SBR Utopia Season II - OPEN (Page 42)

Kim - my wife rides an XS Scott Foil and they worked out great because of how the velcro straps are oriented even the long ones can be wrapped around short stuff. But the short ones are plenty short.

Yep, they picked Albo up as a supplier recently. Interested to hear how you like the Biospeed bag once you get some traveling with it - out cases are 20+ years old and have A LOT of wear on them. One of them developed a large crack in it recently and I am afraid this might be its last trip. I would like something that does not scream "I am a bike! Charge these suckers a lot of money!" As promised, here are ours from today:

 The "Crankcase" drive train cover is made by another manufacturer - we have had those for a while - they are awesome, especially if you transport your bikes inside your vehicle very often.

I think Shane's idea (and one that I agree with) is that a good rider should be able to ride at multiple cadences.  As wind, road surface, and grade changes, so does our cadence.  Also, as effort rises or drops, usually your cadence will as well.  So even though cadence is very much "self selected," rarely does anyone ride at the same cadence "no matter what."  So doing some cadence drills every once in a while is a good way to sharpen all the tools in your toolbox so to speak. 

I tend to do this in training especially with hill repeats.  I'll often try to climb the hill at roughly the same power but maybe in a different gear.  One climb I may be in the 34/26 and spinning 3-5 rpms higher than I normally would.  Second climb in the 34/23 at normal cadence, and third climb in the 34/21 grinding a bit...or standing up in the 34/19. 

ETA: Given that your cadence probably changes naturally throughout the ride if you do most/all of your riding outdoors, it may become more important to do cadence drills if you're doing a lot of riding on the trainer.  Because other than controlling your effort, there really aren't any outside factors that change to impact your cadence.  So you may end up training yourself only at one (or a few) cadence range when your race may require you to be a bit more versatile.

Found a new bike today.  Ended up getting a Specialized Safire.  I had them take about an inch off both ends of the handlebars and now it fits me perfectly.  I took it for it's maiden ride already...to the mailbox.  Then I tried to take the pedals off to put mine on but I had sweat rolling on down into my flip flops.  Might be a job for the morning

Yeah, I think you are right Jason and that's probably where I have gotten myself.  I feel like I have a very narrow range of comfortable cadences - at least when putting out any significant power.  

Nice ride!

What aerobars are you going to put on it?

Ha Ha Arend - that is why I do them too!

You often read that you shouldn't worry too much about cadence as you will eventually settle into your "natural" cadence once you have been riding enough. Well, that may be true for most, but once I started training with a power meter, I soon found out (through doing "over gear," high cadence work, and 20 minute ftp testing at a range of cadences) that my "natural" cadence was not my most efficient cadence (from a cardiovascular perspective) nor my most powerful cadence (from a muscular endurance perspective). A high cadence taxes the first a little more, while a low cadence challenges the latter. This probably matters more for us little underpowered folks, but it is important to note that "Power" is not the output of a singe metric. It is instead a function of the relationship between torque and angular velocity. So there are basically two ways you can increase power: by increasing force tot he pedals (torque) or increasing the angular velocity (cadence) of the pedals. While it may not be immediately obvious, this is true no matter where you measure power: at the hub, cranks, or pedals. Most of us seem to concentrate on the force part, and tend to ignore the cadence part. I found this to be true (for me  anyway) a couple of years ago when my coach had me do some 20 minute testing on long steep climbs. On the first ones I thought I was putting out my maximum power, but instead I was just putting out my maximum torque at a low cadence. I learned that by reducing the torque (muscular system) and increasing cadence (cardiovascular system) I could actually put out more power for a longer time and climb faster. I also have been able to find the fall-off point in this scenario where the cardiovascular effort begins to over-match the muscular endurance system, and thus have become much more attuned to my "new natural" cadence.

So the short of it is that your "natural" cadence is often misunderstood: it is not the cadence in which you settle into "naturally" because it feels right. Instead it is the cadence in which you can "naturally" put out the most power with the most efficient cardiovascular input.

