Cadence

[garryb59]

I rigged up a cheapo cycle computer I had lying around to work as
cadence computer on Saturday and took it out for a ride on Sunday.
The ride was, just me, from Chesham to Straford upon Avon and back.
For some reason I decided on this ride to cycle not by 'speed' but by
cadence - that being, to try and keep my cadence between 80-90rpm [and
what felt comfortable in that range] and completely ignore how fast
or slow I was going. Save the odd steep hill, like Edge Hill between
Stratford and Banbury [had to stop twice going up that...jeeze] &
Cadsden Hill [nearer home], I was able to do this.

All in all it was a very interesting experiment. I was expecting to
use the lower gears more going up slight inclines, but what really
surprised me was how much less I was using the higher gears while
descending [expect going down Edge Hill!! on the B4680!!!]. The
empahsis was always to keep within that range and never push the
gears, always changing down if It began to feel too straining. It
wasn't easy at first cycling like this at times it felt like I was
coming to a grinding halt, but I carried on and did the trip.
Besides this 'gearing' down' and seemingly going slower it was quite a
startling revelation that I was no slower than I normally am. I
clocked up 144 miles, 15.1 avg 9.30hrs in the seat [this being a 36lb
homebuilt recumbent], 12 hrs door to door, which is about the same,
or if anything maybe slightly quicker than I normally would be.
The ride was the biggest I'd ever done, a real mega trawl [the
furthest I'd want to do in one sitting but probably a stroll in the
park compared to some of you hardened Audax riders here!], and I was
well chuffed to do it.

On this gearing question, the bike is a heavy 36lb homebuilt
recumbent, with standard mountain bike gearing 48/38/28 with a 32-11
block, but the number of times I actually used and remained in the
high combination was so few and far between it made me question the
validity of having such this high gear at all, and I certainly noticed
the large increments of the 32-11 which were a bit annoying sometimes.
If I'm going to try and pay more attention to cadence then I might
have to look at getting a more compact and lower setup.

I know the whole notion of cadence is old hat to anybody who trains
and is a serious cyclist, but I'm not in that category and I'd be
interested to know if anybody else has changed their pedally habits to
any advantage by taking notice of cadence?

I also discovered the wisdom of eating regularly and not allowing
yourself to bonk, which I did, coming into Stratford. Not nice.
Certainly took heed on the way home. Give thanks to fig rolls, thank
you.


Garry

[Pete Biggs]

garryb59 wrote:

/snip
> Besides this 'gearing' down' and seemingly going slower it was quite a
> startling revelation that I was no slower than I normally am. I
> clocked up 144 miles,

Blimey, that's a long ride!

> 15.1 avg 9.30hrs in the seat [this being a 36lb
> homebuilt recumbent],

Oh I see, you cheated: cycling while lying down in a comfy chair indeed ;-)

> 12 hrs door to door, which is about the same,
> or if anything maybe slightly quicker than I normally would be.
> The ride was the biggest I'd ever done, a real mega trawl [the
> furthest I'd want to do in one sitting but probably a stroll in the
> park compared to some of you hardened Audax riders here!], and I was
> well chuffed to do it.
>
> On this gearing question, the bike is a heavy 36lb homebuilt
> recumbent, with standard mountain bike gearing 48/38/28 with a 32-11
> block, but the number of times I actually used and remained in the
> high combination was so few and far between it made me question the
> validity of having such this high gear at all, and I certainly noticed
> the large increments of the 32-11 which were a bit annoying sometimes.
> If I'm going to try and pay more attention to cadence then I might
> have to look at getting a more compact and lower setup.
>
> I know the whole notion of cadence is old hat to anybody who trains
> and is a serious cyclist, but I'm not in that category and I'd be
> interested to know if anybody else has changed their pedally habits to
> any advantage by taking notice of cadence?

I do, but just by being vaguely conscious of the cadence rather than using a
cadence computer, and trying to remember not to start mashing when I get
tired. Not having too wide a ranging cassette really does help. I make do
with lower top gears than would normally be found on the sort of bikes I
ride in order to have more middle and low gears. In fact I customise my
cassettes to get precisely what I want. Higher gears would only be used for
a few seconds here and there anyway, since I rarely have the pleasure of
descending /long/ steep hills.

