Sounds like a daft question, but having visited a couple of bike retailers recently it seems I've been doing it wrong.
Or at least, not entirely correctly.
Many cyclists - me included - tend to lollop along in the highest comfortable gear.
A more efficient use of energy - so I'm told - is to aim for about 60 pedal revs per minute, and base gear selection on that.
My recently lower geared Brompton gives me more opportunities to pedal faster.
I tried the lower gear/faster pedalling technique on this morning's ride, and I think I can see the merit in it.
What are the thoughts of the cycling panel?
|
|
If the ratio you're in is comfortable for you at the time it's fine. No black magic. Positioning on the bike is more critical to efficiency in my view. For maximum power at least effort I prefer the saddle to be set so that my leg is fully extended at the bottom of the pedal travel. Keep the ball of your foot in the centrre of the pedal not your arch. Keep upper body movement to a minimum and try to use legs not lungs where possible.
|
Good tips Humph, most of which I follow already, although 'using legs not lungs' is one I will look at.
I think the pedal RPM is aimed at road/hard surface cyclists - your mountain biking may be a bit different.
I'm told the likes of Wiggins run at nearer 80 to 100RPM.
|
The logic is no different to a petrol engine in a manual car.
It depends what you're trying to do. Its not just how many "pedals" a minute, its also about how much effort those pedals take.
Towing a heavy trailer up a hill you'd drop it down through the box, keeping the revs higher than for cruising, but ultimately because it copes better. Trying to save petrol, you'd accelerate and brake as litle as possible whilst trying to be as feather wiht the throttle as possible.
All exactly the same.
And to be honest, what is comfortable at that moment is a pretty good guide as to what's the best for that moment.
|
Agree with above.
Everyone is slightly different on a bike, and what works for some doesn't for others.
Basically, if you're not riding hard enough to break a sweat it matters not a jot what your cadence is. If you're riding harder, then pick the speed that you can comfortably maintain. Some people prefer a lower cadence, but I agree that about 60 rpm is a good target.
Far more important is foot positioning. I see far too many people pedaling with the arch of their foot or (horror) their heels. This is inefficient and prone to causing injury. Ball of your foot, try to be smooth, and thing about pedaling in circles instead of up/down/up/down.
If you sit on the bike and put your heel on the pedal, your leg should be fully extended. With the ball of the foot your knee should be slightly bent. It is not good for your leg to go to full extension when cycling and if it does you'll pay for it later on.
If the seat's too low, it won't do any harm but you'll get tired vewwwwwy quickly.
|
|
A brisk cadence (80-90 rpm is what racing cyclists tend to aim at) is less fatiguing on the muscles, particularly over a longer distance.
|
|
I got stuck on a country lane today behind a half dozen female road / race cyclists. All in tight lycra shorts. I could have overtaken on a couple of occasions but you know, safety first...What were we talking about again?
|
|
That is why I cycle.>:) No need to use the highest gear if you cycle steady.One's up to speed and depending on head wind or road go up through the gears.Depends how fit and strong you are as well.Mine cycle has only three gears build for the older person.>)
|
|
I think the idea of the higher cadence is that although it might seem like you're having to exert yourself more, the corresponding reduction in force you're exerting on the pedals outweighs that. That is, you can keep going longer at the higher cadence, even if it doesn't feel like it.
Last edited by: Focus on Sat 1 Sep 12 at 19:25
|
I'm in the middle of trying to get my 5-year-old to balance his bike without stabilisers. It's one of these: www.btwincycle.com/EN/hyper-hero-141012950/
He makes a hell of a fuss if I suggest taking the stabilisers off (they're held on with knurled plastic handles so a 30-second job to remove/replace) but has tried riding without them a few times now. He's 110cm tall so he can reach the floor with both feet, but no matter how much I run along with one hand steadying the back of his saddle he just can't keep the bike upright on his own. Any tips?
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Sat 1 Sep 12 at 20:02
|
>> Any tips?
Patience :) He'll do it when he's ready; had a similar experience with my son.
|
...Any tips?...
Take off one stabiliser and get him confident with one before removing the other.
That's how I learned.
|
>> That's how I learned.
You can remember? I have no memory at all of learning to ride a bike. Were you a late(-ish) starter?
|
...Were you a late(-ish) starter?...
No idea, but I recall wanting to hang on to my stabilisers and my mother 'confiscating' one to encourage me to do without.
|
>>Any tips?
Yes, Adjust the stabilisers so that they remain there but higher, so that the bike has to lean over quite a way before they contact the ground.
That way he'll be riding it without realising it and you can gradually raise/remove the stablisers.
|
>> Adjust the stabilisers so that they remain there but higher
There's no allowance for adjustment in the mountings, I could try actually bending the stabilisers up a bit I suppose. Sometimes he'll go for 10 or 15 yards without either extra wheel touching the ground so a bit more play should help, thanks.
|
>>What were we talking about again?<<
Bungee straps??
|
|
My dad took me to the top of a hill, whipped off the stabilisers and sent me down it. I vaguely remember being so astonished that the bike would balance by itself that I crashed straight into the wall at the bottom.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Sat 1 Sep 12 at 20:51
|
That's it, balance just comes in a Eureka moment. Control comes later.
