# Climbing and Cadence...?



## nethfel (18 Oct 2014)

Hi all,

I keep seeing blogs, articles, posts, etc. that basically say that while climbing you should try to maintain a cadence of 90 - what I never see is an explanation of why 90 is such a significant number for cadence while climbing.

I'm still way out of shape, I spend most of my time in the 70-80 range of cadence on roads that are for the most part flat (slight rolls, maybe 5 feet up/down on a very low grade), while climbing I spend most of my time in the 60-80 range. 

I don't really care on one level that I don't go 90 on climbs right now, I'm just not at that point physically where I can do that (heck, I'm still using flat pedals at this point - not quite ready for clipless yet until I get a different bike); what I'm more curious about is why it's important to strive for that number.


----------



## midlife (18 Oct 2014)

Getting to the top without walking beats cadence every day of the week 

Shaun


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Oct 2014)

nethfel said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I keep seeing blogs, articles, posts, etc. that basically say that while climbing you should try to maintain a cadence of 90 - *what I never see is an explanation of why 90 is such a significant number for cadence while climbing.*
> 
> ...


Bit suspicious that innit


----------



## ColinJ (18 Oct 2014)

Forget what other people try to impose on you - do what feels right for _your_ body.

I prefer to use low gears and a high cadence on steep hills if I am sitting down, or higher gears and a lower cadence if I am standing up. I don't bother with numbers, I just respond to what my body is telling me.

If you were horribly overgeared your cadence would drop to the extent that you might not even be able to get the cranks round. If you were stupidly undergeared then you might not be able to pedal fast enough. 

Pedalling fast tends to make you run out of breath sooner. Grinding a high gear can hurt the legs more. Just find a gear and cadence somewhere between those extremes that suits you ***.




*** If you can't, then you are not fit enough and/or your bike does not have a wide enough range of gears!


----------



## Smokin Joe (18 Oct 2014)

^^^^^
Wot 'e said.

Gearing is all down to what suits. Robbie McEwen was once asked why he didn't use lower gears on the mountains like some of the climbers. He replied that he'd tried them and it hurt just as much, but for longer as he went slower.


----------



## nethfel (18 Oct 2014)

Ok, I was just curious why on so many I was seeing that (about the 90 cadence). I've not been on a climb yet that I've had to walk, even if I had to go to my lowest gear (granted, where I live although there are a lot of hills, most of the grades are not super steep or terribly long, the steepest that I've been on I think was an accidental 8% (was relax riding on a road I hadn't been on before when I was suddenly going 28 mph down hill and then had to climb back up once I reached the bottom), near about killed me but made it  ).

As I mentioned, for my current fitness level, I'm not disappointed with what I can do - I just wanted to understand. I'll just keep going with what I'm doing - one day I'll be in shape!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Oct 2014)

It was mentioned in a magazine once as the cadence of pro or someone and everyone jumped on it like it's the grail of information.

Unfortunately that kind of crap is repeated often


----------



## nethfel (18 Oct 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> It was mentioned in a magazine once as the cadence of pro or someone and everyone jumped on it like it's the grail of information.
> 
> Unfortunately that kind of crap is repeated often



I guess it must have been what worked for that particular person.


----------



## midlife (18 Oct 2014)

90 cadence = EPO. 

Says the cynic in me as that's how it works best.

Shaun


----------



## MacB (18 Oct 2014)

like Colin says if you're sitting and twiddling then the cadence needs to be fast enough, IMO, so that you get all the benefits of momentum. If it drops too low then I need to get out of the saddle otherwise I'm in danger of stalling


----------



## DaveReading (18 Oct 2014)

90 is more of a rule-of-thumb than a mantra. It's a reasonable compromise between grinding in a too-high gear (which will hurt, and risk injury) on one hand, and spinning like a pro (which most of us aren't capable of) on the other.

If you can't maintain 90-ish on a climb, then either

i) you're not fit enough
ii) your gearing isn't low enough
iii) the hill's too steep 

The above don't necessarily apply if you're standing.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Oct 2014)

DaveReading said:


> 90 is more of a rule-of-thumb than a mantra. It's a reasonable compromise between grinding in a too-high gear (which will hurt, and risk injury) on one hand, and spinning like a pro (which most of us aren't capable of) on the other.
> 
> *If you can't maintain 90-ish on a climb, then either
> 
> ...


If it's a rule of thumb then none of those can apply surely?


----------



## Steppylud (18 Oct 2014)

i still mega struggle on hills. i dont measure cadence but i imagine its very low, as average speed drops to about 5mph. just get up the top without getting off and try doing it quicker or not dropping into the granny gear next time!


----------



## ColinJ (18 Oct 2014)

Steppylud said:


> i still mega struggle on hills. i dont measure cadence but i imagine its very low, as average speed drops to about 5mph. just get up the top without getting off and try doing it quicker or not dropping into the granny gear next time!