And I guess one last thing since it is implied in the last paragraph. I have found it to be extremely valuable in endurance cycling to watch both HR and Power (they often get positioned against each other as an either/or metric). Power is an "output" (albeit a very controllable one unlike speed) and I have found it to very important to bracket that output against "effort," which is your primary input. I have found in endurance events HR to be a very reliable proxy for effort after about an hour, but RPE works pretty well too if you are attuned to it. I ignore HR on intervals under 30 minutes, but on long rides and races I sort of use power as a brake to keep me going easy enough early on) but over time watch HR much more to make sure I am going hard enough.

OK - I am getting yelled at that it is cocktail hour, so I am not even going to proofread all of that closely, and I don't even know that it is exactly true - but the thought process has helped me greatly in developing my cycling efficiency.

Damn it.

Just when I thought I might be able to get by for another year without power-noooooooooo!

Really great explanation. Thanks:)

Powertaps are cheap right now.  

Nice ride Kim!  Congrats:)

My mountain bike stall is very empty right now.  Jealous!

Rusty...great explanation.  I have to agree that two things have helped me explore new cadence ranges.

1.  Riding with a hard group.  Because there will come a time when you're hanging on for dear life and are about to get dropped and you will try anything and everything to keep up.  At this time you start flipping through your gears and you may shift into a harder gear and it either helps your ability to keep up...or it makes it more difficult  and you end up shifting back...or maybe even 2 gears back and increase your cadence even more to sustain the same power.  And if all else fails...well...you get dropped...LOL.

2.  Riding with a power meter.  Like a hard group ride, shooting for a target power that's on the edge of your ability will cause you to flip through your gears and you'll see which gear allows you to keep the power at your target given the lowest RPE.

I have grossly exceeded my tri budget for the year...it will January at the earliest.

Wait for it...

How cheap? Link?

Thanks for all the thoughts on power.  

Regarding big gear / low cadence, my first thought was that it might be to get comfortable riding at a cadence that is not your self-selected cadence....and that made sense to me.  But I had just read that blurb from the book, so I figured I'd put the question out there.

And to Rusty, thanks for your thoughts as well.  I haven't even ridden my bike since I put the PM on there and I'm already full of questions....sure they'll only increase as I start actually riding with it!  Hopefully soon....doctor said, "Let's get another MRI and figure out where to go from here....and let pain dictate what you do and don't do, so if riding doesn't bother it, go ride!"

You're definitely right in asking the question. Arend was riding in the 65-75 rpm range, which is about what I thought it might be knowing what his coach thinks of the big gear work. I think that's only a couple gears or so bigger than normal. Arend, is that about right?

When you see most others speak of doing "big gear work" it tends to be more like what the book said. They'll ride in the biggest gear they have which does exactly what you read about. It isn't nearly as effective as it might feel, or what they think it is.

Jason explained how the optimal cadence varies by situation, giving a number of examples, and that's due to the type of load seen. Or the crank inertial load. Hills are very linear and air resistance is exponential. They can help or hurt depending on direction. Speed also matters. My preferred cadence goes up with more speed too, so I'll be spinning faster in the higher gears. It also goes up when outputting more power, and that's relative to the given type of resistance. Going uphill is still going to be lower than on the flats. It can vary based on my fatigue level, even within the same ride.

Rusty just talks too much at times, so it might be a bit before getting through everything he said. Though people seem to misunderstand a number of things regarding cadence. It's really fun trying to sort through some who pick and choose what they feel to justify their view. My preferred cadence really did not change once I got the power meter, but then I'd been riding a lot and in a lot of different situations.

Power is helpful, but you do have to look at some numbers for it to be of use. Do know that you can still do quite well without it.

