http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVbwngNoHm0
Whoa!
It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
Login or Register
I have always said leg speed is as important as watts.
-
-
on rollers no less
-
Single speed too. Any idea what was the Max RPM. I am guessing 140.
-
What? That's what I do every night. Isn't that what everyone does?
-
140? no, try 200+ rpm.
also: those guys are PRO!
-
Yeah, that was up in the 180-200 range.
I can turn 140 easy.
-
OK my bad. This one was recorded at 321.
-
That was not 321...
-
What do you think it was.
-
I'd say 225/250...and he was using a trainer.
-
Kind of hard to avoid pumping out the watts when your leg speed is that high. They're huge drums but still... So in this case leg speed IS watts.
For disclosure purposes, I am a partner in November Bicycles. This fact probably colors everything I say. I'm clearly not to be trusted. -
Pedantic time. Watts is a measurement of power. Power is force times velocity.
For all the good they've done me, I might as well have stuck them up my arse. - Mark Renton -
dkri and JS. Yes and yes. Note I did not say MORE important. But a guy who can produce 350w @110RPM is going to be faster than a guy producing 350w @ 90RPM.
-
"But a guy who can produce 350w @110RPM is going to be faster than a guy producing 350w @ 90RPM."
There are a lot of assumptions in that statement. If they are both producing 350w the person with the least wind resistance will be faster on the flats and the lighter person will be faster on the hills. I think most people can produce more power at a lower rpm then at 110, and there are advantages to being able spin smoothly at 110 rpm (not that is particularly high), but power is power at whatever rpm it is produced.
-
Effiency is valuable and also some sports scientists would say leads to economy which also is a long term benefit. I think 350W is what it is, so not sure faster legs at steady state = faster speed. One simply has the lower gear in that scenario.
Who is working and at what % of their anearobic /aerobic capacity will tell you who is the fittest in that comparo.
j
-
Fascinating to look at the legs of the Japanese Keirin riders in that video Keith posted and the massive quads of say Chris Hoy ( in this video). Makes me wonder what the gear setup is. All I know is there is a finite RPM I can get to on a fixed gear before I'm over-turning and feeling less effective pedal stroking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6ZbFz-19jac#t=45sIt looks like the video KR posted is more about the guys practicing the ramp-up before the sprint and maintaining a high rpm/power stroke while planted in the saddle. Tough stuff.
-
One thing that amazes me about the video is how RELAXED the guy with the 69 plate is. Watch him flex and adjust his hands while ramping up the speed.
-
Not to be a pest, but, providing that all variables are duplicated (principally, rider mass, bike mass, tires and pressure, gradient, windspeed) 350 watts at 90 RPM is the same speed as 350 Watts at 110 RPM.
What's different, in terms of the contractile dynamics, is what we call 'frequency summation'*, which pertains to the numbers of fibres (and kinds of fibres and motor units thereof) recruited en mass to create a cumulative contraction.
At 110 RPM, each unit of cyclic travel at the point of contact (crank/pedal) will require lower concentric force to overcome resistance. Lower force-per-unit means higher percentage of fatty acid (citric acid cycle) combustion to generate the necessary ATP and reduced dependence on starch (as well as less congestive metabolic waste). That aerobic pathway bias translates to longer sustainable burn-time, for one thing; it also means that changes of rhythm — speeding up and slowing down — can be executed with less damage and greater glycogen-sparing. High RPM is, however, also harder to do, and while metabolically more economic it is comparatively inefficient in a purely mechanical sense. Although the pay-off can be huge for deployable power over long periods, no pay-off occurs at all until specific training has stimulated those muscles and that muscle neurology to adapt beyond native ability. (This is why cyclo-tourists and beginners tend to self-select for lower cadences.)
* Last time I checked, which was the last time I contributed to it, there was a pretty good 'dumbed-up' article [under the heading 'Summation (Neurophysiology)'] in Wikipedia.
-
In other words, the cyclist who can train themselves to produce that 350W at higher RPM will be more nimble and will tire less fast. That's how I've always understood it to be anyways.
The wise man said follow me...and he walked behind. -
Yeah, that is kind of what I was getting at. But I worded it pretty poorly.
-
Yes, Orange Crush, that is correct. As it was once graphically depicted to me: you can move a hundred pounds of stones a hundred feet in one very arduous, non-repeatable trip, or you can move that same hundred pounds that same distance in many easy, separate trips. Either way, you've moved the same quantity, possibly in the same amount of time. Identical power. The difference is that in the latter case, you could keep doing that, over and over, ultimately moving many times that original amount if necessary. In the first example, you're cooked after that one trip.
-
I'm not certain that is a universal truth....for me, my HR goes down with a lower cadence for the same power output.
In addition, my cadence has dropped significantly over the last few years as I have transitioned over to tri's. I don't need the same leg speed there that I need for RR. Hence I have gone from 90-95 down to ~80-85(max). Going any higher just elevates my HR and burns calories / energy needlessly.
Cadence is very much situational AND individual.
Just say "NO!!" to WCP!
"Want to get faster? Work harder, eat better, cut the crap. Instead of talking the talk, work the work" -
CK, one thing I have noticed is that with age, and decreasing ability, the FIRST thing to go is the leg speed/cadence.
I was recently watching the tour stage where Lemond climbed with Big Mig and Miguel rode away from Greg for the stage. Miguel has the nice high cadence of a youngster. Greg has the slower cadence of a guy who is getting long in the tooth.
It makes sense; how do you build fast twitch muscles? Surely not in a gym. Gym workouts are certainly not conducive to that. So the amount you have decreases over time unless you make a concerted effort to work on it.
-
Some other interesting food for thought.
Everyone is different. Different % fast twitch and slow twitch muscle, different mechanical efficiency = different optimal cadence for everyone. Everyone has a peak biomechanical efficiency point (as per PlanB) over which pedaling economy begins to dominate (rider starts flailing all over the place), and overall efficiency goes down as cadence goes up. For some this is 95pm, for some it's 115rpm. It can also change with training and "getting smoother" (increased pedaling economy)
Optimal cadence also changes with % effort.
For most people the cadence point for peak efficiency gets lower as the % effort goes down.
example.
putting out 200 watts, a person might have a steady state heart rate of 150 at 105PM cadence, and 140 at 90RPM.
that same person at 350 watts might be 175HR at 90RPM and 170HR at 105RPM.Also, road vibration playes a huge part in optimal cadence. Rougher roads tend to favor lower cadences as the rider can prevent himself from bouncing around too much (overall economy). Look at the cadences on the cobbled sections at Pais Roubaix.
-
Hey Keith
It's counterintuitive, but for a given power output, you use MORE fast twitch muscle to pedal slower. Slower cadence = more force = more fast twitch muscle.
Reply »
You must log in to post.