?? Cadence versus torque and power, any data?

[Nearholmer]

Have a look at rowing. As I said above my nephew was a competitive rower at university, he has legs like tree-trunks, and pumps away at low cadence up hills. Rowing stroke-rates are about half of cycling cadences, but I wouldn’t mind betting that a top rower and a top cyclist are developing very similar power outputs (i.e. as much as the human body can sustain for the duration in question!), probably rowers punch out more over very short durations because they can afford the mass of huge muscles, which cyclists generally can’t.

[JohnI]

Possibly the best way to understand this is with your legs and lungs, by finding a hill of suitable gradient and length, and going up it using different gears/cadences.

I do a similar thing on a smart trainer using ERG mode that forces you to maintain a given power. So basically I can play around with different cadences and see what feels easier, and check what my heart rate is doing. I've always tried to maintain 90-100 rpm (I'm small and skinny legged) but I do find that maybe 80-90rpm for intervals of a few minutes at a fixed power means I don't get out of breath as quickly even if it seems more tiring on my legs. Presumably I'm using my fast twitch muscles a bit more, but I don't think I would be able to maintain that power/cadence combo for a longer distance/time.

[Biospace]

This is a fascinating subject. Led here by the OP from another thread of his after I'd described a vague parallel with Nearholmer's grandfather and a Mr Peerless who were repeatedly observed riding up a steep hill so slowly and with such a slow cadence that it seemed to come close to defying physical laws, I'm fascinated by this ability to pedal so slowly at such slow speeds.

Try this on almost any other bike than something similar to a traditional Raleigh with slack geometries, North Road handlebars and a very upright riding position and it's impossible. It seems that something biomechanically quite different is occuring, a friend descibes it as using gravity to push down on the pedal rather than muscle.

As a lad, I remember a neighbour who was of indeterminate age, probably in her mid 70s at the time. She rode everywhere on a 1950s traditional bike at remarkably slow speed and always in middle gear with a cadence so slow it too was remarkable. Usually seen pushing the bike up the local steepish hill (and sometimes on the level also), from time to time I would spy her riding up the hill with the cranks moving even more slowly than usual, the road speed almost zero. It always appeared that she was using barely more effort than when leaning against her bike, engrossed in long conversation.

I think that the pursuit of speed is over rated and over promoted; for me cycling isn’t a sport but rather an enjoyable activity and utility that transports me from one desired place to another.

The pleasure should be more in the journey than the destination or the time taken, whether the speeds are slow or fast.

[Jdsk]

That style of riding links into my thread about torque and power versus cadence - I’d really like to know a lot more but the thread has probably died for want of specialist input.
...

I don't think that's the problem. The physics was made clear early on. But to connect to the physics you need to attach formal meanings to "effort" and "ability to climb".

Jonathan

[Biospace]

...
There is no single cadence that is optimum, not only does the optimum vary between individuals, but the same individuals optimum will be dependent on how much power he is using at any given time. If you want to know your own optimum, then as I suggested further up the thread adjust your gears until your HRM shows the lowest HR. Having tried this myself I found that my optimum cadence was as near as dammit the same as I was choosing intuitively by feel alone, so I just get on with riding now and don’t fuss over it.

We should all trust what feels right, in so many areas of life. So often I've done the maths and found that intuitively the body and mind know how to work to their best.

...it may be that the human engine is not really directly like any of them (I suspect that it has several different, overlapping, characteristics that relate to which fuel stores are being accessed, rather than a simple curve, for instance).

Very much so.

..at this point you might want to look at what Mike Burrows wrote about the use of shortercranks and his observations..

...the thing is, it's not just about cadences and gearing, but because we're biological engines we've also got to examine crank length, latic acid build up in muscles, oxygen depletion in the blood and fast and slow twitch muscle fibres....

Yes, very much so - and more besides.

I think there is an obsession with operating at highest achievable power level, because that ensures highest achievable speed, and much of the cycling world is very much speed oriented. Besides which, people like to brag about their power output!

However, there could be multiple goals other than speed;

- minimise energy consumption (running out of food on a tour in the wilds?), which goes to maximising efficiency;

Certainly most studies are done with the aim of maximising output - the idea of conserving energy should be equally interesting, but clearly it isn't in a world where the greater the power and the higher the level of consumption, the better.

At the gym some folk use leg presses. What you can shift at slow speed and limited reps is much higher (load) than what you can shift at higher speed and greater reps; an observation with doubtless overlaps to cycling. I wonder if there is any helpful data on leg press loading and exercises.

A very interesting point.

Have a look at rowing. As I said above my nephew was a competitive rower at university, he has legs like tree-trunks, and pumps away at low cadence up hills. Rowing stroke-rates are about half of cycling cadences, but I wouldn’t mind betting that a top rower and a top cyclist are developing very similar power outputs (i.e. as much as the human body can sustain for the duration in question!), probably rowers punch out more over very short durations because they can afford the mass of huge muscles, which cyclists generally can’t.

As someone who once rowed competitively, I'd say rowing mechanics result in the body being able to be more energetic, if anything. From hearsay, it's easier to strain the heart in rowing than competitive cycling.