![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
My friend sent me over his training data. The chart says he has a cadence
of 172 rpm. Is that possible? -tom |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In article <c6rl8s$m2a$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, tom@slac.stanford.edu
says... > My friend sent me over his training data. The chart says he has a cadence > of 172 rpm. Is that possible? How was the data collected? A lot of runners count each foot impact, so they come up with a number exactly twice what a cyclist at the same cadence would register. Going down a hill and not putting any pressure on the pedals, it probably is possible for some people to hit 172. Mark says he can hit 200 on a stationary bike. I can only hit about 145 on the trainer, but my bike has rather long crank arms. I suppose a top trackie might even make some significant power at that cadence, but I doubt any normal human would. -- Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible). |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Don't know if it's possible or not but if so sounds totally
ridiculous to me. There's no need to ever go above a 110 rpm cadence for road biking. -- |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Your friend might ought try some bigger rings
on the cranks of his one speeder... ![]() -N |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Tom Nakashima wrote:
> My friend sent me over his training data. The chart says he has a cadence > of 172 rpm. Is that possible? Yes. Max short term power is actually developed at a pretty high cadence. Track sprinters regularly hit 160rpm in a sprint (70kph in a 52-15, for example). If you don't actually have to develop power, higher cadences are possible. I've seen 203 on the display of a cadence speedo when just trying for max rpm down a hill. Nick |
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
With my road bike on a trainer i reach a max cadence in the 170's.
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:01:16 GMT, crystal_tears_
<usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote: >Don't know if it's possible or not but if so sounds totally >ridiculous to me. There's no need to ever go above a 110 rpm cadence >for road biking. On almost every ride, I apply power past 110 rpm in my highest gear, 52x11 on 700x23c tires. I've got a good aerobelly and lots of hills. -- Rick Onanian |
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Tom Nakashima wrote:
> My friend sent me over his training data. The chart says he has a > cadence of 172 rpm. Is that possible? -tom I don't want to rain on your buddy's parade but is he using a cordless computer? There are a couple of spots on one of my regular rides where RF interference plays up with my Polar S710. This morning it tells me I'm spinning at 80kmh at a cadence of 160 at 120% of max heart rate. Unless I slipped into some alternate universe for that minute or two I'm pretty sure it's interference giving me those numbers. -- |
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"crystal_tears_" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:w2ekc.5$KV5.4@fe02.usenetserver.com... > Don't know if it's possible or not but if so sounds totally > ridiculous to me. There's no need to ever go above a 110 rpm cadence > for road biking. > For mere mortals perhaps, but don't Millar and Armstrong maintain 130 or so during their time trials? |
|