How fast do you ride on the flat, and how steep are the hills you are talking about?

(If you ride quite quickly on the flat, but struggle on moderate hills then I would say you are overgeared for the climbs. If you are slow on the flat then you just aren't fit enough for the hills - _yet_!)


----------



## Tigerbiten (18 Oct 2014)

I find the optimal cadence for me at around 20 mph is around 90 rpm.
But as my speed drops, my cadence also drops.
So at around 5 mph I'll be spinning at 80 rpm and if I'm grinding my way uphill it will drop to around 60 rpm.

But then again, I'm on a recumbent so it's slightly different .......


----------



## moo (18 Oct 2014)

Smokin Joe said:


> ^^^^^
> Wot 'e said.
> 
> Gearing is all down to what suits. Robbie McEwen was once asked why he didn't use lower gears on the mountains like some of the climbers. He replied that he'd tried them and it hurt just as much, but for longer as he went slower.



That's my approach. Get the pain over with quickly


----------



## marzjennings (18 Oct 2014)

Tigerbiten said:


> I find the optimal cadence for me at around 20 mph is around 90 rpm.
> But as my speed drops, my cadence also drops.



Then change gear. The idea is to find and maintain a cadence you're comfortable with and stick to it regardless of incline. It's only when you run out gears, then you may need to change cadence.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Oct 2014)

I have been working on my cadence of late, and I am finding I can manage 90rpm on the climbs I do with the right gear, in fairness they are not difficult I find that at 90-95 I can pedal quite smoothly and I think thats what its about, this is where a close grouped cassette on a triple really helps.


----------



## nethfel (18 Oct 2014)

I know the feeling of a bad spaced cassette... My bike that I'll be replacing (other reasons to replace, not just the cassette  ) currently has a 7 speed rear cassette at 14,16,18,20,22,24,34 (28/38/48 front) - unfortunately that last gap is REALLY huge and there are times where 24 feels too hard and 34 too light in the 2 chainrings I can actually use those gears in (I've gotten to the point where I only use the 38 and 48, but am willing to drop to the 28 if I need to). The bike I'm planning on getting (I say planning because I may change my mind when I finally get a chance to test ride it) has in the lowest 25,28,32 which I think I'll be much happier with (front chainrings 34/50).


----------



## morrisman (18 Oct 2014)

Too low a cadence = run out of legs
Too high a cadence = run out of lungs

Happy medium = ride on flat roads


----------



## nethfel (18 Oct 2014)

morrisman said:


> Too low a cadence = run out of legs
> Too high a cadence = run out of lungs
> 
> Happy medium = ride on flat roads


ROFL I wish. Unless I drive my bike somewhere to ride, I have to go up/down hills, even smaller ones


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Oct 2014)

nethfel said:


> I know the feeling of a bad spaced cassette... My bike that I'll be replacing (other reasons to replace, not just the cassette  ) currently has a 7 speed rear cassette at 14,16,18,20,22,24,34 (28/38/48 front) - unfortunately that last gap is REALLY huge and there are times where 24 feels too hard and 34 too light in the 2 chainrings I can actually use those gears in (I've gotten to the point where I only use the 38 and 48, but am willing to drop to the 28 if I need to). The bike I'm planning on getting (I say planning because I may change my mind when I finally get a chance to test ride it) has in the lowest 25,28,32 which I think I'll be much happier with (front chainrings *34/50*).


Not saying owt

I have a front 50/38/26 with a 12-27 rear, I could gear the back with a 12-23 (12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23) and still have a 29" low gear


----------



## nethfel (18 Oct 2014)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Not saying owt



Well, those are the stock compact chainrings. (34/50) It's a wider gap on the front compared to my current bike, but the rear cassette w/ 11 seems to be a bit more flexible. Right now my main concern is comfort with the ride position which I just don't feel on my hybrid (I don't think I really like the hybrid riding position)


----------



## Trevor_P (18 Oct 2014)

From what I understand, There is an optimum cadence that allows you to make the best use of your individual power to weight ratio. It might not be exactly 90, but it'll be in that ballpark. Too low and you expend more energy to cover the same distance, leaving you more tired. As you get fitter/lighter, the number is likely to get nearer to 90. But in the beginning it will be less than that. I've seen people almost stalling on hills, unable to maintain a rhythm because they have too low a cadence due to selecting too high a gear. Pushing a higher gear uphill can give your muscles a good workout, but it needs to be a sensible higher gear and not something that won't let you keep a smooth rhythm going.


----------



## Steppylud (18 Oct 2014)

ColinJ said:


> How fast do you ride on the flat, and how steep are the hills you are talking about?
> 
> (If you ride quite quickly on the flat, but struggle on moderate hills then I would say you are overgeared for the climbs. If you are slow on the flat then you just aren't fit enough for the hills - _yet_!)



