different positions with some grey area between them. There is sprinting position where the rider is pulling up on the handlebar while pushing down on the pedal on that side, literally trying to pry the bike apart to deliver power. In this case there is a long list of muscles involved including glutes, quads, calfs, abs... The torso is almost horizontal, strength is used to generate power, not gravity. On the flip side there is climbing out of the saddle, using almost no energy - this is totally different, takes some time to really get, but allows the rider to stabalize their heart rate and breathing. The idea is to get the upper body as upright as possible, making a column of weight directly over the hip. Then, shift forward, getting the hip directly over the pedal that's going down. Think about keeping the forward leg as straight as possible, which limits the use of the quads. It should feel like you're dropping your hip into the pedal, not firing your leg muscles. There are two tricks here, first you need to be in a high enough gear to support your body weight on the pedal going down, but not so high that the pedal doesn't move. Second, you have to learn how to control where your body weight is on the pedal, so you're not pushing down on the bottom. If you get the climbing method, and you get the sprinting method, climbing hills with changing grades gets much better. You gear the bike for the less steep parts and climb them by just dropping the body weight from the hip onto the pedal. When you get to a steeper part you maintain momentum by bringing down the torso a little and pulling on side of the bar that the pedal is going down. This is a grey area between sprinting and climbing technique - think of it as helping out gravity a bit. As soon as the grade eases out it's right back to pure climbing technique to bring down your heart rate, but the speed is still there.

Yes, yes and yes. This is how I made it up Mt Diablo on my fixed gear. Never felt winded, heart rate never went crazy and still had juice at the top. This is also why I sucked ass so much this weekend. Threw my low back out earlier in the week so had no power to generate from the hips to throw one pedal over the other. Had to sit and spin up Diablo on the geared bike and even that was tough.

I've actually lengthened and lowered the stem on my fixed gear to accomodate this vertical torso posture. This method has taught me TONS about climbiing (and how not to waste energy). Funny how it took me getting on a fixed gear bike to learn how to climb.

And thanks Ti for a non-polarizing delivery.

fiamme red

03-10-2009, 09:36 AM

Think about keeping the forward leg as straight as possible, which limits the use of the quads. It should feel like you're dropping your hip into the pedal, not firing your leg muscles.Doug Sloan seems to agree in his Fixed FAQs (http://www.midcalracing.com/fixedfaqs.htm):

Are there any special techniques for climbing on a fixed gear? Yes, technique can make a world of difference. You are stuck with one gear that is probably way to tall for most climbs compared to what you are used to on a multi-speed bike. If the hill grades go over 10%, it may require what seems like superhuman strength to get up the hill at all. After consulting with a orthopedic surgeon and doing some research, I found that the goal when climbing long, steep climbs at low rpms is to keep the knees as straight as possible, that is, standing tall, with the knees barely bent. To achieve this, your hand position likely needs to be high or forward, or both. The long cowhorn bars allow you to place your hands further forward than you might be able to with normal drop bars and brake hoods, and more comfortably. Stand tall, plus pull up and through the top with your pedal strokes to lessen the stress on your knees on the down strokes. Doing this, I have been able to ride endurance events with lots of 10-20% climbs, sometimes requiring standing for over 1 1/2 hours continuously, with no knee pain. If in doubt, I'd suggest getting your knees checked by an orthopedic doctor, getting x-rays, even if you have no pain to establish a base line in case you later experience pain. Also, start easy on yourself. Start with smaller hills and lower gears, then work up to longer, steeper hills and taller gears as your legs, whole body actually, get stronger and used to the harsh mashing required. At first, I could only handle about 1,000 feet of climbing on the fixed bike in a lower gear, but after several months worked up to 5,000 foot climbs in taller gears. It's amazing how your body can adapt if you progress slowly and carefully.

Ti Designs

03-10-2009, 02:23 PM

Your heart rate is greatly affected by how much �power� you are creating, not necessarily by how �hard� you push on anything, including the pedals of a bike.

Force alone doesn�t define how much power your body is generating, and therefore can�t predict your heart rate with any accuracy unless other factors are known � like the relative speed that force is being used to create power to get the bike up the hill.

It�s essential to understand the difference between forces applied to pedals (and torque to cranks) and power which involves speed (both cadence and bike travel speed). Much confusion arises from not differentiating between muscular effort to generate a force and subsequent power generation.