You run along behind the nipper holding their bike, encourage them to pedal and let go... sooner or later they realise they can do it.
When 10 or so I saw a tough street kid about my age riding a tall adult bike from one side, with one of his legs through the frame. I was lost in admiration and envy - I could see it was more difficult than riding a bike centrally.
|
|
To learn to balance on two wheels you need to look ahead of the machine. People who can never get rid of the wobbles look down at the front wheel instead of forward. It's the same as riding no hands, look into the distance and it's easy, keep looking down and over you go.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Sat 1 Sep 12 at 21:17
|
|
The very thought of the effort involved in riding a bike makes me tired.
|
It's a bit late now, but balance bikes are great! Our son is happily riding around on a proper bike now - at 3 1/2 having had a balance bike for about 18 months. Maybe taking the pedals off the bike to make practising balance might help him to get away? Oddly we put the stabilisers back on our son's bike, so he could learn / practise pedalling, but he then couldn't ride it as it wouldn't lean over to go round corners! 10 mins pedalling in a straight line, and then took them off and away he went.
Learning to use the brakes however, looks like another matter...!
Foot position - get toe straps or clipped pedals. Increased pedalling efficiency massively too. Granted you fall off to begin with (or even when experienced - was sporting gravel rash the other day from demonstrating to son how to fall off when feet are clipped in), but it's much better in the long run.
|
>> I got stuck on a country lane today behind a half dozen female road / race cyclists. All in tight lycra shorts. I could have overtaken on a couple of occasions but you know, safety first...What were we talking about again?
>>
Just for you Humph...... youtu.be/xt0V0_1MS0Q ;-)
|
OTH, if bike riding does this for the ladies................................................................
...........
s115.photobucket.com/albums/n297/penfro/?action=view¤t=376641_3521198120918_1325576339_n.jpg
|
I recall stopping at traffic lights in my car and a young lady pulled up to my right on a bike. It was a hot day, she was wearing a cropped t-shirt and 'no vest'. I could see daylight looking up! Thankfully SWMBO was at home.
I used to take great delight in letting young lads pass me on my 'granddads' bike and then stepping up the pace so I kept just behind them. They'd accelerate away and then rest and I'd still be there.
|
Whatever you think of MTBs in general they made low gearing respectable and available.
Richard Ballantine introduced my generation to high cadence riding in the seminal work 'Richard's Bicycle Book'. Unfortunately bikes/gears at the time didn't support the idea and low gears of 45+ inches meant plenty of us ended up with nackety knees from straining up the Pennines/Chlterns/downs way outside our torque curve.
These days I push 60-70 and use the gears to keep it that way. Just like driving the Berlingo really except the numbers there are 2-3k.
|
I have (had!) the back of the pedal up against heel of my shoe.
I get (got!) into top gear as soon as possible. There's no sense in having your feet twirling around and not getting anywhere.
|
Wouldn't exactly the same argument apply to walking? More efficient to be taking short fast strides?
Yet if you watch a countryman walking, he takes long slow strides and can keep going indefinitely. I do, and what is more, I find when walking up hill I find it natural to lengthen my stride even more, not "change down a gear".
|
|
But legs are already 'under-geared' - that's why you can cycle much faster than you can walk/run. Even with long strides you are in physical terms using a low gear.
|
|
Interesting re the hill walking. Done a fair bit of that, usually with a pair of skis strapped to my back mind. I was given advice years ago when climbing steep slopes on foot to half the length of my stride. Seems to work for me. You can climb the steepest of paths while carrying a heavy load quite comfortably and without undue fatigue like that.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 11:10
|
|
I cant believe we need one discourse on how to push a pedal on a bike, let alone 27 of them. I sometimes think I have stumbled on the "how to live as a human" course at the University of Mars.
|
Full of the joys as usual I see Z?
:-)
|
|
But he's right - we should be discussing proper issues, like how to apply a handbrake for example :)
|
|
Well, I ask you, whats next "This is how to sit on a toilet seat"?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 11:18
|
>> Well, I ask you, whats next "This is how to sit on a toilet seat"?
>>
Beware, that is the proposal so ban urinals! :-(
|
|
Talking of urinals I stopped at the toilets on the Seven Oaks by pass last week. The trough type arrangement was at an extraordinary height. The plumber must have been having a larf I think.
|
When I first started lorry driving there were no ladies toilets on the docks and I used to find the troughs extremely hard to use.
Pat
|
|
All you needed was 2ft of hosepipe with a funnel stuck in the end! ;-) - unless of course there was a hosepipe ban.
Last edited by: devonite on Mon 3 Sep 12 at 12:04
|
>> All you needed was 2ft of hosepipe with a funnel stuck in the end! ;-)
>> - unless of course there was a hosepipe ban.
Or a Shewee.
|
Or a leg either side of the trough - depending of course how wide the trough was?
edit - ignore that. I thought the trough was on the ground.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 3 Sep 12 at 12:38
|
>>I cant believe we need one discourse on how to push a pedal on a bike<<
And now "how to walk" for gawds sake! - a right bunch of pillocks if you ask me.