Most definitely the latter! On flat I average 13-14mph


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Oct 2014)

@nethfel I run a 50x12 giving 109" (700x23c) and I only ever spin out above 35mph down hill.
I averaged 89rpm on this ride, its bit broken as I called in to see a friend.

http://www.strava.com/activities/208793037
This segment, though not a difficult climb I managed 88rpm





Which worked out to be an average gear of 42.3" or a 38x23 or 24, and I can still drop to the 26 inner for really difficult climbs, but its also useful for longer sustained climbs as it has a usable range from 25-48" but better cadence control


----------



## ColinJ (18 Oct 2014)

Steppylud said:


> Most definitely the latter! On flat I average 13-14mph


Oh well ...stick at it and the hills will soon start to feel easier!


----------



## cyberknight (18 Oct 2014)

nethfel said:


> Well, those are the stock compact chainrings. (34/50) It's a wider gap on the front compared to my current bike, but the rear cassette w/ 11 seems to be a bit more flexible. Right now my main concern is comfort with the ride position which I just don't feel on my hybrid (I don't think I really like the hybrid riding position)


I use a 50/36 , works fine for me  


Nigelnaturist said:


> @nethfel I run a 50x12 giving 109" (700x23c) and I only ever spin out above 35mph down hill.


I dont hit 50x 12 till about 30+ mph , on my commute i regularly ride at 27 mph down a long drag and i use 50x 13 for that .


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Oct 2014)

@cyberknight you must spin quicker than me, a 50x12 is 109.6" @ 100rpm is 32.62mph, I can spin quicker up to 110 which is 35.88mph, and a little beyond.


----------



## cyberknight (18 Oct 2014)

Nigelnaturist said:


> @cyberknight you must spin quicker than me, a 50x12 is 109.6" @ 100rpm is 32.62mph, I can spin quicker up to 110 which is 35.88mph, and a little beyond.


I had a look at my cruising gear of 50 x17 i ride at around 21 mph , gives just over 90 rpm so spot on , down hills i spin faster as its less resistance .


----------



## moo (18 Oct 2014)

How accurate are the speed/gear/cadence calculations? The reversed figures suggest I'm doing 70-130rpm on my commute using 39x13 (down), 39x14 (flat), 39x15 (up) and 39x16/17 (wind, knackered). 

Damn @Nigelnaturist and his stats. Looks like I'm buying a cadence sensor for the Garmin now


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Oct 2014)

cyberknight said:


> I had a look at my cruising gear of 50 x17 i ride at around 21 mph , gives just over 90 rpm so spot on , down hills i spin faster as its less resistance .


My average is about 59-61" or a 38x 16-17, this what I have tried to gear the bike to be beast suited for, though on the flat with little wind I will be doing 18-19mph at about 90-95rpm, so say 18.4@90 = 68.7" or 50x19, though I am more likely to be on the 38x 14 or 15 as its a slightly better chain line. I am trying to decide if I can afford the Ultegra 12-23 it would still give a good range from 29-109" but amazing control, I still hate that gap between 17 and 19, though not as bad as it was on the 40th middle I had before.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Oct 2014)

moo said:


> How accurate are the speed/gear/cadence calculations? The reversed figures suggest I'm doing 70-130rpm on my commute using 39x13 (down), 39x14 (flat), 39x15 (up) and 39x16/17 (wind, knackered).
> 
> Damn @Nigelnaturist and his stats. Looks like I'm buying a cadence sensor for the Garmin now


Those kinds of calculations should be accurate because there is no guesswork involved, unlike e.g. power or calories-burned deduced from speed.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Oct 2014)

moo said:


> How accurate are the speed/gear/cadence calculations? The reversed figures suggest I'm doing 70-130rpm on my commute using 39x13 (down), 39x14 (flat), 39x15 (up) and 39x16/17 (wind, knackered).
> 
> Damn @Nigelnaturist and his stats. Looks like I'm buying a cadence sensor for the Garmin now


Well the figures I quote are for a 700x23c wheel setup, and they are the same as Sheldons, the averages are a little more ambiguous, for example my ride today I averaged 15.62mph @ an average rpm of 89 giving an average gear inch of 58.96" (formula (avg sp x 336)/avg cad ) so an average gear combo of 38x17 58.8"

Edit which is about as straight a chain line as you can get, then work out what you need from there.


----------



## dee.jay (18 Oct 2014)

You are a stat machine!

I'm grateful to get up any hills regardless of cadence. I'm overweight so any hill I can go all the way up without walking is a real accomplishment - though during my commutes I've only had to do it once touch wood. 

Yeah I'm not the fastest but my average is slowly but surely increasing. Gimmie a few months when I've lost a few stone then maybe I'll think about cadences and what not - as I suppose I won't be the most efficient rider out there....