As a simple test, stand still on the floor on one leg. You are applying your full body�s weight on the floor yet are doing no work (because of no relative motion). Notice your heart rate is normal. Although you are pushing on the floor (as if it were a pedal) very hard with your full weight, you are doing no work and are therefore generating no power. Your heart rate accordingly will remain very low.

What Ti Design described above is about improving �technique� to make the rider more efficient while climbing. It does not change the laws of physics that to climb a certain hill at a certain speed you still have to generate a certain amount of power (yes, as in doing work per unit time).

I can often slow my heart rate while climbing out of the saddle by using a taller gear so that I have more resistance and can therefore pedal slower to the point of generating less power. That often slows my heart rate significantly but will also slow how fast I climb. For the most part (except for marginal efficiency improvements due to technique) I can�t have both � fast climbing and slow heart rate.

You underestimate how inefficient people can be, and you're not exactly correct about what raises heart rate.

Heart rate is the body's response to the need for oxygen caused by muscle contraction. While fiber recruitment does have a lot to do with range of motion, static tension does still require blood oxygen and thus will raise the heart rate.

If we're going for the simple examples of work vs. heart rate, I have on for you. put your back against a wall and lower yourself down until your knees are at a 90 degree angle, now stay there. This is called a skier sit, your quads age going to start screaming at you in about a minute. Note that because there is no displacement there is no work done. And yet your quads and your heart rate would argue with that. In contrast, when you stand you balance most of the weight on your skeleton, thus the low heart rate.

The efficiency part of this can be seen by comparing indoor spinning practices with good cycling technique. In spinning they have this move known as running on the pedals. It's where you pedal the bike with your hips in a fixed position over the bike. It's the same pedal stroke, but they've made it weight bearing as well. It's like adding a skier sit to the pedal stroke along with the added power (zero). This isn't anything I would ever do on my bike, but the Spinning classes are about raising heart rate and getting in a good workout, cycling is about getting somewhere with the energy used.

Now we get into biomechanics, which is a different twist on the application of the laws of physics. The basic limitation is that muscles need blood flow and oxygen for aerobic work. Let's take one of those hand exercise devices that you squeeze for example. You can squeeze it and open it over and over again for a while, but if you just squeezed it and held it your muscles would fail after a short period of time. Clearly squeezing the device over and over is the greater use of power, but it's not the one that fails first. In cycling the physics would indicate that using all four muscle groups to climb should work best, but it doesn't. Muscles want to contract and relax, putting the same tension on the smaller muscle groups as you do on the larger ones becomes the limiting factor.

Something to think about when next you get on your bike: 1) Pushing on the pedal is going to raise your heart rate and tax your muscles. Pushing on the pedal only delivers power to the back wheel if done in the right direction. Pushing down at the very top or bottom of the pedal stroke does nothing to move the bike forward. 2) Muscles are like rechargeable batteries, they need to be recharged longer than they can be used. A duty cycle of a muscle that's longer than 30% will become an anaerobic exercise in time simply because the muscle fibers don't get blood flow under tension. That common complaint about the quads burning while climbing is about the duty cycle the quads are used, not how hard the hill is. The most common mistake is using muscles far too long and in the wrong place. Lots of people use their quads from the top of the pedal stroke to the bottom of the pedal stroke - a duty cycle of 50%. The quads extend the leg at the knee, so in isolation they would force the knee up and forward. At 3:00, the pedal isn't moving up or forward, yet most people are firing their quads - wrong muscle to use.

Most of my coaching program is about getting riders to reprogram their bodies to only fire muscles where they should, and relax them where they need blood flow. Another component of this is the use of gravity on the pedals, which is what I call the best trade-off in cycling. learning how to "fall into the pedals" and use the glutes to support the body weight also takes the weight off the hands, which makes the whole ride more comfortable. More power and more comfort - seems like a worth while goal. A few people on this forum have tried this technique and have had "holy ****" moments when they realize they can power a big gear without much effort.

Most coaching programs are about building power. I can't see doing that without first working on efficiency, if you gain 10% in power but you're working at a 15% loss in efficiency, that's a smaller gain over an already reduced base number. If you reduce you power loss to 5% you're at the same point, and you haven't started intervals yet!

And lastly, there's that old excuse "I'm just doing this for fun". When did cycling become the activity without skills? Probably around the same time someone came up with the saying about riding a bike... If you never learned how to throw or catch a ball, would you ever play baseball "just for fun"? If you couldn't hit a tennis ball over the net, would that game be fun? Not a chance. Learning how to ride better is an investment in cycling - you learn, you retain, you ride better. How many people here think of the process of walking when they want to get somewhere? Probably none, you've learned it, now it just happens. The same thing goes for riding. What would happen if people stopped learning how to walk as soon as they took their first steps? Why defend your right to do the same in cycling? Most of y'all have some pretty nice bikes, maybe think about getting more out of them by spending some time in the winter working on the rider. The summer is for riding and fun...

