Ideal cadence and strength - have we been spoilt by lower gearing?

[DCBassman]

Bah, you can't go too low on gears. My lowest on the Trek mtb is 28/36 on 26" wheels, 30/36 on the Scott on 700c wheels. It's just about low enough...

 

[Ming the Merciless]

To go fast you need high torque and high cadence. For most of us mortals just one or the other is fine.

 

[DCBassman]

This. One day I might use the big ring!

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I think the benefit to sometimes riding with harder gearing is the variety. If you always ride the same bike with the same gearing, your body adapts to the load that combination of bike and gears places on it. Once it can comfortably sustain that workload for the mileage the rider covers each trip it will cease to adapt any further. A good example is walking; I can walk for miles and miles at my normal pace. I don't get any quicker or stronger at it, because my legs can easily carry my weight all day long at about 3.5 mph and see no reason to develop any more. What I get from doing it is maintenance of fitness, not any further gains. If you ride several different bikes which have different gearing and different weights then the loads felt by the body are subtly different too. Heavy bike one day, light bike another day. Hillier route one ride, flatter route next ride.

 

[ColinJ]

Hillier route one ride, flatter route next ride.

That's the kind of thing that I do. If I am avoiding the steep local hills I have to stick to the undulating valley roads or the long but pretty gentle Cragg Vale climb so I usually use my singlespeed bike to make those rides a bit harder. If I want a hard ride there are plenty of 10-20% climbs round here but I want my low gears for those! I can only do the Cragg Vale loop clockwise on singlespeed. If I want to do it anticlockwise I have to use the geared bike for the much harder climb from Littleborough...

Wind conditions play a big part too. I often get a tailwind on those 2 drags up towards Burnley, but a cross-headwind on the top half of the big climb above Cragg Vale.

 

[si_c]

That's the kind of thing that I do. If I am avoiding the steep local hills I have to stick to the undulating valley roads or the long but pretty gentle Cragg Vale climb so I usually use my singlespeed bike to make those rides a bit harder. If I want a hard ride there are plenty of 10-20% climbs round here but I want my low gears for those! I can only do the Cragg Vale loop clockwise on singlespeed. If I want to do it anticlockwise I have to use the geared bike for the much harder climb from Littleborough...

View attachment 547605

Wind conditions play a big part too. I often get a tailwind on those 2 drags up towards Burnley, but a cross-headwind on the top half of the big climb above Cragg Vale.

So what do your flat rides look like? So far we've got very hilly and hilly.

 

[PaulSB]

So what do your flat rides look like? So far we've got very hilly and hilly.

This is the north! Many rides would be at least 3000+ and often 4-5000. Less than 2000 feet would be flat. Rode to Cheshire yesterday, now that is flat.

As for cadence and strength for climbing. For me regardless of gearing it's just about selecting a comfortable gear, sit up, relax and set an appropriate pace**. For me this takes a lot of discipline as I'm often tempted to push for a good time and then it all falls apart.

Many of my PBs come on days when I don't attempt to ride a hill hard. Bizarre and proves the point for me.

** I was going to say "spin up" but that implies a high cadence. I feel it's much more important to simply relax and let the legs work as they wish. Sometimes I find it harder (more uncomfortable) to spin a low gear than ride a higher one at a lower cadence.

 

[wafter]

Thanks guys!

Lots of good info and I won't quote all the relevant posts as I'll be here all day.. suffice to say I'm impressed by what some of you are managing / subjecting yourselves to on single speeds!

To be clear I'm not questioning the legitimacy / usefulness of low gearing on hills and all things being equal would always prefer to have that versatile low range available to me. Yesterday's ride was a good case in point - felt a bit rough so low intensity was the name of the game and the low gear really helped keep the leg-exertion in check on the hills. I have dodgy knees too so limiting the force they transmit is also welcome sometimes.

I get the point about producing the same power regardless of how it's achieved, but each end of the spectrum (high load, low speed, low load high speed) have different demands on the body so promote development in different ways. While everyone likes a slightly different cadence and their default crankspeed should be whatever they find most comfortable, my point is that with lower gearing available we're missing the high-load workouts that would be required with higher gearing and thus might be missing out of strength development as a result; perhaps skewing the modern cyclist's fitness more in the direction of endurance over strength compared to what might have been the case 30yrs ago...?

I guess it depends what you're aiming for (if indeed you're aiming for anything at all beyond the pleasure of just getting out) but it's reasonable to assume that additional strength is desireable for sprinting and particularly tough climbs, so some opportunity to develop strength during each ride would be welcome.. also a bit of strength training might provide another area of development for those of us who've reached the limit of our endurance (personally I find after 55-60 miles I've had enough - bored of riding and aching in non-muscular places).