----------



## moo (18 Oct 2014)

I did this climb in 34x24. The calculations suggest a cadence of ~88, but it certainly didn't feel that quick. I was out of the saddle, trying to zone out and control my breathing. Maybe Strava is over-estimating my speed.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Oct 2014)

moo said:


> [Maybe Strava is over-estimating my speed.


Where is the estimation? It knows how far you went and how long it took, so that should be easy to calculate!


----------



## cyberknight (18 Oct 2014)

Heres one i climb in 50x21 or 50 x 23.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOSE6HxyDizx0bdDfSD7-Lg!2e0
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSEe1rmAqUFhmyDmXjKCcTg!2e0


----------



## Cycling2Live (18 Oct 2014)

I like to try to keep a steady cadence, using the gears to adjust. However, on steep hills it may not be possible to keep your cadence up. On long hills, I will stand every now and then to change which muscles are taking the grind.


----------



## Cycling2Live (18 Oct 2014)

Try these the next time you're on a climb :-)
http://www.vingle.net/posts/539667-Top-10-Cycling-Excuses-–-For-Climbing?cyc


----------



## ColinJ (18 Oct 2014)

Cycling2Live said:


> Try these the next time you're on a climb :-)
> http://www.vingle.net/posts/539667-Top-10-Cycling-Excuses-–-For-Climbing?cyc


Ha - I did a 200 km audax event in these here hilly parts and suffered like a dog all the way round. When I got to the car park at the finish I discovered that my back brake had been rubbing for the whole ride!


----------



## bloodlett (18 Oct 2014)

i use cadance and heart rate to train no matter what gear i am in my cadance is 80+ and I keep my %hrm around 60 - 65 % although my average speed is slow 12 - 13 mph as i get more fit my speed will increase and my muscle memory will retain 80+ cadance I am not ready for hill training yet but my plan is to keep down shifting to maintain a 80 cadance as I climb at first I suspect I will only make it 30 feet up the hill or here in florida the bridge lol we have very few hills here but the more I do these drills I will climb to the top and again my muscle memory will retain 80+ cadance I once read a article on cadance training and this is how it said to train you will be slow at first but as you train you will become faster and climb easier my ride today was 23 miles avarage speed was 12.7 mph avarage heart rate was 62% of max and I am 54 this is my 9th ride on my new bike last time i rode the year was 1979 I know this is a long post but bottom line is cadance important IMHO yes if your body likes 65 - 70 rpm train at that rate my body liked 82 - 86 rpm


----------



## sreten (19 Oct 2014)

nethfel said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I keep seeing blogs, articles, posts, etc. that basically say that while climbing you should try to maintain a cadence of 90 - what I never see is an explanation of why 90 is such a significant number for cadence while climbing.
> 
> ...



Hi,

There is no point striving for that number if your only doing 70-80 on the flat. It is worth
looking at when your doing around 100+ on the flat, but to do that you have to be fit,
and be interested in going as fast as possible, like racers obviously do.
The best time trialers do 110 -120 on average on a relatively flat course,
and with big gears that most of us can only dream about going that fast.

If your interested in just getting fit, ignore it and do whatever feels comfortable.

However to try and answer your question, if your really fast on the flat,
having trained to push high cadences on the flat, you aren't going
going to be able to mash up hills at low cadence, you have to spin.

I'd say that is where it comes from, all the top racers spin, and even,
no especially, in my advanced years, because I can't mash like
I did in my youth, spinning is the best way to make (slow) progress.
Not like I'll ever go up any real hill at 90 rpm ever ... I'm too slow ...

rgds, sreten.


----------



## cyberknight (19 Oct 2014)

My favourite line after a nasty climb on a club run has to be timed .
I wait till were all at the top waiting for any stragglers , everyones gasping and i say 






" That was fun can we do it again ? "


----------



## Nigelnaturist (19 Oct 2014)

cyberknight said:


> My favourite line after a nasty climb on a club run has to be timed .
> I wait till were all at the top waiting for any stragglers , everyones gasping and i say
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cycling2Live (19 Oct 2014)

Today's ride reminded me that the same question pops up when riding into a head wind


----------



## cyberknight (20 Oct 2014)

Cycling2Live said:


> Today's ride reminded me that the same question pops up when riding into a head wind


Read an article that says riding on the hoods with the arms bent at 90 degrees is more aero than on the drops , my default position 
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/...faster-instantly-without-riding-harder-42744/


----------



## bpsmith (20 Oct 2014)

cyberknight said:


> Read an article that says riding on the hoods with the arms bent at 90 degrees is more aero than on the drops , my default position
> http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/...faster-instantly-without-riding-harder-42744/


 
Surely bending the arms when in the drops would be the logical next step on again? Comparing a straight arm in the drops to a bent arm on the hoods is hardly fair?

I do agree that this/your position choice is very good mind you, and often choose that option too.

