![]() |
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
|
Two questions?
1. What is a good cadence to maintain on an average 40-60km ride? 2. Can you trust the cadence value calculated by a Flight Deck? powinc -- |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
powinc wrote:
> Two questions? > 1. What is a good cadence to maintain on an average 40-60km ride? > 2. Can you trust the cadence value calculated by a Flight Deck? > powinc Hi pownic, 1. Cadence is used by the rider as an indicator to maximise endurance. The general rule is that the comfortable cadence for the rider increases as the fitness increases. I was reading somewhere that 80- 90 rpm is for an average rider while racers keep it around 110-120. The other factors to consider are the length of the ride and the terrain. One can afford higher stress (higher speed; rpm; heart rate) if it is not to be sustained over long time. So coming back to your question, your comfortable cadence depends on your condition and needs to be worked out by you over experience. In my little experience, the stable rhythm (indicated by cadence and heart rate) is the key to endurance. So start with a constant rhythm and if you need to and if you can, speed up your rhythm. 2. You can absolutely rely on the vitual cadence by Flight Deck, except for when you're not pedalling! There's not much into it. It reads your speed, and knowing your gear ratio and wheel size, it simply calculates the cadence. Cheers, Amir. -- |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
powinc <powinc@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message news:<5DQec.1$hf3.0@fe28.usenetserver.com>...
> Two questions? > 1. What is a good cadence to maintain on an average 40-60km ride? > 2. Can you trust the cadence value calculated by a Flight Deck? > > powinc > A1. 85-105 on the flats, 70-90 on hills works for me. The ranges are quite wide, but you're not a two-stroke moto racer. A2. I've never owned a FD, so I can't say. I imagine it would give pretty weird results down steep hills (especially if you change to the granny gear) Ritch |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
powinc wrote:
> Two questions? > 1. What is a good cadence to maintain on an average 40-60km ride? As fast as you can maintain and still be comfortable without bounce. Though, if you're not used to a fast cadence, you WILL bounce at first till your brain gets used to pedalling your legs like that. I sit at 100 give-or-take. Downhills I'm doing 120, and uphills, well, whatever I can manage. :-) Be warned, a slow cadence will give you knee trouble. Back when I didn't know any better, my habit was to ride with a slow cadence, and just torque it through. Once I found it I *should* be sitting on 100, my knees were fine. I also noticed with the faster cadence, that my legs have somewhat shrunk, but I'm still maintaining (or bettering) my average speed. This is over a number of years mind you, your legs certainly aren't affected quickly. > 2. Can you trust the cadence value calculated by a Flight Deck? Providing you program the ratios for each gear correctly, yes. -- Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org> |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
rjlongmire@netscape.net (Ritch) writes:
[...] > A1. 85-105 on the flats, 70-90 on hills works for me. Shouldn't these be equill? Infact I've found on short steep climbs I tend to up my cadence rather then drop it. (Of cause I drop into easyer gears to accomplish this effect). -- Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more. Free the Memes. |
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:
>>A1. 85-105 on the flats, 70-90 on hills works for me. > Shouldn't these be equill? Infact I've found on short steep climbs I > tend to up my cadence rather then drop it. (Of cause I drop into > easyer gears to accomplish this effect). If you can keep up 100+ cadance even on your lowest gear, the hill isn't steep enough. :-) Perhaps if we transposed the words "hill" and "wall" you'd understand why a lower cadance is mandated... -- Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org> |
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Originally posted by Ritch:
> 85-105 on the flats, 70-90 on hills works for me. The ranges are quite > wide, but you're not a two-stroke moto racer. Hmmm... 90-110 on the flats, anything down to about 30 on the uphill bits, and up to around 150 on the downhill bits. Regards, Suzy (49/19 fixed wheel) -- |
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@zeta.org.au> wrote in message news:<m3oepu91sg.fsf@dformosa.zeta.org.au>...
> rjlongmire@netscape.net (Ritch) writes: > > [...] > > > A1. 85-105 on the flats, 70-90 on hills works for me. > > Shouldn't these be equill? Infact I've found on short steep climbs I > tend to up my cadence rather then drop it. (Of cause I drop into > easyer gears to accomplish this effect). I don't think there is a requirement for equality. I find that the slope of a hill changes as you climb, so a lower cadence gives a wider range of speeds in the same gear to accomodate variations in slope. There is clearly a limit to this as other posters have pointed out the risk of knee injury if cadence is too low. The steepest hills don't give me much choice with 39/23 as my granny gear, but I don't live in the mountains (Syd metro has some steep pinches, but no really long and steep climbs). Ritch |
|