Ti Designs

03-10-2009, 02:33 PM

But on a steep hill, if your goal is to keep your heart rate steady (you were discussing base miles, I think), the geared bike is the better choice. If you're facing a 15% short climb, on a geared bike you can shift down to keep your heart rate steady. That may mean that you're climbing very slowly. But on a fixed-gear, you don't have the choice to climb a 15% hill slowly, or you'll lose all momentum and topple over. Unless you get off and walk, the fixed-gear will make your heart rate spike on those steep climbs.

Base mileage: A gazillion low to mid stress cycles for the connective tissue and lots of time spent in zones 2 and 3.

15% grades are no part of base mileage...

That said, my road bike is geared higher than most, my fixed gear is geared lower. I run a 44/55 x 11-21 on my road bike, I'm on a 44x19 on my fixed gear. At the low end there isn't much of a difference...

Ray

03-10-2009, 03:24 PM

And lastly, there's that old excuse "I'm just doing this for fun". When did cycling become the activity without skills? .....How many people here think of the process of walking when they want to get somewhere? Probably none, you've learned it, now it just happens. The same thing goes for riding. What would happen if people stopped learning how to walk as soon as they took their first steps? Why defend your right to do the same in cycling? Most of y'all have some pretty nice bikes, maybe think about getting more out of them by spending some time in the winter working on the rider. The summer is for riding and fun...
Lots of good information in that post, but I take exception with the conclusion and this analogy. Or at least I disagree with how you use the analogy. The better comparison to walking (at least to me) is this:

Nobody really teaches you to walk. Your parents hold you by your hands or shoulders as you get your feet under you and then guide you as you learn about balance. But once you DO take those first independent steps, all future learning about how to walk is essentially self-learning through nothing more complicated than practice. Lots and lots and lots of practice. By doing it over and over and over again, you get very efficient at it. You intuitively figure out what works and what doesn't and you refine your motion accordingly. Mostly without thinking about it. Nobody tells you how to do that. Almost all walkers are self-taught their whole lives and do a lot of very fine and useful and enjoyable walking from the ages of one until very old age, barring accident or disability. Except for, say, race-walkers, who receive extensive coaching to learn another whole technique in order to do one thing - walk as FAST as possible. Same with running - everyone does it - the only people who tend to need or get coaching are those who wish to do it competitively.

I'd contend that a lot of the same thing happens with cycling. Most people get pretty damn efficient just by doing it a LOT. Not as efficient as is humanly possible - not as efficient as we probably could get working with you to get even more efficient. But pretty damn efficient all the same. I felt like I improved as a pedaler of my bike every year for about the first 5-6 years I was riding a lot. In that time, I felt improvements to the speed, smoothness and efficiency of my spin, the efficiency of my climbing (both seated and standing), the power I could generate with the same effort (or perceived effort). After that first 5-6 years, I haven't felt like I've really gotten better at pedaling - I'm just faster or slower or can ride longer or shorter based on my conditioning. Training your cardio-vascular system is another whole part of riding faster, if that's your goal. But if its not, structured cardio training is not necessary to really enjoy the hell out of riding and riding a lot.

Even now, in early spring, when I'm in objectively and subjectively TERRIBLE condition, I feel very comfortable and at home pedaling my bike. I'm very aware of my lack of conditioning, but my spin feels very smooth and I can climb both in and out of the saddle as smoothly and with as much skill as I can in August, just not for as long or as fast.

Could I learn from you and get even MORE efficient and turn that into more speed? I'm very sure I could. But toward the goal of joining the elite of the sport in terms of efficiency. Which I presume I could convert into a bit more speed if that was my goal. But I don't feel the need to do this anymore than I feel the need to go to a walking or running coach to become a better walker or runner. I'd only feel that need if I wanted to compete. Which I don't.

I've tried one legged pedaling drills. I found them to be about as much fun as circumcision with a butter knife. I wouldn't choose to do them again unless the payoff was REALLY important to me. Its not.

I'm not arguing that coaching isn't worthwhile for people with certain goals. Just that its not necessary for a lifetime of very enjoyable and healthy cycling.