Chris Froome has the right idea staring at the stem it seems...except that he ought to look up a tad more in order to reduce his crash ratio...


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Oct 2014)

bpsmith said:


> Surely bending the arms when in the drops would be the logical next step on again? Comparing a straight arm in the drops to a bent arm on the hoods is hardly fair?
> 
> I do agree that this/your position choice is very good mind you, and often choose that option too.
> 
> Chris Froome has the right idea staring at the stem it seems...except that he ought to look up a tad more in order to reduce his crash ratio...



That might be more aero, but then again it is unlikely since your elbows will end up fouling your knees and hence you would have to spread them out wider than your legs.

Also by the time you start making your forearms horizontal while in the drops, your hip angle will be rather acute, hence likely to be limiting power output to a degree that offsets the aerodynamic gain anyway.


----------



## moo (20 Oct 2014)

I adopt whichever position stops me from pulling at the front wheel during a climb. It's better to push down.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Oct 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> That might be more aero, but then again it is unlikely since your elbows will end up fouling your knees and hence you would have to spread them out wider than your legs.
> 
> Also by the time you start making your forearms horizontal while in the drops, your hip angle will be rather acute, hence likely to be limiting power output to a degree that offsets the aerodynamic gain anyway.


 
There isn't the need to get the elbows horizontal when in the drops in order to get the aero advantage though, as the lower hand position is already bringing your back closer to the position it would be with horizontal arms in the hoods position. Its marginal anyway.

I also tend to tuck with my pedals level when descending the steeper hills where you would spin out if pedalling. This creates less drag also. Obviously, I would pedal if less steep as enjoy powering downhills.


----------



## Rob3rt (20 Oct 2014)

bpsmith said:


> There isn't the need to get the elbows horizontal when in the drops in order to get the aero advantage though, as the lower hand position is already bringing your back closer to the position it would be with horizontal arms in the hoods position. Its marginal anyway.
> 
> I also tend to tuck with my pedals level when descending the steeper hills where you would spin out if pedalling. This creates less drag also. Obviously, I would pedal if less steep as enjoy powering downhills.



The main features of the crouching hoods position are, lower overall height whilst maintaining a reasonable hip angle, narrower arm/elbow position and level forearms. It is about shape as well as how low you go. So whilst you might get your back in the same position, your arms will be in a completely different orientation.

You appear to be assuming a flat back is more aero, this is not correct. Width and shape play a huge part in determining a riders drag. Probably more so than how low or flat you can go!

Also the presumption that it is marginal is a funny one... especially since the data itself suggests a reduction in CdA for the test subject of 0.0306, which is massive! It is over 30W, nearly a minute in a 10 mile time trial.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Oct 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> The main features of the crouching hoods position are, lower overall height whilst maintaining a reasonable hip angle, narrower arm/elbow position and level forearms. It is about shape as well as how low you go. So whilst you might get your back in the same position, your arms will be in a completely different orientation.
> 
> You appear to be assuming a flat back is more aero, this is not correct. Width and shape play a huge part in determining a riders drag. Probably more so than how low or flat you can go!
> 
> Also the presumption that it is marginal is a funny one... especially since the data itself suggests a reduction in CdA for the test subject of 0.0306, which is massive! It is over 30W, nearly a minute in a 10 mile time trial.



I read the article too, so the above isn't a surprise. My point was that they compared being at full height in the drops, instead of a more dynamic position like you would generally adopt otherwise no point being in the drops.

I meant marginal gains from creating the same shape in the drops as the optimal position in that article, not that it's marginal overall. Clearly it's far from marginal overall.

We're on the same page here and I sm not questioning the article other than that it's possible to get a much better position in the drops than it covered.

Tucking the arms and head in are where it all hinges.

On the flip side, being comfortable is also extremely important too. Adopting optimal position is useless if you can't hold it due to being uncomfortable. Better to be close to optimal and hold it longer.


----------



## Cycling2Live (21 Oct 2014)

Unless I missed it, the quote was

The outcome showed that gripping the brake hoods with horizontal forearms produced the smallest frontal area and equated to a power saving of 13.4 percent at 45km/h *compared with sitting up with hands on the hoods. *

Nothing said about hands on drops

Also, I don't thing that riding with your head bent down is a position I would use. I like to see what's in front of me.
*
*


----------



## bpsmith (21 Oct 2014)

Cycling2Live said:


> Unless I missed it, the quote was
> 
> The outcome showed that gripping the brake hoods with horizontal forearms produced the smallest frontal area and equated to a power saving of 13.4 percent at 45km/h *compared with sitting up with hands on the hoods. *
> 
> ...



Quote:

"The study by Barry et al, published in the _Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology_, looked at five different road cycling postures to see which best overcomes drag."

and

"This horizontal-forearms position also offered a 10.3 percent saving compared with gripping the drops."