~PB

[Peter Clinch]

garryb59 wrote:

> On this gearing question, the bike is a heavy 36lb homebuilt
> recumbent, with standard mountain bike gearing 48/38/28 with a 32-11
> block, but the number of times I actually used and remained in the
> high combination was so few and far between it made me question the
> validity of having such this high gear at all, and I certainly noticed
> the large increments of the 32-11 which were a bit annoying sometimes.
> If I'm going to try and pay more attention to cadence then I might
> have to look at getting a more compact and lower setup.

Points on which I agree, riding a heavy recumbent too. I'm waiting
until I wear out the supplied block and rings on the Streetmachine
before changing them since I know what's on it /will/ do what I want,
and I'm forever kidding myself I'll have the wherewithal to get a
Rohloff, but I have basically the same criticism.

It has 52/42/30 and 34-11 9 speed block, which gives an insanely high
top which I have /never/ spun out, despite some good hard tries on very
big hills. Bottom /is/ low enough, though could be a smidge lower, so
I'm inclined to put on something at the back with smaller jumps (and
thus a smaller granny) but a trio of smaller rings at the front.

I think the long chainline should prevent too much naughtiness with
using most of the back block on any of the front rings and it should
give me a good range, small steps and a suitably wee granny for hills.

Or I'll see how the Rohloff project goes... Bigger steps than ideal but
the other compensations are quite large, or so ISTM.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Dave Larrington]

garryb59 wrote:

> I know the whole notion of cadence is old hat to anybody who trains
> and is a serious cyclist, but I'm not in that category and I'd be
> interested to know if anybody else has changed their pedally habits to
> any advantage by taking notice of cadence?

When I first started doing Audaxes I tried to keep my cadence in the 90s, as
it's not a race and I could therefore afford to run a little slower than I
do racing or commuting.

After a particularly knackering time on the Rural South 300, I decided to
try keeping the cadence in three figures as much as possible on the
following weekend's Plains 400.

Result: faster and much less knackered.

Apropos gearing, for Audax and its ilk, it's definitely better to err on the
low side, especially for us Dark Siders. On Saturday I was obliged to run
195 km with a 73" top gear instead of my more usual 90, and scarcely missed
the top end at all. It's the gaps which are more of a pain though,
especially as I've got quite a sizeable one smack in the middle of my normal
cruising range, chiz. Time to start planning The Great Rohloff Robbery...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Krankieburgh): Would the Prime Minister
care to comment on a report in today's Guardian that he: "arrived
late for a meeting with Jacques Chirac, smelling of alcohol, and
with body language suggesting a total disregard for the rights
of ethnic minorities, lone parents and laboratory animals"?

[Arthur Clune]

garryb59 wrote:

> On this gearing question, the bike is a heavy 36lb homebuilt
> recumbent, with standard mountain bike gearing 48/38/28 with a 32-11
> block, but the number of times I actually used and remained in the

Try a 12-28 block instead? Not sure if Shimano do a 12-32 or not, but
that wouldn't be as close ratio, though does keep your existing low
gear.

--
Arthur Clune

[Paul Boyd]

garryb59 said the following on 07/08/2006 21:35:

> On this gearing question, the bike is a heavy 36lb homebuilt
> recumbent, with standard mountain bike gearing 48/38/28 with a 32-11
> block

"Standard" mountain bike gearing is 22/32/42 these days :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[garryb59]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:42:27 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>garryb59 wrote:
>
>> I know the whole notion of cadence is old hat to anybody who trains
>> and is a serious cyclist, but I'm not in that category and I'd be
>> interested to know if anybody else has changed their pedally habits to
>> any advantage by taking notice of cadence?
>
>When I first started doing Audaxes I tried to keep my cadence in the 90s, as
>it's not a race and I could therefore afford to run a little slower than I
>do racing or commuting.
>
>After a particularly knackering time on the Rural South 300, I decided to
>try keeping the cadence in three figures as much as possible on the
>following weekend's Plains 400.
>
>Result: faster and much less knackered.
>
>Apropos gearing, for Audax and its ilk, it's definitely better to err on the
>low side, especially for us Dark Siders. On Saturday I was obliged to run
>195 km with a 73" top gear instead of my more usual 90, and scarcely missed
>the top end at all.