:-}
|
Pillocks? So say the two old duffers with the clapped out old Lancer estates...
You two may or may not qualify for the above accreditation, I wouldn't like to say, but to your credit you are both clearly not afraid to drive around in cars which might lead others to suspect it...
:-)
|
Just spending my pension wisely Humph.
P E N S I O N
Just spelling it out for you in case you have never heard of it. Anyway me telling you how I am spending it is the closest you will get to one.
< smiles sweetly >
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 11:43
|
>> And now "how to walk"
No - how to walk(/cycle) efficiently, although admittedly even that doesn't matter much when you're just covering the distance between your front door and your car door :)
|
'ere! bleedin cheek. I will have you know I walked 9 miles yesterday! NINE!*
Its half a mile from my workplace to the dining hall McDonnald's entrance. I managed the triple yesterday. McD's Breakfast, McD's Lunch and a McD's dinner. So they accounted for three miles.
* My legs were telling me I was walking a lot more in the Paralympics, so I used runkeeper on the Iphone to keep track of it. Yesterday was exceptional, as a Team leader I invoked some position privilege to blah an upgrade to my accreditation. I have now have full access to the main park as well. Its a big place.
|
If you got a Brompton, learn`t how to pedal it properly, you could have cycled the 9 miles and saved your legs! - plus you could have folded it away when not in use! If you fancy this option, all the relevant info you need is above ! ;-)
Otherwise, if you learnt to walk efficiently..................
|
|
We have the village equivalent of Boris Bikes. They have Metropolitan Police stamped all over them, and used by the cycling bobbies. Or they would be if we didn't keep nicking them.
|
>> P E N S I O N
What does that say to a healthy active middle-aged person like you or me Humph? That's right: a subsidy paid to tottering retirees who may smell of urine. I wouldn't take any advice on walking from such a quarter as gospel if I were you.
On the other hand, if you do have a problem with how to sit on a toilet seat their advice could be sound, if you can understand what they are saying of course. Slurred speech and incorrect use of words are always hazards. And of course violent mood-swings can be a problem as dementia sets in.
Still, I think your determination to communicate with these unfortunates does you a lot of credit. I've given up trying.
|
Hee hee !
Just off to do 28 miles ( offroad ) on my bike this afternoon. I shall bear all the above in mind if the pedalling becomes a chore. I suspect the old boys ( Waldorf and Statler images come to mind ) may stumble out for a nice cup of tea if the arthritis doesn't kick in...
:-)
|
>>Waldorf and Statler images come to mind<<
www.youtube.com/watch?v=14njUwJUg1I
:-D
|
>> I managed the triple yesterday. McD's Breakfast, McD's Lunch and a McD's dinner.
Wow - I'm impressed (and jealous!). Actually you're probably better off walking inefficiently if you're going to burn off all those calories.
|
Quite interesting, walking.
I never realised that it's actually a sort of controlled falling over, until I shifted my weight forward on a canal bank once to step on to the stern of a boat I had left there about 5 seconds earlier.
I had failed to notice my daughter hauling at the bow, the better to reach a mooring ring. Although I spotted this while both my feet were on terra firma, having initiated the falling over part I had no option but to walk into the canal.
Hope that helps. You can't have too much information on these crucial skills.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 13:31
|
>>
>> Hope that helps. You can't have too much information on these crucial skills.
>>
That's a brilliant discription of the process involved, similar to walking off a cliff edge, should you ever need to.
I remember reading Einstein's account of how he got the idea of gravity and space/time.
He was talking to a builder he had fallen off a high building, and had miraculously survived.
The builder described the process to him, and remembered being surprised that he felt no force at all. He just seemed to be moved, as if by magic, from one place to another.
So Einstein concluded that unlike other forces, which actually push, gravity arose because space was distorted.
But you could have worked all that out in the between walking off the canal bank and landing in the water.
|
|
I have tried to download it and post an extract, and failed as I often do in that kind of enterprise, but the opening sequence of Samuel Beckett's (very peculiar) novel Watt includes an absolutely hilarious description of extremely inefficient walking. I do recommend that to anyone who can get it.
|
The opening passage is viewable in the Amazon preview, if that helps:
tinyurl.com/9mzmchl ('Look inside', First Pages)
Last edited by: Focus on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 17:33
|
|
Thanks Focus, but I couldn't find it anywhere there. No doubt my memory is defective. But I know it was Beckett, from one of the novels. The passage describes, movement by movement, a form of rigid goose-stepping, but with the feet turned out, that results in very slight forward motion. Seemed funny to me.
|
"Watt's way of advancing due east, for example, was to turn his bust as far as possible towards the north and at the same time to fling out his right leg as far as possible towards the south, and then to turn his bust as far as possible towards the south, and at the same time fling out his left leg as far as possible to north, and then again to turn his bust as far as possible towards the south … and so on , over and over again, many many times, until he reached his destination, and could sit down"
Samuel Beckett
Watt
|
|
Very good - YOu cant' help but try to attempt it.
|
How to pedal a bike? - Runfer D'Hills