-Ray

Ti Designs

03-10-2009, 04:48 PM

I'd contend that a lot of the same thing happens with cycling. Most people get pretty damn efficient just by doing it a LOT. Not as efficient as is humanly possible - not as efficient as we probably could get working with you to get even more efficient. But pretty damn efficient all the same.

If "most" is about 25% I would agree. I haven't worked with the entire population of cyclists, so I can't say for sure, but I have worked with hundreds here in the northeast, between the people I see in fittings and the kids I coach and the people I ride with. Maybe people in the northeast are just worse at these things...

Most people don't notice it, the pedals go 'round, they can't tell the difference between a good pedal stroke and a dismal one. I've been coaching too long, I watch which muscles fire when in the pedal stroke, I watch the hips and the lower back - it's a curse. I went to the last Serotta open house, there was a ride with about 40 forum members. I had to keep reminding myself that I was on vacation - no coaching allowed! There were some good riders there for sure, but they were far outnumbered by the not so good riders.

There's a difference between walking and pedaling. In walking your feet are free to move where they want, nothing controls their path, and the direction of pull is your direction of travel. Cycling is the one case where the path of your feet is controlled by a machine. Take the example of using the quads from 12:00 all the way to 6:00. At 3:00 the quads are still extending the lower leg at the knee, so they are pushing the foot forward when there is no more forward component to the direction of travel. The only reason the pedal is going down is that the quad also increases the distance between the hip and the foot - but it's still pushing in the wrong direction. And yet the pedal goes 'round. I know how badly most people pedal and how quickly this can be overcome because I teach pedal stroke classes. In the first week we start out with the one legged pedal stroke drill - going slow, trying to just trace the circle the pedals make, no using momentum... 'Cept that the first week is anything but smooth. Most people thunk going over the top as they try to cut the top off the pedal stroke. Lots of people stop at the bottom - in everything else you find the ground below, in cycling there's a bottom bracket, there's no ground down there to look for.

It's one of those things that's hard to swallow - how can I NOT be able to turn a circle? It's like when I first started in autocross, they told me I would forget how to double clutch as I came up to my first downshift gate. WHAT? I know how to drive!!! Yup, I messed up my first downshift...

Ray

03-10-2009, 06:39 PM

If "most" is about 25% I would agree.

.........

There's a difference between walking and pedaling.
I agree that there's a difference between walking and pedaling. We've evolved over however many thousands of years to walk. Pedaling is a less natural movement. But they're similar in the sense that both can be learned to a significant degree by just doing them a lot and getting more and more efficient at them by virtue of taking note (consciously or not) of what works and what doesn't and doing more of what works and less of what doesn't. Getting pretty damn good at either is not a hugely difficult task - it just takes time and experience. Getting really insanely great at either (say, race walking or very highly coached cycling) is another story, as it is with almost any activity. I assume race walkers develop the most efficient walking technique there is and really high level riders develop the most efficient riding techniques. But by how much?

You say a typical cyclist is about 25% efficient - what does that mean in real terms? Clearly, a rider who averages 18 mph at 25% efficiency isn't going to average 72 mph after a lot of good coaching and getting close to maximum efficiency. Someone who produces an average of 150 watts isn't going to produce 600. So, what is the real world result of increased efficiency - a couple mph? A 10% increase in wattage? I just don't believe that the real world change is well represented by a figure like 25%.

I'm not trying to dispute the good a coach can do for a motivated rider who would be thrilled by an increase of a couple or few mph in their average speeds on the bike. I'm just saying the difference isn't so huge that it necessarily matters for most of us, even those of us who ride a lot.

-Ray

RPS

03-10-2009, 07:29 PM

Lots of good information in that post, but I take exception with the conclusion and this analogy. Or at least I disagree with how you use the analogy. The better comparison to walking (at least to me) is this:

Nobody really teaches you to walk. Your parents hold you by your hands or shoulders as you get your feet under you and then guide you as you learn about balance. But once you DO take those first independent steps, all future learning about how to walk is essentially self-learning through nothing more complicated than practice. Lots and lots and lots of practice. By doing it over and over and over again, you get very efficient at it. You intuitively figure out what works and what doesn't and you refine your motion accordingly. Mostly without thinking about it. Nobody tells you how to do that. Almost all walkers are self-taught their whole lives and do a lot of very fine and useful and enjoyable walking from the ages of one until very old age, barring accident or disability. Except for, say, race-walkers, who receive extensive coaching to learn another whole technique in order to do one thing - walk as FAST as possible. Same with running - everyone does it - the only people who tend to need or get coaching are those who wish to do it competitively.