Dave, I assume that your XXL has a 406 rear wheel? If so, then you're
in the money when it comes to low gears. What's your setup in terms of
front chainset and back block? And are you a short crank convert? I
seem to remember, probably not. I'm running a cheap Suntour 152mm
triple that I got off Ebay, and it's fine, but whether it makes that
much of a difference compared to 170mm, I'm really not so sure.

>It's the gaps which are more of a pain though,
>especially as I've got quite a sizeable one smack in the middle of my normal
>cruising range, chiz. Time to start planning The Great Rohloff Robbery...

Dear heavens whatever, I've just looked up the price of those
things.....gulp!!!! I never realised just how much!


Garry

[garryb59]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:45:52 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>garryb59 wrote:
>
>> On this gearing question, the bike is a heavy 36lb homebuilt
>> recumbent, with standard mountain bike gearing 48/38/28 with a 32-11
>> block, but the number of times I actually used and remained in the
>> high combination was so few and far between it made me question the
>> validity of having such this high gear at all, and I certainly noticed
>> the large increments of the 32-11 which were a bit annoying sometimes.
>> If I'm going to try and pay more attention to cadence then I might
>> have to look at getting a more compact and lower setup.
>
>Points on which I agree, riding a heavy recumbent too. I'm waiting
>until I wear out the supplied block and rings on the Streetmachine
>before changing them since I know what's on it /will/ do what I want,
>and I'm forever kidding myself I'll have the wherewithal to get a
>Rohloff, but I have basically the same criticism.
>
>It has 52/42/30 and 34-11 9 speed block, which gives an insanely high
>top which I have /never/ spun out, despite some good hard tries on very
>big hills.

I've always thought that I must have 'the whole range' high and low,
and especially a high gear for belting down the hills, but on
reflection this thinking must be some kind of hangover from childhood.
Just how often and for how long am I going to spin a 48/11 gear?


>Bottom /is/ low enough, though could be a smidge lower, so
>I'm inclined to put on something at the back with smaller jumps (and
>thus a smaller granny) but a trio of smaller rings at the front.

Yes, I think this is where I may well be heading too.


Either that or I might do what champion Greg did with his training
bike. Really cracks me up this bloke.

http://www.adventuresofgreg.com/HPVlog/06-26-06.html

Great web-site, follow his progress....if you've got a spare month or
two!

http://www.adventuresofgreg.com/HPVMain.html


Thanks to others who replied too.
cheers
Garry



>I think the long chainline should prevent too much naughtiness with
>using most of the back block on any of the front rings and it should
>give me a good range, small steps and a suitably wee granny for hills.
>
>Or I'll see how the Rohloff project goes... Bigger steps than ideal but
>the other compensations are quite large, or so ISTM.
>
>Pete.

[Dave Larrington]

garryb59 wrote:

> Dave, I assume that your XXL has a 406 rear wheel? If so, then you're
> in the money when it comes to low gears. What's your setup in terms of
> front chainset and back block? And are you a short crank convert? I
> seem to remember, probably not. I'm running a cheap Suntour 152mm
> triple that I got off Ebay, and it's fine, but whether it makes that
> much of a difference compared to 170mm, I'm really not so sure.

'tis indeed a 406 rear wheel. Chainset is a 24/42/52 triple, back end is a
(Shimano) 11-34, on which the sprockets are 34-30-26-23-20-17-15-13-11.
When I replace the oily bits, (hopefully) prior to The French Ride, I'll
probably go for SRAM's 11-34 instead, which has bigger gaps at the low end.
Unless I can be bothered to start faffing around with custom cassettes.
Bring back the days when you could spec. your own, say I! I'm also
half-contemplating the purchase of one of these:

<URL:http://abundantadventures.com/quads.html>

so as to have something /deeply/ silly... (note to self: modify gearing
spreadsheet to cope with four chainrings)

I remain unconvinced by this short-cranks malarkey, having four machines
with 170s and one with 172.5. I have no idea why the latter was set-up that
way; that was how it came and I didn't notice for a couple of months. New
fixer will have 165s, partly as an experiment and partly because the 170s
were out of stock :-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Maffeo Barberini (1568-1644) was made entirely of salmon.