FTP and gearing

d4r3n

More out of curiosity, what kind of gearing do people use vs. what their threshold wattage is?

I've found myself going towards lower gearing as at self-selected cadence (> 90 rpm) for me I need to push more watts than I have in anything more than 50T on the front and 18/19 at the back which left me with a lot of useless gears unless going downhill or with a tailwind.

Does anyone else base their gearing selection around this or PF/PV type stuff, or does everyone just HTFU and go with 53/39?

Fazz

d4r3n wrote: »

or does everyone just HTFU and go with 53/39?

This...

My last FTP test was done at around 80-82 cadence.
Too low and I've consciously worked on spinning and higher cadence since then.
As a result I'm now comfortable and pushing out higher cadences for higher watts.

My point is I used to ride with a lower than optimal cadence (in my opinion).
So I worked on this the last few months and have noticed benefits.

I guess I could have looked at gearing, but isn't that sidestepping the issue?

Surely the only time gearing comes in is for hilly routes, or else if passed on flat/descents despite pushing hardest gear for best cadence and having more to go but not anymore gears...
Even then if you could push a higher cadence you'd be in a better position.

So, HTFU and rpm that bad boy I guess..

tunney

Fazz wrote: »

This...

My last FTP test was done at around 80-82 cadence.
Too low and I've consciously worked on spinning and higher cadence since then.
As a result I'm now comfortable and pushing out higher cadences for higher watts.

What was it too low?

Fazz

tunney wrote: »

What was it too low?

In my opinion I needed to be more comfortable at higher cadences to have a broader range and from a few sessions I had liked the difference 90+ rpm gave me and felt like.

Now some 3 months later I am more comfortable at these rpm's and it feels better to me. Could be added benefit of improved fitness/performance but either way my comfortable cadence is up and better as a result.
Better in my opinion in terms of comfort, range, flexibility and performance.
I've found increased cadence range beneficial basically.

Not easily explained but it's something that I believe has worked for me so I'm happy. I'm sure it's a personal thing though like many others.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

I know i used to use 50/34 gearing and found i was running out of gears so switched to a 53/39 which i find suits me perfect. For me i can push put more watts in the high 70s and my long bikes range from anything from 77 to 85. Its strange as the previous year i would have always been around the 90+ range but i am stronger on the bike this year.

Like you fazz its a personal thing and i find i am more powerful over a lower cadence pushing a bigger gear. My session last night which contained 2x20min @ 100% ftp came in at 76 and 77 to give an idea. I dont think there is an optimal cadence one should aspire to, whatever gives you best results and feeling coming off the bike is what's optimal for the individual!!

tunney

Belen Greasy Paperweight wrote: »

I know i used to use 50/34 gearing and found i was running out of gears so switched to a 53/39 which i find suits me perfect. For me i can push put more watts in the high 70s and my long bikes range from anything from 77 to 85. Its strange as the previous year i would have always been around the 90+ range but i am stronger on the bike this year.

Like you fazz its a personal thing and i find i am more powerful over a lower cadence pushing a bigger gear. My session last night which contained 2x20min @ 100% ftp came in at 76 and 77 to give an idea. I dont think there is an optimal cadence one should aspire to, whatever gives you best results and feeling coming off the bike is what's optimal for the individual!!

I know for me optimal power generation cadence is also high 70s low 80s - however the caveat there is when trained.

Brett Sutton would disagree with "I dont think there is an optimal cadence one should aspire to"

Fazz

I've read a few articles and possibly the Brett Sutton one also.
I didn't get much conclusion out of it other than individual thing.

There was that debate on higher rpm's being more beneficial to running off but think I recall a study that couldn't agree with that either

I'd say it's individual, and also a matter of control.
It takes time to be able to control watts at higher rpm's, well it has and still does for me anyway. Less so now though.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

tunney wrote: »

I know for me optimal power generation cadence is also high 70s low 80s - however the caveat there is when trained.

Brett Sutton would disagree with "I dont think there is an optimal cadence one should aspire to"

Same here, link to Bret Sutton article? I think it's stupid for people to say this is the range of cadence people should hold. So many different factors to be considered.

Nwm2

The big objection I have with some of the research I have seen is that they compare (a) high cadence with (b) low cadence and (c) self selected cadence. Then surprise surprise the self selected cadence is superior. No sh*t Sherlock, I've been cycling at this cadence for 10 years and you expect me to adapt to a significantly higher or lower one overnight?

tunney

Nwm2 wrote: »

The big objection I have with some of the research I have seen is that they compare (a) high cadence with (b) low cadence and (c) self selected cadence. Then surprise surprise the self selected cadence is superior. No sh*t Sherlock, I've been cycling at this cadence for 10 years and you expect me to adapt to a significantly higher or lower one overnight?

Exactly - however adapting over time to a certain range is optimal for triathlon

d4r3n

tunney wrote: »

Exactly - however adapting over time to a certain range is optimal for triathlon

With that range (optimal for triathlon) being? 70-80? 80-90?

46x13 @ 90 rpm = 40.2 kph
50x12 @ 77 rpm = 40.5 kph
53x12 @ 72 rpm = 40.2 kph

peter kern

to the op knowbody can tell you whats right based on what you write.

d4r3n

peter kern wrote: »

to the op knowbody can tell you whats right based on what you write.

I'm not asking what's right or wrong, I doubt I'm going to consciously change my cadence because of what I see on the internet. I find what I do works for me.

I was more curious about what other people's gearing, cadence and threshold power is to compare to others

dquirke1

I know I spin a high cadence when I'm putting in a big effort, >110rpm for 10 mins or so and around 95-100 for up to an hour.
I find a 53-39 with 11-25 on the back is grand on most courses your likely to encounter.

If I'm just taking it easy or have a hilly route planned, then its a compact all the way.

Guess a lot of it depends on fitness as well. Some people have the power to spin a 39-23 up the hills at a reasonable cadence while others(me) just dont.:(

peter kern

http://www.irishtriathlon.com/index.php/2012/05/improving-triathlon-cycling-cadence/

d4r3n

peter kern wrote: »

http://www.irishtriathlon.com/index.php/2012/05/improving-triathlon-cycling-cadence/

It'd be nice to see links to the studies mentioned, otherwise it's just marketing hype.

I do find a cadence in that range suits me, but everyone's different.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

http://www.irishtriathlon.com/index.php/2012/05/improving-triathlon-cycling-cadence/

Yeah, stopped reading as soon as I saw the site name. Not known for unbiased honest debate are they?

peter kern

.Its not more or less biased than anything
you read out there.
its a bit unfortunate they dont have the source of the table in the article.
but hey, the german education secretary cheated in her thesis....

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

Article looks familar and looks rehashed from somewhere previously, possibly TEM.

peter kern

Sorry whats TEM.
ta

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

Sorry whats TEM.
ta

Assuming Triathlon Europe Magazine. Good Mag, great race coverage and pro interviews.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

peter kern wrote: »

Sorry whats TEM.
ta

tunney wrote: »

Assuming Triathlon Europe Magazine. Good Mag, great race coverage and pro interviews.

Yep good mag and it sometimes has some good articles in it. Pretty certain the above article is a rehash of something they had a while back.

peter kern

so how can it be a good magazine if thats a rehash of an article of their mag ;-)
or did the guys that used the article make it so much worse (if you are right with your assumption) ???