I'd contend that a lot of the same thing happens with cycling. Most people get pretty damn efficient just by doing it a LOT. Not as efficient as is humanly possible - not as efficient as we probably could get working with you to get even more efficient. But pretty damn efficient all the same. I felt like I improved as a pedaler of my bike every year for about the first 5-6 years I was riding a lot. In that time, I felt improvements to the speed, smoothness and efficiency of my spin, the efficiency of my climbing (both seated and standing), the power I could generate with the same effort (or perceived effort). After that first 5-6 years, I haven't felt like I've really gotten better at pedaling - I'm just faster or slower or can ride longer or shorter based on my conditioning. Training your cardio-vascular system is another whole part of riding faster, if that's your goal. But if its not, structured cardio training is not necessary to really enjoy the hell out of riding and riding a lot. ........snipped......Good points Ray.

Another example of how brilliant the human body is at learning through experimenting and repetition is when an outfielder runs after a fly ball.

We all know how easy it is for most experienced outfielders to instantly start moving in the right direction when a batter hits a deep ball, yet it�s been shown that the amount of calculations the brain would have to do to figure it out based on sight and sound observations would require a physicist with a computer. On the other hand through simple practice and a lot of repetition a high-school dropout can figure out where to run to in a fraction of a second.

The human (and animal) brain is indeed amazing at figuring out how to learn very complex motion through sheer repetition. Not too bad at optimizing them either.

RPS

03-10-2009, 07:38 PM

You say a typical cyclist is about 25% efficient - what does that mean in real terms?Ray, I'm not sure but I think he meant 25 percent of cyclists don't do it efficiently, not that they do it at 25 percent efficiency.

BTW (and way outside the scope of this discussion), a number in the rough range of about 25 percent is in the right ball park for the human body as a power generating station -- based on fuel energy consumed versus work done.

palincss

03-10-2009, 08:13 PM

Good points Ray.

Another example of how brilliant the human body is at learning through experimenting and repetition is when an outfielder runs after a fly ball.

We all know how easy it is for most experienced outfielders to instantly start moving in the right direction when a batter hits a deep ball, yet it�s been shown that the amount of calculations the brain would have to do to figure it out based on sight and sound observations would require a physicist with a computer. On the other hand through simple practice and a lot of repetition a high-school dropout can figure out where to run to in a fraction of a second.

The human (and animal) brain is indeed amazing at figuring out how to learn very complex motion through sheer repetition. Not too bad at optimizing them either.

The human brain is a highly evolved computer with special programming for just such tasks. It's far more than a matter of "sheer repetition" -- although it does take practice to get good at it.

paczki

03-10-2009, 08:27 PM

Whoops, wrong thread

Ti Designs

03-10-2009, 09:08 PM

You say a typical cyclist is about 25% efficient

No, I'm saying that maybe 1 in 4 cyclists can get the pedal to go 'round without having one side push the other side over the top or pushing in all the wrong directions.

Try this: (this is going to be one of those things you think you can do, but most can't - like that challenge of drinking a gallon of milk in an hour) Set your bike up on a trainer and drop the chain off so there's no resistance at all. Now clip in with one foot, look forward and pedal slowly and consistantly, no speeding up or slowing down. Most people will come away from that test thinking they are cycling challenged. It's an unfair test as most of the feedback you get from your body is based on pushing against something, and there's nothing to push against in that test. Just the same, it'll point out that you're probably not really doing what you think you're doing when you pedal the bike.

RPS

03-10-2009, 09:12 PM

The human brain is a highly evolved computer with special programming for just such tasks. It's far more than a matter of "sheer repetition" -- although it does take practice to get good at it.That's what I meant -- I think. :confused: Repetition allows the brain to evaluate and recalibrate as needed to improve on subsequent cycles.

Ray

03-10-2009, 11:29 PM

No, I'm saying that maybe 1 in 4 cyclists can get the pedal to go 'round without having one side push the other side over the top or pushing in all the wrong directions.

Got it. Thanks. RPS made the same clarification. My mistake. Sounds much more reasonable than my initial interpretation. :cool:

I don't currently have a trainer, but I tried some one-legged drills years ago when I did and they were predictably rough, although I don't think I ever took the chain off for them. I don't doubt that a lot of coaching and working on the pedal stroke would make some level of difference. I just wonder how much and where the cost / benefit falls. As I mentioned previously, doing those drills was roughly the LEAST enjoyable thing I've ever done on a bicycle.

