Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> The Pomeranian wrote:
> >
> > Terry Morse wrote:
> > >
> > > I suggest that the comfort/pain test would show that there is no best cadence at all with
> > > respect to comfort, but a range of cadences would arise that are equally comfortable for the
> > > rider.
> >
> > Data and cite the studies please.
>
> Oh come on, Pom. Where are _your_ data and studies?
I already posted them. But you haven't done squat, nor has anyone with a like claim to yours -- a
claim unfounded. Not that you really care, but here we go again:
http://www.bsn.de/cycling/articles/cadence.html ("maximal effort" is not the same defintition as I
made)
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/cvccbikers/misc/hour-record.html
http://ida1.physik.uni-siegen.de/menn/hourrec.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd-
=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11417428&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?-
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11990729&dopt=Abstract
> Your argument is based primarily on popularity, as in "10,000 people buying what's heavily
> advertised can't be wrong." That hardly stands up to scientific scrutiny.
I never said it was enough, in and of itself. So again this is simply you not wanting to hear
because you have your mind made up. That point, as single one, simply pointed out that many
experienced riders have in the past chosen more gears when they can get them. Apparently, your prime
argument is that they (and I) are crazy and duped. "Crazy and duped" is what I was essentially
called at the beginning of the contentious nature of the argument. So for anyone's complaint about
civility, I was the one first insulted. This is what the record shows. Perhaps you would like to
explain how defining someone as crazy and duped, with not one shred of evidence to support the crazy
and duped claim, is a civil manner of getting one's point across.
You, Terry, and others have from the beginning put on the pretense that you are interested in this
as a technical matter. In truth, as seen by the complete ignoring of circumstantial, experiential,
and bits of actual research that I have put forth, you are simply not interested in entertaining any
idea which does not confirm your prejudices. When you ignore counter questions and all that has been
put forth, you are saying: "I don't respect you enough to bother even listening to one word you have
to say." So in like turn, I take no credence in any compaint about my lack of civilty. You and
others wrote the rules, not me. You are nothing but pretentious because you won't explain your
position, counter that of others, or cite one shred of empirical data or scientifically designed
test. Try being honest for a change, and show your respect those whom you are communicating with, by
bluntly admitting that you will not entertain any idea on this issue that counters your prejudice.
Admit for the sake of civility that you are not interested. Drop the pretentiousness. You try to
**** me off and then complain when you succeed.
> Can you produce a study showing a marked peak in extended power development at some magic
> crank rpm?
Define your terms. What is "marked peak?" Define the deltadB for a given bandwidth. Then go ahead
and make some calculations for say, an hour TT that will estimate the delta of distance covered in
the hour according to say for example a small 1% of power delta (0.04 dB). Define how much
difference "matters" for someone trying to go as fast as they can for one hour. Go ahead and review
anything I've written -- I've never stated that any peaking would be "sharp." Define "flat power
curve" if you claim such a thing exists (How flat is flat?). Provide physical evidence (data from
scientific tests) of this illusory flat power curve. In any event, biomecanical efficiency by itself
is a very important part of the picture, but it does not quite complete the picture.
> Can you produce proof that racing times have fallen significantly due to increases in the number
> of available gears, or reductions in the steps between gears?
How in fact could this be explicitly done since not one scientist has been enlisted to perform such
a task to my knowledge? Moreover, for road racing, the courses (and road conditions) change over
time as do the actual physical conditions from one year to the next, equipment other than gears, and
the actual racers attending the race, and the actual tactics employed by the teams. In short, there
is no static or deterministic (or perhaps even statistical) way to answer the question. So your way
of "proving your point" is to ask a meaningless question that cannot under any circumstances be
answered. Nice try. Next.
If you are happy with average racing times as simplistic answer to your question, then it is yes.
Average speed records for various races does tend to go up with the passage of time. I would not be
surprised if there was a very weak correlation with increasing average speeds and number of gears --
but so manner other factors must be factored out it would be a difficult study. If you would like to
pay me to research matter, that is all well and good. If you've got the dime, I've got the time.
> In fact, can you produce proof that successful racers even spend a significant amount of time in,
> say, an 11 versus a 12 or 13 or 14?
Actually that is not what is contended -- again you show you don't really understand the argument.
Define "significant amount of time." What are you getting at?
> Back when you said "The guys that don't 'need' a 12 don't go very fast," I asked you about typical
> track rider gearing and typical track rider speeds.
You can't even explain what the point of even mentioning track riders
is. If you think you can ride out on the open road just as fast on a 1sp as a multi-speed, then go
ahead and think that. Personally I think the idea is preposterous enough to simply ignore. I
wouldn't call, for example, Freddy Markam very "typical" track rider, but he used a 12-21 8sp
when I was going on the same training rides as him.
> You responded with your typical obscenities and insults. No data.
>
> You want data? First, give us some data.
I pointed to the circumstantial evidence of tight hour record cadences over a _century_ of time and
even across individuals right at the start -- you ignored it and now complain about "no data." I
gave the data of my own experiences, and you ignored it (you didn't ask one question about it). I
give data regarding the behavior of others in explicitly choosing more gears when available, and you
casually blow it off as craziness and stupidity. Basically you are not telling the truth and have
shown no sign that you are truely interested in this as a technical topic. You contribute nothing
but pretense and disrespectful ignorance.
> Sprint speeds for track riders, ...
A horrible place to start. This very specialized discipline on the track, of all of them, bears
perhaps the least resemblance to anything done on the road. Not many road sprinters pedal as fast
in their sprints after a 200 km race as a track sprinter pedals in their brief event. Like Ronnie
McEwen said: "A 53x11 is pretty much standard." Track sprinters don't use 53x11s, many road
sprinters do. The fact that top speeds between the two different sprint disciplines are comparable
doesn't mean much except that it would seem important that road sprinters can get going just as
fast _after 200 km of racing_ in their bigger gears, as a track racer gets going in their lower
gears after only a few heats. Then I think road sprinters probably know what they are doing. Gears
and cadences for track sprinting can't be seen as necessarily relevent. Why talk about power versus
rpm for a 5 second burst with it being a very specific effort at the very end of the useful
spectrum of cycling?
> ...and gearing for track bikes will be a good start.
You don't understand the problem. If there actually was a link to track bikes it is how fast the
riders pedal, not what the particular gears are. Since you are concerned about track events, then
counter the circumstantial evidence provided in the hour record link. The data is staring you in the
face -- you just choose to ignore it and disrespect me by turning around saying "First give us
data." Preposterous.
> It's easy.
Not for you -- you haven't posted one shred of evidence or made one coherent contention. You refuse
to answer the questions.
> Even you can do it.
And I have. And I don't claim in any way that it ends the matter conclusively. I've pedaled bikes
with tight gear spacing and expanded gear spacing. _I've done both_. I get the feeling that those
here who critique step sizes of < 10% have never even tried the very thing they complain about as a
stupid and duped behavior. I suspect they have no basis for making the judgement. I have never once
said anyone shouldn't pedal _their bike_ however they want to pedal. For the casual cyclist: pedal
as fast or as slow as makes you comfy. I don't think it matters much there.