The bits appeared immediately above and below your quote.


----------



## nethfel (21 Oct 2014)

I am wondering about control of the bike in that position? I mean, you're appearing to be in a position closer to what is used in a time trial with handlebars that aren't really designed with that position in mind? Be gentle, remember I'm a noob about a lot of this so I could be 100% wrong about the direction I'm thinking here...


----------



## Yorksman (21 Oct 2014)

nethfel said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I keep seeing blogs, articles, posts, etc. that basically say that while climbing you should try to maintain a cadence of 90 - what I never see is an explanation of why 90 is such a significant number for cadence while climbing.



Ermm, that sort of rather depends on how steep the climb is.

I think it is mostly a training target, to build up power and stamina, the sort of 'train hard - ride easy' mantra. It's not gospel.

If it was, the Netherlands would never produce any decent cyclists.


----------



## Rob3rt (21 Oct 2014)

Cycling2Live said:


> Unless I missed it, the quote was
> 
> The outcome showed that gripping the brake hoods with horizontal forearms produced the smallest frontal area and equated to a power saving of 13.4 percent at 45km/h *compared with sitting up with hands on the hoods. *
> 
> ...



I was refering to the following:



> In our one-rider study, CdA dropped from an average of 0.3473 when riding in the drops (position 2 above) to an average of .3167 when gripping the hoods with horizontal forearms (position 3 above).



By my calculations this change would tend to save around 49 seconds over 10 miles, that is a huge saving. Variable of course in rider speed and course to some degree, but regardless it will be a huge saving!



nethfel said:


> I am wondering about control of the bike in that position? I mean, you're appearing to be in a position closer to what is used in a time trial with handlebars that aren't really designed with that position in mind? Be gentle, remember I'm a noob about a lot of this so I could be 100% wrong about the direction I'm thinking here...



You wouldn't be slinging the bike round hair pin bends and sharp corners in that position, but there should be no stability issues whatsoever. Note the elbows will be quite a way behind the steering axis.


----------



## bpsmith (21 Oct 2014)

The position does bring you more forward on the bike, so handling would be pretty good imho.


----------



## Turbo Rider (23 Oct 2014)

Crikey, thats a lot of technical stuff. I dont have any monitors, I just pedal as fast as I can until I feel all wobbly, then I change down a gear if things get too stiff (with the pedals, I mean  ), whilst maintaining the most comfortable position I can sit in. If I start to tire, I just imagine I'm on steroids and play my own theme tune in my head, which seems to work wonders. Same rules apply, no matter what the incline / decline is like and if nothing else, it guarantee's I'll be sweating like a pig on a spit by the end of it


----------



## ayceejay (23 Oct 2014)

I think riding at a high cadence is 'learned' behaviour, in other words you have to train yourself into it. Also you will notice that when you are on a flat road with no wind to speak of, once you get up to speed there will be little resistance and your high cadence is just maintaining rather than driving. This situation changes when you reach a _significant_ hill, if it is just a lump you can often maintain your cadence and speed with a short spell out of the saddle but once you meet the resistance of a big hill you will find it hard or impossible to just maintain momentum. Training on hills and competing there are two different things - you want to make the training hard so that your competition will not be (so mush !) One mistake is to start out too quick and get lactic acid into your legs that will slow you down .So regarding cadence on hills - train to ride a cadence (you pick the number) regardless of speed that will increase your climbing comfort so that you maintain form ready for the other side of the hill.


----------



## Rob3rt (25 Oct 2014)

bpsmith said:


> The position does bring you more forward on the bike, so handling would be pretty good imho.



The position doesn't really bring you further forward.

Also, the latter part of your statement is counter intuitive, as you shift weight forward on a bike, handling generally becomes less stable, which is not what most would describe as being good. Given the position in questions mimics a time trial position to some degree, it might be worth considering some features of a time trial bike against your statement, such as the slacker head tube angles and/or increased amount of fork rake, these features are there to counteract the negative impact of shifting weight forward.


----------



## Boon 51 (25 Oct 2014)

Interesting thread, here's my bob's worth.. 

Your cadence will also depend on your bike weight, For example climbing a hill on a 10 kilo bike is harder than a 7 kilo bike, so its easier to spin a a lighter bike.
Nobody had mentioned that so i thought I would?


----------



## bpsmith (25 Oct 2014)

Furthermore, lighter wheels will see more of a gain in speed, than the same weight saving elsewhere on the bike.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (25 Oct 2014)

Boon 51 said:


> Interesting thread, here's my bob's worth..
> 
> Your cadence will also depend on your bike weight, For example climbing a hill on a 10 kilo bike is harder than a 7 kilo bike, so its easier to spin a a lighter bike.
> Nobody had mentioned that so i thought I would?


