# Optimal cadence



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

What's the optimal cadence for a long ride around 120 Km?


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

the cadence you trained.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

bianchi77 said:


> What's the optimal cadence for a long ride around 120 Km?


There's no such thing. Sometimes you need to be spinning around 100, sometimes you need to turn a large gear at around 70, and most of the times you need to be somewhere in between these extremes.

The nature of the ride determines cadences as well. On a solitary touring ride for example, you're better off at lower cadences and higher gears. But if you're part of a competitive group, higher cadences and lower gears will keep you in that group, especially if there are any kind of spirited accelerations.


----------



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

wim said:


> There's no such thing. Sometimes you need to be spinning around 100, sometimes you need to turn a large gear at around 70, and most of the times you need to be somewhere in between these extremes.
> 
> The nature of the ride determines cadences as well. On a solitary touring ride for example, you're better off at lower cadences and higher gears. But if you're part of a competitive group, higher cadences and lower gears will keep you in that group, especially if there are any kind of spirited accelerations.


Thanks for the advice, may be it will be better in 70 to 90 Rpm on front 39- rear 17 ?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Are you riding in a group or alone?

The 70-90 is a good cadence range. As for gears, it depends entirely on your strength and fitness, which I can't judge from afar. I'm a fair-to-middling rider and have always preferred the big ring on long, flat, solitary rides with no wind. I remember being happily stuck on my 52 x 18 for hours. Somehow, the small ring always made me feel as if I was working much too hard to cover ground at a good rate of speed—all mental, I know, but there it is.

For what it's worth: there's a small advantage to a big ring-bigger cog combo: it's easier on your drive train. The more teeth involved, the less wear (not true if you cross-chain, of course).


----------



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

wim said:


> Are you riding in a group or alone?
> 
> The 70-90 is a good cadence range. As for gears, it depends entirely on your strength and fitness, which I can't judge from afar. I'm a fair-to-middling rider and have always preferred the big ring on long, flat, solitary rides with no wind. I remember being happily stuck on my 52 x 18 for hours. Somehow, the small ring always made me feel as if I was working much too hard to cover ground at a good rate of speed—all mental, I know, but there it is.
> 
> For what it's worth: there's a small advantage to a big ring-bigger cog combo: it's easier on your drive train. The more teeth involved, the less wear (not true if you cross-chain, of course).


I don't know my strength and fitness level...
Usually I ride around 24 km/h in average for 100 km distance, it's not flat terrain...
What do you say with my fitness ?
Mountaineous, almost ....flat.....climb.......descend.........climb....descend.........flat...
So mostly on the climb ( hard one ) I use 39-23, on the descend 53-14 or 53-12....on the medium one I like to use 39-17 or 53-19....
What do you think of it ?


----------



## perttime (Jun 27, 2005)

I consider myself a recreational cyclist, in the sense that I ride for pleasure and not with set racing or even fitness goals.

I do not concern myself too much with cadence, except I mostly try to go for a RPM where I can spin smoothly. Some variety does not hurt: going at the same cadence all the time gets boring and keeps the strain on exactly the same muscles.

I'd consider it more important to keep your intensity (heart rate) at a level that lets you keep going long enough.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

bianchi77 said:


> I don't know my strength and fitness level...
> Usually I ride around 24 km/h in average for 100 km distance, it's not flat terrain...
> What do you say with my fitness ?
> Mountaineous, almost ....flat.....climb.......descend.........climb....descend.........flat...
> ...


24 km/h for 100 km of hilly terrain is very good, and your gear combos sound fine to me. As perttime said, it's more important to gauge your perceived effort (a general indicator of heart rate) than try to hold yourself a particular cadence number. This is especially true for a long ride like the one you're planning. I would make my cadence observations and experiments more on 1-hour solitary training rides close to home. On your 120 km rides, enjoy the scenery and pay more attention to what you eat and drink and how you feel. Good luck!


----------



## perttime (Jun 27, 2005)

Continuing with my disclaimers... 
I have never had a bike computer or heart rate monitor, as I do not want to measure or - god forbid - analyze my riding.

Here's a good pointer I did not invent myself: pick a cadence that you are comfortable spinning at the moment. Then adjust the intensity (heart rate) by shifting to a suitable gear. If going is too hard, shift to an easier gear.

I am not an amazingly fit person but I have no doubt I could ride 100 or 200km. I'd just have to start easy and take my time. Distance does not kill you. Speed might.


----------



## BassNBrew (Aug 4, 2008)

perttime said:


> Continuing with my disclaimers...
> Distance does not kill you. Speed might.


My butt and back beg to differ.


----------



## perttime (Jun 27, 2005)

BassNBrew said:


> My butt and back beg to differ.


OK, next time up your average speed a few MPH. If that does not kill you, go a little faster next time.

Oh and check your seat fit and do something about those core muscles.


----------



## BassNBrew (Aug 4, 2008)

perttime said:


> OK, next time up your average speed a few MPH. If that does not kill you, go a little faster next time.
> 
> Oh and check your seat fit and do something about those core muscles.


My point was that you have to build up to the distances you speak of regardless of speed.


