Talk:Cadence (cycling)

Unsourced comments

The following comments were added to Cadence (cycling) by annonymus user 82.198.250.18 without any edit summary and without any source references. I'll happily Wikify them and put them back in the article if suitable references can be produced. Oops, forgot to sign myself Murray Langton 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadence and fitness levels

It is believed that higher cadences are not suitable for those who are not skilled in the sport of cycling and for those who do not have high levels of fitness.

The following is a guide to those attempting higher cadences and speeds - find the section that best describes you:

Cadence = 70 Speed = 15 mph Time = 5mins Weight = 12stone Heart rate = 160-180 Possible problems = at this cadence early muscle fatigue can be brought on and experts recommend spending time building up stamina levels using weights. Swimming is particularly effective.

Cadence = 75 Speed = 18 mph Time = 4mins Weight = 14stone Heart rate = 160-210 Possible problems = feet can slip from pedals as cadence increases and on occasion this had led to ankle and calf injuries, and in some exceptional cases back injuries. Good precautions are toe clips and lycra cycling tights to prevent fabric getting caught in the chain which can cause greater damage to the cyclist. For those particularly inexperienced stabilisers are advised.

Cadence = 80 Speed = 20 mph Time = 4.30mins Weight = 15stone Heart rate = 160-220 Possible problems = people at this weight and cadence often have difficulties maintaining their rpm at this level (this should not be affected by the type of bike in use). If this problem persists, we advise consulting your doctor prior to undertaking further cadence training. However, pro-cycling shorts (with extra padding) have been found by some to aide comfort and hence the ability to try to reach these levels is enhanced.

Inertia can not increase with cadence

The second paragraph of the article currently ends with the sentence,
"It is primarily due to increase of inertia of the crank with increasing cadence. "

There are two problems.
1. The referent of "It" is unclear.
2. Stating that inertia increases with cadence is a basic contradiction of Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian mechanics, inertia of an object is constant so long as the object's mass is constant. The angular inertia is constant so long as the mass and distribution of mass are constant. For bicycle cranks, both the mass and distribution of mass remain constant, so both the inertia and angular inertia remain constant. I do not suppose any cyclists pedal quickly enough for relativistic effects to matter.

It is true that the referenced paper contains a very similar statement,

"increasing non-muscular pedal forces that occur with higher cadences are primarily due to the influence of inertial load (i.e. increased inertia of the crank) (kg m2)"

However, even this can not justify acceptance of a statement that is obviously in contradiction with extremely well established physics. It seems likely that the authors of the cited paper misunderstood the reference from which they derived this statement. Inertial loads can increase even though the inertia of a system remains constant, if the accelerations increase, f = ma. Accelerations certainly increase as cadence increases, but not inertia.

7802mark (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. Perhaps the cited paper, Baum BS, and Li L. "Lower extremity muscle activities during cycling are influenced by load and frequency" J ElectromyogrKinesiol 2003; 13: 181-190., has an answer. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@7802mark and AndrewDressel: The article still has the problem with saying inertia is increasing. At present the wording is:

When cycling at 260 W, a pedal force was the lowest at 90 rpm, lower than at 60, 75, 105 or 120 rpm. It is primarily due to increase of inertia of the crank with increasing cadence.

ref: Abbiss, C.R.; Peiffer, J.J.; Laursen, P.B (2009). "Optimal cadence selection during cycling" (PDF). International SportMed Journal.

Unfortunately, the cited source uses phrases such as "increased inertia of the crank" instead of concepts supported by physics such as moment of inertia. I've also felt the wheels and tires contributed to the flywheel affect. I crank faster, the bike goes faster, and the uphill ride seems easier as I'm no longer mashing or grinding. I had assumed the easier ride came from the energy stored in the wheels/tires and not the cranks/pedals though it's possible there's some storage the rider's legs feet, and shoes. The cranks/pedals both are very light and have a fairly small radius meaning there's little opportunity for energy storage.

Also, the use of "260 W" is confusing, especially to the lay reader which is Wikipedia's intended audience.

I'd remove that section from Wikipedia except that the overall concept seems correct. Their explanation, and the cited source, are wrong. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the offending comments. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewDressel and Marc Kupper: But why you have also removed ,,Cyclists choose cadence to minimise muscular fatigue, and not metabolic demand, since oxygen consumption is lower at cadences 60-70 rpm."? PawełS (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadence (cycling). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204100228/http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/touring/gears.htm to http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/touring/gears.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]