How would you say riding a fixie compares? I know when I was riding fixed a lot, I got pretty comfortable with spinning about 170 rpm for a couple of minutes at a time on descents. When I first started, I could barely do 125-130 for a few seconds before body parts would start coming off. At 170, you're not doing anything passive in terms of letting the pedals turn your legs, you're on top of the pedals driving to stay ahead of them. Seems like those kind of leg speeds have to be doing something to train you to go in circles, no? Riding a fixed was always fun, so any benefit was just icing. Benefit with no real cost. Unlike one legged drills.

-Ray

Ti Designs

03-11-2009, 04:00 AM

I kinda wanted Paczki to respond 'cause he was in my pedal stroke class... Sitting on a trainer concentrating on which way the pedal needs to move is about as enjoyable as sitting in the waiting room at the dentist, which is to say not. But on the bright side, it's a steep learning curve. Two weeks after you start most people are turning the pedals smoothly, wondering how it was that they couldn't do that before. I use the one legged pedal stroke drill as a first step in the class, the steps to follow tell you that there are more things to work on within the pedal stroke that you didn't know about. Using the quad is probably the best example. The quad extends the lower leg at the knee, so it's the forward component of the pedal stroke. The target is to have the quad accelerate the pedal between 11:00 and 2:00. This is where it's like the first time you swing at a baseball - you probably wait until the ball gets to you, they you swing but it's too late. Muscles aren't on/off switches, if your brain is saying "fire now" at 11:00 you're too late and you'll see the acceleration from 1:00 to 3:00. There's no more forward component to the pedal stroke at 3:00, you're pushing in the exact wrong direction. As boaring as the pedal stroke work is, most people I've worked with are so stunned at what they thought they could do but can't that it's far better than the alternative, which is to go on riding like that.

Like I said, for some people the pedal stroke comes easy. One of the reasons that so few pros turned coaches have their riders do any pedal stroke work is that they never had to, so they don't see the need. A fixed gear doesn't teach pedal stroke, nor does a Spinning bike with that 40 pounds of flywheel. If smoothing out the pedal stroke comes easy it'll force you to learn and you'll find yourself driving out the cadence going down hill. Others have to concentrate - a little pedal stroke work on the trainer is the quickest way to get better on the fixed gear. And then there are those who don't learn by jumping in the deep end and drown. I've seen plenty of people on fixed gears who are doing themselves way more harm than good. It also explains why so many people on fixed gears are geared so high - the bike throws them all over the place when the cadence goes much above 100.

Pedal stroke work ain't much fun. It's like practicing scales in music, it's part of a learning process. For that matter, a lot of training in the winter ain't much fun - there's not a whole lot of laughing during my interval workouts. It's an investment in the season, not much different than finding the right set of wheels or taking the time to glue the tires well. I can't think of anyone who likes gluing tires, but it's a step that's not to be skipped if you ride tubulars. When I play piano I don't think about scales, when I ride my bike in season I don't think about doing pedal stroke work. I know that I enjoy riding more when I'm riding well, and I'm willing to make that investment to get there. It must suck to get into the season and say "I wish I had done something about my cycling over the winter..."

Ray

03-11-2009, 05:44 AM

A fixed gear doesn't teach pedal stroke, nor does a Spinning bike with that 40 pounds of flywheel. If smoothing out the pedal stroke comes easy it'll force you to learn and you'll find yourself driving out the cadence going down hill. And then there are those who don't learn by jumping in the deep end and drown. I've seen plenty of people on fixed gears who are doing themselves way more harm than good. It also explains why so many people on fixed gears are geared so high - the bike throws them all over the place when the cadence goes much above 100.
So, if I'm getting ahead of the gear and hanging at 160-170 on descents, with an occasional spike up to 180, I'm probably doing reasonably ok? I know I'm doing OK by my standards, just wondering if that's the sign of at least a decent pedal stroke by yours? My fixed gear is running at 63-64 gear inches. I don't ride the fixed as much in the hills as I used to (I'm a couple months from turning 50 and I think Henri Desgrange wanted me to stop riding the fixed at 45 - but maybe 55 is the new 45?). But each winter, I manage a few fixed rides out in the country and I can still crank it up there pretty high. I tend to do shorter descents than I used to, but they're long enough to get me up to 31-32 mph for a while and I have to stay very aggressively on top of the gear to crank that out. I usually get a bit bouncy in that 120-130 range where I'm transitioning from relaxed to aggressive, but I smooth out above that. I hear about track sprinters getting up to 220 rpm or so and my mind is boggled.