Because it's a load of nonsense! Cadence has nothing to do with the bike


----------



## Torvi (25 Oct 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Because it's a load of nonsense! Cadence has nothing to do with the bike


i so agree with this post, cadence is what you can pull off not how heavy bike is, the more gears u got the longer you can keep your cadence on same level without struggling too much but once you hit last(first) gear it's only a matter of how strong your legs are, how fit you are and the distance you rode.


----------



## Torvi (25 Oct 2014)

also ill tell something out of my very little but still experience. if you want to train your cadence... LIMIT YOURSELF! try to ride only on inner cog no matter what's the terrain, ive learnt how to keep my cadence high cycling up to 20 miles long with average to 15mph yeah purely on 33T inner cog, if you feel that you need outer cog to go faster then... slow down! you dont want to ride fast, you want to learn how to pedal fast and those two things dosent always come in pair, learn your spinning rate, what and when you can do and then start moving on. 
Im cycling 3 months, on today sportive i was beating people cycling a year+ purely out of an ability to spin fast.


----------



## bpsmith (25 Oct 2014)

There is a lot of merit in the above, but also merit in doing the same and grinding too. You use different muscles as well as building up the muscles you use to spin.

The bigger your muscles, the higher the gear that you can spin in any given scenario.

I plan to do some of both of these on the Turbo over the next few months.


----------



## Rob3rt (25 Oct 2014)

bpsmith said:


> There is a lot of merit in the above, but also merit in doing the same and grinding too. You use different muscles as well as building up the muscles you use to spin.
> 
> *The bigger your muscles, the higher the gear that you can spin in any given scenario*.
> 
> I plan to do some of both of these on the Turbo over the next few months.



Balls.


----------



## vickster (25 Oct 2014)

Torvi said:


> also ill tell something out of my very little but still experience. if you want to train your cadence... LIMIT YOURSELF! try to ride only on inner cog no matter what's the terrain, ive learnt how to keep my cadence high cycling up to 20 miles long with average to 15mph yeah purely on 33T inner cog, if you feel that you need outer cog to go faster then... slow down! you dont want to ride fast, you want to learn how to pedal fast and those two things dosent always come in pair, learn your spinning rate, what and when you can do and then start moving on.
> Im cycling 3 months, on today sportive i was beating people cycling a year+ purely out of an ability to spin fast.


But what cogs are you using on the back with that front ring especially when moving quickly? If the small one, time to start saving for a new chain


----------



## bpsmith (25 Oct 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Balls.



They don't really help tbh, just get in the way.


----------



## Torvi (25 Oct 2014)

i start with 1st gear then steadily moving upwards, and that's why also i told about limiting yourself, if you go too fast ull only tire urself out and your bike. I have no problem really with grinding that bike, ive got it cheap and im using it to train myself, next year getting me some 10sp carbon 

Anyway is chain this expensive for 7sp groupset? i doubt lol every 2 weeks complete wipe on chain and derailleur with lubing also helps to maintain it in a nice shape 

WOW BLASTING 6 TO 10 POUNDS FOR SHIMANO CHAIN ON WIGGLE, YEAH ILL GO BROKE


----------



## vickster (25 Oct 2014)

I don't think wiping it stops the chain stretch caused by running small cogs together 
And folks on here aren't deaf


----------



## Torvi (25 Oct 2014)

vickster said:


> I don't think wiping it stops the chain stretch caused by running small cogs together
> And folks on here aren't deaf


as said chains be pretty cheap, no big loss.


----------



## vickster (25 Oct 2014)

Did you? I ignored the capitals


----------



## Boon 51 (25 Oct 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Because it's a load of nonsense! Cadence has nothing to do with the bike



When I climb the mountains where I live I would rather be on a 7 kilo bike than a 10 kilo bike any day, so we all have our own opinions to what is best for us, my effort to keep a good cadence for me is easier on the lighter bike.


----------



## Torvi (25 Oct 2014)

vickster said:


> Did you? I ignored the capitals


hearing aid needed


----------



## Nigelnaturist (25 Oct 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Because it's a load of nonsense! Cadence has nothing to do with the bike


If your moving more weight against gravity you have to work harder, this will effect your ability to spin at a higher rate going up hill.


----------



## ColinJ (25 Oct 2014)

Boon 51 said:


> When I climb the mountains where I live I would rather be on a 7 kilo bike than a 10 kilo bike any day, so we all have our own opinions to what is best for us, my effort to keep a good cadence for me is easier on the lighter bike.


Obviously climbing is easier with less weight to lump up the mountain, but why not just select a lower gear on the heavier bike to allow the same cadence at a lower speed?

(That advice breaks down a bit once you get to extreme gradients, say >= 25%, because it is very easy to lift the front of the bike off a steep road when spinning a tiny gear.)


----------



## Rob3rt (25 Oct 2014)

The reality is, as an absolute, cadence does not matter. Power production is all important and a magazine can't tell you your optimal power to cadence relationship.