Hehe. I followed the video for this. The first 8' is a bit low as I built into it over the first minute or two. Didn't want to risk a complete flameout like I'd been having over the winter. 2nd one is about right as it's a progression. 3rd is actually low if you hit it just like in the vid. I kept up the baseline, but didn't hit the attacks quite as hard or for quite as long. Contador's own mother would set him on fire, just nuts how relentless it is.

That last one was probably like 4.6. Think my FTP is just over 4. At one point last year I was just getting into the low Cat 2, at least for time trialing. Would have been destroyed where the other numbers matter more.

Yup, 2-3 gears at most.  My avg cadence for the intervals I did was in the 70-73 rpm range.

Kim: suh-weeet ride!  I'm feeling another purchase I can't afford in my future (I miss mountain biking!).

Elesa:  Get the PM!  This from the guy who is now shopping for a second PM he can't afford.  Hmmmm… I see a pattern here.

Ben:  Day-um, that is one killer ride, but you're right - you totally slacked that third effort.

Apropos of the Hoka thread.  I got the Bondi Speeds.  Did my first run in them Thursday - an 11.5 mile interval run on road and a very well groomed trail - and sorta loved them.  Did my second yesterday (first half of the Timberman course after riding the bike course plus a little).  Still like 'em.  

The good:  Cushy (feet still feel good - NO pain).  Low drop, so I feel like I can mid-foot strike even in a shoe with "padding" (my Asics and Brooks feel like they force my heel to hit first unless I'm fairly well tip-toeing).  Orange (c'mon… Orange rocks kits).  Cushion let me attack some downhills without worrying about a heel bruise if I overstrode once or twice (common for me to do that every now and again trying to go downhill fast - and I did with these, but I just sort of "rocked" or "rolled" through the stride - was nice!).

The bad:  Orthopedic boot love child of Don Ho and Lily Pulitzer.  I don't have the feel for the road that I do in my Brooks or, much more so, my Newtons (but also don't have the road pounding they cause on long runs).  I don't feel quite as much "energy return" from each step, but the ability to hold a mid-foot strike and high cadence sort of counters that - as does not having said energy return directly to my sore metatarsals.

The conclusion:  These are my longer distance shoes, almost for sure (if Asics or Saucony or Brooks made a low drop, cushioned shoe, they'd be in the running - maybe they do, but I don't have it).  My Newtons will remain my 10k or less, suck it up and HTFU for the speeeeeedy race shoe.  And, I'll still buy other stuff and experiment with it because that's part of the fun for me.

I might try the hole-drilling thing, too, as my feet get terribly squerlchy on long runs (and I had the blister to prove it earlier this week).

Have a great weekend all.  Anyone racing?  RR's!!!

Matt

Why are you shopping for a second PM?  Could you tell me what you don't like about your first?

Your assessment of the Hokas was pretty much exactly what I came up with too--though you sound much more Hoka half-full to my Hoka half-empty.  The diminished feel for the road and energy return (or specific forward energy return) makes my runs and legs feel flat in these.  Wanted to love em, but just don't.  Drill the holes. It totally works.

I feel like I'm right there with you.  I've been using virtual power since November of last year and I love it.  I've been keeping my eye out for a good deal on a PM and just found one a couple weeks ago, so I pulled the trigger.  Now it's all about learning how to use it.

My biggest hope is figuring out how to formulate a training plan that will help me improve -- will tax me just enough, but not push me over the edge.  For the past 6+ months, I just kind of take into account how I'm feeling and pick a TrainerRoad plan with a TSS I feel is attainable, mostly doing FTP intervals, some VO2 max.  But I really have no idea how to put together a plan that will get me up over the next step.  I'm hoping the Training and Racing with Power book will have some thoughts.

I'm just not ready to throw money down on a coach who actually knows what they hell they're doing until after I get my knee injury straightened out.  Doesn't seem to be the wisest use of money to pay someone to just tell them I can't (physically) do what I should be doing.  So here's to learning on my own....and asking probably an annoying number of questions to the SBR Utopians