Thanks to the versatility of modern drivetrains at least we have the option of pushing ourselves harder by consciously selecting a tougher gear up the hills

 

[nagden]

I have just done a comparison between two bikes. The first my favorite, is a Motobecane demi course with lowest gear of 48-28 and weighing 14 kilos. The second weighs in at 10 kilos and the lowest gear I used was 38-32. On exactly the same course the Motobecane was faster on every hill. I have to say that I find the heavier bike far more comfortable and while some hills can be a bit of a grunt I have adapted to it.

 

[DCBassman]

I will say that one of my 'nemesis' climbs, the short but steep ramp up to Leg O'Mutton on NCN27 near Yelverton, I've only climbed it once in one go, on the Trek, at 28/34 gearing. Never managed it on the Scott, despite it being 10lb lighter! So maybe @nagden has a point here.

 

[Venod]

but it's reasonable to assume that additional strength is desireable for sprinting and particularly tough climbs,

I would agree for sprinting, but for tough climbs you just need the right gears that are spoiling us.

 

[nickyboy]

Thanks guys!

Lots of good info and I won't quote all the relevant posts as I'll be here all day.. suffice to say I'm impressed by what some of you are managing / subjecting yourselves to on single speeds!

To be clear I'm not questioning the legitimacy / usefulness of low gearing on hills and all things being equal would always prefer to have that versatile low range available to me. Yesterday's ride was a good case in point - felt a bit rough so low intensity was the name of the game and the low gear really helped keep the leg-exertion in check on the hills. I have dodgy knees too so limiting the force they transmit is also welcome sometimes.

I get the point about producing the same power regardless of how it's achieved, but each end of the spectrum (high load, low speed, low load high speed) have different demands on the body so promote development in different ways. While everyone likes a slightly different cadence and their default crankspeed should be whatever they find most comfortable, my point is that with lower gearing available we're missing the high-load workouts that would be required with higher gearing and thus might be missing out of strength development as a result; perhaps skewing the modern cyclist's fitness more in the direction of endurance over strength compared to what might have been the case 30yrs ago...?

I guess it depends what you're aiming for (if indeed you're aiming for anything at all beyond the pleasure of just getting out) but it's reasonable to assume that additional strength is desireable for sprinting and particularly tough climbs, so some opportunity to develop strength during each ride would be welcome.. also a bit of strength training might provide another area of development for those of us who've reached the limit of our endurance (personally I find after 55-60 miles I've had enough - bored of riding and aching in non-muscular places).

Thanks to the versatility of modern drivetrains at least we have the option of pushing ourselves harder by consciously selecting a tougher gear up the hills

The key is at what point do you switch from anaerobic to aerobic effort. Anaerobic effort is largely limited by maximum strength. Aerobic effort is limited by your CV system. On an aerobic climb the force applied through the pedals is small so being "stronger" is of little benefit

Where the anaerobic/aerobic boundary is depends on the rider. For me it's about 2 minutes. I'm quite big and strong so I can produce a decent effort on a 2 minute climb. But as the climbs get longer my performance, relative to others, drops away

 

[rivers]

My summer bike has 34/28 as it's lowest gear, winter has a 30/34 (also used for bikepacking), and TT has a 36/28. I wouldn't want anything higher, that's for sure. I'm not a climber, and prefer to spin as opposed to mash up. I just can't put out sustained power on hills. A good friend if mine prefers an all out, out of the saddle, full gas effort up hills. But that's in the mendips. Not sure how she would fare on a longer climb, say in the alps.

 

[raleighnut]

This is the north! Many rides would be at least 3000+ and often 4-5000. Less than 2000 feet would be flat. Rode to Cheshire yesterday, now that is flat.

As for cadence and strength for climbing. For me regardless of gearing it's just about selecting a comfortable gear, sit up, relax and set an appropriate pace**. For me this takes a lot of discipline as I'm often tempted to push for a good time and then it all falls apart.

Many of my PBs come on days when I don't attempt to ride a hill hard. Bizarre and proves the point for me.

** I was going to say "spin up" but that implies a high cadence. I feel it's much more important to simply relax and let the legs work as they wish. Sometimes I find it harder (more uncomfortable) to spin a low gear than ride a higher one at a lower cadence.

Yep I've always found the harder I try the worse I get whereas if I just relax I can go much further and at a faster speed.

 

[PaulSB]

I will say that one of my 'nemesis' climbs, the short but steep ramp up to Leg O'Mutton on NCN27 near Yelverton, I've only climbed it once in one go, on the Trek, at 28/34 gearing. Never managed it on the Scott, despite it being 10lb lighter! So maybe @nagden has a point here.

Out of very idle interest would that be from Harrowbeer Lane up Grange Road to Tavistock Road? I don't know it but had a look on RWGPS, looks very tasty!