----------



## Yorksman (25 Oct 2014)

Power is work done divided by time taken. If you raise 15 Kg the height of 100 feet in the same time as someone raising 10 Kg the same 100 feet, the former is working at a faster rate, even though the time is the same. The former is doing 50% more work than the latter and to do it in the same time requires the former to develop 50% more power.

Obviously that power is transmitted to the wheels and cadence is one way of doing it. Another way is to push harder. Most people find a balance between the two, using the gears appropriate to their strength. Too high a gear and you can't push hard enough and cadence drops. Too low a gear and, even with a high cadence, you may not transmit the power at a fast enough rate.


----------



## ColinJ (25 Oct 2014)

I still prefer a low gear/high cadence on long steep hills but now that I am gaining power and losing weight, I quite often can't be bothered to use my smallest ring for short steep climbs, instead opting to stand and use lower cadence grunt in the middle ring instead. I did that on a 20% climb this afternoon which was just about at the limit of how far I'd want to stand for. 

The problem for me would come if my back and/or legs gave way mid-climb and I had to change down from the middle ring to the small ring. I could probably get away with it if I could gain enough momentum to change rings without too much tension on the chain.

_I've forgotten what the original post was about!  Hang on ... 
_
Oh yes - we have already covered it - do what you like, and ignore what other people tell you to do. (Well, except people telling you to do what you like, obviously! )


----------



## Hacienda71 (25 Oct 2014)

Just ride the bike up the hill in whatever gear feels most comfortable to you at the speed you want to travel at. Simples.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Oct 2014)

vickster said:


> But what cogs are you using on the back with that front ring especially when moving quickly? If the small one, time to start saving for a new chain


Another side question here: does it really wear a chain out more when spinning on the small ring than using more power on the big? Sure, the chain's going to travel further but isn't it going to do so under less stress? Grit (gutter grinding paste), poor lubrication and extended cross-chaining are the elements I think of as doing the most damage.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (25 Oct 2014)

@deptfordmarmoset I think what @vickster is getting at is the angle of the chain, rather than how many revolutions it makes.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Oct 2014)

Nigelnaturist said:


> @deptfordmarmoset I think what @vickster is getting at is the angle of the chain, rather than how many revolutions it makes.


Goes back and rereads....oh yes, moving quickly suggests cross-chaining, little rings front and aft. In my defence, I have a bad head cold.....


----------



## Boon 51 (25 Oct 2014)

ColinJ said:


> Obviously climbing is easier with less weight to lump up the mountain, but why not just select a lower gear on the heavier bike to allow the same cadence at a lower speed?
> 
> (That advice breaks down a bit once you get to extreme gradients, say >= 25%, because it is very easy to lift the front of the bike off a steep road when spinning a tiny gear.)



I do select a lower gear when climbing on my heavier bike but since I've got a lighter bike I can climb on a smaller cog on the cassette, which for me makes it a lot better and smoother and faster.


----------



## nhanlm0601 (25 Oct 2014)

Hi,

If you are riding at high cadence and Low Ouput Power, you are training your slow-twitch muscles and enlarging them (hypertrophy). Slow-twitch muscles are best in endurance racing.

If riding at low cadence and high instantaneous power, you are training your fast-twitch muscles, which is good in sprinting (but in exchange, the latic acid for tomorrow pain is also awaiting). Note that when you stand-climb for a long period, you can really feels your shaky legs, that is when your fast-twitch uses all the energy, leaving your slow-twitch doing the work alone (reduced tremendous instantaneous power).


So, if you prefer not to have such pain after an uphill riding, a high-cadence and low instantaneous power output is the key.

Reference: http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/pdhpe/core2/focus2/focus1/4007/2-1-4/fac2_1_4_6.htm


----------



## MacB (26 Oct 2014)

I thought both views were correct, your power to weight ratio is what it is and therefore a lighter bike will make climbing easier. I would imagine it will only assist with spinning when you've reached your last gear and you're flagging. On any given climb I don't know how much difference it will make, for example:-

Me = 108kg(yes I've lot weight)
Light bike = 7kg
Heavy Bike = 15kg

So totals are either 115kg or 122kg which means the light bike is only reducing the total weight by 6%

Though over a long ride and many hills I'd think that 6% would become more and more noticeable - if you're one of those skinny little whippets then the %age variance would be higher


----------



## rb58 (26 Oct 2014)

I've found my natural cadence on the geared bikes has increased significantly since I've regularly been riding fixed gear. I also think (no data to support of course) I'm less tired after a long (flat) ride on fixed (when the average cadence will tend to be higher) than the equivalent on gears. I don't know whether that means the overall effort is less due to the higher cadence, or other factors such as the fly wheel effect, bike weight. Or it could just be the sense of triumph after a long ride on fixed.


----------

