[email protected] (Chalo) wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
>
[email protected] (Andrew Bradley) wrote:
>
> > You would have thought that optimal cadence on a hill would be the same as for the flat apart
> > from a slight reduction to account for the "biopace effect".
> >
> > If we had all been raised on mountain bikes instead of the five/ten speed racer would this
> > approach to hills have come naturally?
>
> My natural inclination is to spin up steep grades until I blow up. I have found recently that by
> consciously trying to push a higher gear slower (like 60rpm or less), I can climb faster with less
> wheezing. It's one of the first things I learned from my cyclocomputer, which I had avoided ever
> using until a few weeks ago.
Interesting. How does 60RPM feel on the flat? 60RPM or less feels fine to me on a climb but not
on the flat. Perhaps breathing is the limiting factor for some of us, with lower RPM requiring
less oxygen.
There is a study showing that pedal speed variations due to low momentum affect preferred cadence,
so those wishing to spin up hills might like to fit an elliptical (traditional timing) inner ring.
(The idea being that you want to be around one particular pedal speed during the most powerful part
of the stroke.)
Anybody out there with a Biopace big ring and round inner? This too would presumably iron out some
of the cadence discrepancy.
Andrew Bradley