-Ray

paczki

03-11-2009, 08:23 AM

So, if I'm getting ahead of the gear and hanging at 160-170 on descents, with an occasional spike up to 180, I'm probably doing reasonably ok? I know I'm doing OK by my standards, just wondering if that's the sign of at least a decent pedal stroke by yours? My fixed gear is running at 63-64 gear inches. I don't ride the fixed as much in the hills as I used to (I'm a couple months from turning 50 and I think Henri Desgrange wanted me to stop riding the fixed at 45 - but maybe 55 is the new 45?). But each winter, I manage a few fixed rides out in the country and I can still crank it up there pretty high. I tend to do shorter descents than I used to, but they're long enough to get me up to 31-32 mph for a while and I have to stay very aggressively on top of the gear to crank that out. I usually get a bit bouncy in that 120-130 range where I'm transitioning from relaxed to aggressive, but I smooth out above that. I hear about track sprinters getting up to 220 rpm or so and my mind is boggled.

-Ray

If you can't do one-legged drills easily you're not as efficient as you might be. I could spin fast, I can spin faster now. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get well above 200 with practice.

Remember with one-legged drills, they get much easier quickly. They are far more difficult initially then they are each successive time you try them.
I don't know what Ed is talking about BTW, I loved pedaling class. I really enjoyed working on technique.

fiamme red

03-11-2009, 10:22 AM

paczki

03-11-2009, 10:38 AM

Interesting arguments from Alex Simmons (who actually has a prosthetic leg due to an accident) against the usefulness of one-legged pedaling drills:

http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11332&sid=13fa3483a810f3d025f76846c131417f

They aren't arguments about smooth pedaling. They're more arguments against power cranks developing special muscles. A round smooth stroke does not involve even application of force, rather smooth and correct transitions between different muscles applying forces. One-legged drills should be done with minimal to no resistance, because the 7-11 part of the stroke should be relaxed. Power cranks don't allow you to do that well (I presume).

I can tell you first-hand, if you want to spin faster and smoother one-legged drills help you to do that. There seem to be good reasons you might want to be able to spin fast and smooth.

fiamme red

03-11-2009, 10:48 AM

They aren't arguments about smooth pedaling. They're more arguments against power cranks developing special muscles. A round smooth stroke does not involve even application of force, rather smooth and correct transitions between different muscles applying forces. One-legged drills should be done with minimal to no resistance, because the 7-11 part of the stroke should be relaxed. Power cranks don't allow you to do that well (I presume).The thread I linked to wasn't mainly about Powercranks. But really, aren't Powercranks essentially one-legged pedaling drills with both legs?

Quoting Alex Simmons:

What I can tell you what the best research has found:

The most powerful cyclists have the least even application of force (or torque if you like) around the pedal stroke. Their greater power* comes from applying greater peak forces on the downstroke and not from a more even application of forces or what some might term "circular pedalling".

* we are talking TT power here, the most important physiological characteristic for endurance cycling.

There is no link between "cycling style" and efficiency.

Probably the best paper on this is by Ed Coyle et al:

Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance.
Authors: E.F. Coyle; M.E. Feltner; S.A. Kautz; M.T. Hamilton; S.J. Montain; A.M. Baylor; L.D. Abraham; and G.W. Petrek
Published 1991.

Here is the extract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1997818

While Coyle et al actually did the research to clearly demonstrate this, there is also excellent item from a biomechanical principles point of view published in Professor Asker Jeukendrup's 2002 book: High Performance Cycling.

The item is called Biomechanics by Jos de Koning and Knoek van Soest and it clearly demonstrates from first principles why such an attempt to apply torque more evenly will not result in greater power. I suggest anyone interested in the topic read it.

Finally, I make this comment - it would be a mistake think that applying a greater downward pressure equates to a rougher or "masher" style of pedalling. These are highly developed pedalling actions and most have the appearance of being very smooth despite the actual force application "curve" being more peaky than us "mere mortals".

The same applies to the very high powers associated with track sprinting. It is the very ability to apply greater peak force values on the downstroke but at very high legs speeds that is what makes those guys very quick.
Well the riders were basically split into two groups:
Elite national class
State class

both groups had the same relative VO2 Max.
The Elite Nationals were more powerful 'cause they produced more power. How else would you delineate more powerful?