----------



## perttime (Jun 27, 2005)

Ah, and my point was that if your pace is easy enough, you can cover a lot of distance. If you go too fast, you can burn yourself out in the first 15 minutes.


----------



## Rot Weiss Essen (Nov 10, 2008)

Seems to me that 39X17 at a 70 cadance is going to be crawling i.e. 12.9 mph, even at 80rpm your still only going 14.7 mph. To me if your going to use a 39X17 you need to be in the 90-100 rpm range to get anywhere, miles wise and heartrate wise. Unless you are doing a recovery ride and want a slow easy spin I don't see any gain in going 39X17 at 70 or 80 rpm!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 4, 2006)

perttime said:


> Ah, and my point was that if your pace is easy enough, you can cover a lot of distance. If you go too fast, you can burn yourself out in the first 15 minutes.


The problem is mental readiness as well. At the beginning of a long ride, I see or hear something, evaluate it it very quickly, and react. Hours in, especially if I'm not trained for the distance, I see or hear later because I'm distracted, take longer to process information, don't make decisions as quickly, and lack the snap that can be helpful in dealing with a dog chasing you or a car moving unsafely near you.


----------



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

Rot Weiss Essen said:


> Seems to me that 39X17 at a 70 cadance is going to be crawling i.e. 12.9 mph, even at 80rpm your still only going 14.7 mph. To me if your going to use a 39X17 you need to be in the 90-100 rpm range to get anywhere, miles wise and heartrate wise. Unless you are doing a recovery ride and want a slow easy spin I don't see any gain in going 39X17 at 70 or 80 rpm!


Not easy to develope 60 RPM on a high climb grade 11%
I only get 40 RPM with 39X23...hard...
Anyone know how to improve it ??


----------



## Doctor Who (Feb 22, 2005)

bianchi77 said:


> Not easy to develope 60 RPM on a high climb grade 11%
> I only get 40 RPM with 39X23...hard...
> Anyone know how to improve it ??


Attach a motor to your bike, per that other thread you started, and let it help you up the hill.


----------



## steelbikerider (Feb 7, 2005)

It is interesting to check the 1 hour record attempts. If I recall, the majority of successful attempts are in the 100 - 108 range.


----------



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

the motor is used to measure the power that I've generated
So I know how much powered do I generate, compared with the power that dissipated while climbing..
That's the point of this cadence training..


----------



## Doctor Who (Feb 22, 2005)

bianchi77 said:


> the motor is used to measure the power that I've generated
> So I know how much powered do I generate, compared with the power that dissipated while climbing..
> That's the point of this cadence training..


No, no. What you really want to do is attach the motor to the rear of the bike, maybe to the seatstays, and through the use of a roller or belt-drive transmission mechanism, connect the motor to the rear wheel or gears. I imagine that you could put the battery for the motor somewhere on the frame, maybe build a custom bracket and affix the assembly to the seattube waterbottle brazeons. A small switch on the handlebars to turn it all on when you get to a hill. 

Is this right? That's what you want the motor for, yeah?


----------



## Kenacycle (May 28, 2006)

For flat road, I find I am very comfortable at 85rpm. I would shift gears to maintain that RPM. 
But when the terrain changes, the cadence will vary. But in general 85rpm, at least for me, is a comfy zone.


----------



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

Doctor Who said:


> No, no. What you really want to do is attach the motor to the rear of the bike, maybe to the seatstays, and through the use of a roller or belt-drive transmission mechanism, connect the motor to the rear wheel or gears. I imagine that you could put the battery for the motor somewhere on the frame, maybe build a custom bracket and affix the assembly to the seattube waterbottle brazeons. A small switch on the handlebars to turn it all on when you get to a hill.
> 
> Is this right? That's what you want the motor for, yeah?[/QUOTE
> Wrong, that's not what I mean


----------



## jsellers (Feb 14, 2008)

Take the cadence sensor off the bike and ride. >.<


----------



## Roadplay (Jan 2, 2007)

For me, the simple answer would be a cadence of 80 to 90 on a relatively flat road is very comfortable over long distances.


----------



## bianchi77 (Jul 15, 2008)

what kind of train do you guys take for having 80-90 RPM cadence in a 6% moutain road ?


----------



## Doctor Who (Feb 22, 2005)

bianchi77 said:


> what kind of train do you guys take for having 80-90 RPM cadence in a 6% moutain road ?


I think the Amtrak goes to most mountainous areas in the Continental U.S. Go here for more information: www.amtrak.com


----------



## Doctor Who (Feb 22, 2005)

bianchi77 said:


> what kind of train do you guys take for having 80-90 RPM cadence in a 6% moutain road ?


I think the Amtrak goes to most mountainous areas in the Continental U.S. Go here for more information: www.amtrak.com


----------



## M__E (Apr 21, 2006)

bianchi77 said:


> Not easy to develope 60 RPM on a high climb grade 11%
> I only get 40 RPM with 39X23...hard...
> Anyone know how to improve it ??


seriously you should get a compact! (or..horror!)a triple 
that 40rpm is NO good for your knees ect...bite the bullet and make the change if you do alot of climbing...or like your knees to work in later life :thumbsup:


----------