The only element of power production in terms of pedal force application (which is the pertinent discussion point) that differed between the groups is that the Elite National class cyclists generated greater downstroke force, but did not display higher pedal forces for the remainder of the pedal stroke (indeed in many cases the forces on other parts of the pedal stroke was lower than for the State class riders).

Which brings us back to the issue at hand (foot ?). That training to increase pedal forces on parts of the pedal stroke other than the downstroke are most likely not worth the effort.

The ROI of such training just isn't there, or more properly, it is lower than simply focussing on improving power by going harder and faster and eliciting the adaptations necessary to produce more power (such as increased capillary density, greater mitochondral density, fibre type conversion, hypertrophy of type I fibres etc).

Anecdotally, I find it interesting that in only six months of starting back on a bike and now with a prosthetic leg and a complete inability to do anything other than push down with my left leg (no fancy leg drills for me), that my Maximal Aerobic Power has already attained 95% of previous best able bodied level.

fiamme red

03-11-2009, 11:19 AM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2005/letters04-11#Pedalling

Furthermore, the idea of losing power due to a presumably inefficient pedal stroke is not supported either. Research comparing the abilities of state-class and national-class cyclists (Coyle, 1991) showed that the national-class cyclists had what is often incorrectly referred to as and "inefficient" pedal stroke. In a 40k TT test, the national-class cyclists put more of their power into their downstroke, while the slower, less powerful cyclists distributed more of their power in all directions of the pedal stroke. Yep, the more powerful cyclists mashed (at least more than the other cyclists) their way to 40k times that were 10% faster. One way to potentially change the efficiency of your stroke is by manipulating cadence. This is where it gets interesting, because if you pedaled with the intent on being as efficient as possible, you would ride around at a cadence that is much slower than the typically freely chosen cadence of most cyclists (~90rpm). As cadence increases, so does the oxygen demand for a given power output. I personally don't know any top cyclists who pedal all day at 60rpm, so one has to wonder why having an efficient pedal stroke is a desirable goal at all.

----------------------------------------------

http://velonews.com/article/11504

Broker separated out the gravitational and inertial components of apedaling force diagram, so that one could really see exactly what was being produced and at what cost to the rider. Broker noted that most cycling coaches spend a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the downward forces at bottom dead center part of a pedal stroke. That effort, he explained, is essentially futile, since most of that downward force present there is non-muscular and takes virtually no energy. Offering an extreme example, Broker suggested that one could knock a rider out cold, clip him into the pedals, tape him down to the saddle and handlebars and crank up the pedals up to 90rpm. The result, he said, would show similar forces expended at the bottom of the pedal stroke.

Understanding those non-muscular effects could prevent a coach from engaging in a counter-productive effort of trying to encourage a rider to eliminate forces which actually come at no energy cost. Indeed, the effort to eliminate them can actually cost a rider energy and efficiency.

Ti Designs

03-11-2009, 11:35 AM

The thread I linked to wasn't mainly about Powercranks. But really, aren't Powercranks essentially one-legged pedaling drills with both legs?

I hate power cranks - there, I said it. The body evolved in a way where the muscles that fight gravity are strong, their attachment points are also strong. The opposing muscles don't need to be anywhere near as strong, so they aren't. Glutes are strong, they lift your body weight all day long. Hip flexors move the femur in the other direction - they lift your foot off the ground. You're never going to generate much power with your hip flexors, but you can generate injuries trying.

So why do one legged pedal drills? When your body moves a limb your brain sends two signals, one to the muscle contracting, the other to the opposing muscle to relax. In firing the hip flexor, you're really telling the glutes to relax. In force vector analysis the strongest of riders produce almost no downforce on the back part of the pedal stroke. If we assume their leg has weight we know that the hip flexor has to be at work taking this weight off the pedal. When I work with new riders I see them start going up a hill, think "push harder", which their muscles translate as "push longer", so they wind up pushing down at the back of the pedal stroke, which subtracts energy from the system. We probably all know someone who puts in so much effort on hills but is still dead slow... Learning to use the hip flexors just eliminates a source of inefficiency.

I try to build a good amount of safety into my pedal stroke program - very little resistance at first, no more than a minute per side, stop long before the muscle fatigues. If you started out by doing 10 minutes per side at moderate resistance I doubt you would be walking us stairs without serious use of the handrail. Power cranks invite people to do one legged pedal stroke drills for as long as they want, probably much longer. One of my Harvard riders got a set, injured himself, lent them to another rider who did the same thing. There is a good way of learning to use power cranks, but if you think you're going to gain any real power from your hip flexors I have some bad news for you.