UKC

Been watching the highlights on ITV4, and I've been struck by how much faster Pogacar seems to be pedalling, than the bike Infront of him, even when just keeping up.

Is he running different gear ratios to the others? And is "granny gear" the secret of his success?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I saw on today’s stage that Pog was in the small ring and JV was in the big ring. The high cadence is supposed to be more efficient, Froome was an early adopter. I guess it doesn’t suit everyone. The Yates brothers for example are pushers rather than spinners and I guess they’ll have tested to prove it’s what works best for them.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Different riders prefer different cadences, it seems.

Jan Ulrich used to run big ratio, low cadences, but I think went smaller and faster later in his career.

I used to prefer bigger ratio, lower cadence, but prefer lower & higher as I have aged...

I'm sure the marginal gains types have studied this to death...

In reply to captain paranoia:

There’s a good GCN video about this.

As a total newbie to road cycling two and a half years ago in my late 40s having signed up for the Dartmoor Classic Grande, I used to pedal in higher gears with lower cadence on flatter sections of rides thinking it was faster. But my legs took a battering and used to get fatigued more quickly on longer rides. Through Zwifting (especially on group and pacer rides) I discovered that, for me personally, I find it easier to be in a lower gear with higher cadence on longer rides and on Sportives. I get less fatigued and have more in the tank for the Devon hills. 

But each to their own. And, clearly, as a newbie to road cycling, I know very little and cannot comment on what the pros do. 

In reply to Andy Hardy: this is quite interesting re crank length, with Tadej running shorter ones than were common a few years ago

https://contenderbicycles.com/blogs/blog/the-crank-length-argument#:~:text=....

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Interesting article. I only ride a mountain bike and am not a physicist but I kept coming back to the lack of torque for the same force on the shorter crank. I can see that the bike would travel the same distance per revolution but at a cost of more force needed. The article did seem more focused on less joint pressure, which I can see. 
Perhaps I have got this all wrong or perhaps as someone of a certain age who struggles with anything over 65 rpm a shorter crank would help. At  higher cadence I struggle with breathlessness rather than leg fatigue. 

In reply to JLS:

Depends on the power being pushed.  The most efficient cadence going up as power goes up. Similarly your average amateur is more efficient at lower cadence due to their much lower power.  But you can also vary, shifting the limiter from muscular to cardiovascular and back during a long ride as necessary.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Some lovely slo-mo cadences here: youtube.com/watch?v=zEgMYxURH8M&t=183

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Just timed Pogacar in the TT and he was doing and maintained 100rpm. 

In reply to Baz P:

Was that more than Vinnegard? (I only noticed how fast he was pedalling when he was next to other riders)

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Pog also has shorter cranks than the usual convention.

As far as I can remember, fast cadence was pioneered by the Texan-who-shall-not-be-named. 

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I don't think shorter cranks are that unusual in triathlon (I only have a passing knowledge though). It might be to do with reducing leg fatigue before the run by using a higher cadence. This might be useful, slow twitch is a tome of useful info

https://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Crank_Length_and_Gearing_4095.html

In reply to NorthernGoat:

It's been more common in tri and tt in the past as shorter length means the knees come up less far into your chest meaning that a more aggressive areo position can be held without compromising

In reply to GrahamD:

Armstrong. Armstrong. Armstrong.

There; that should summon him...

And yes, he preferred a much higher cadence, and always interesting to contrast him and Ulrich.

Road bikes always used to be 165 or 170mm cranks, IIRC. 175mm cranks seemed to be an import from MTB (as did steerer and bar fixings).

I'm not sure if 5mm can be considered 'far less high into the chest'. But 'marginal gains'...

In reply to Baz P:

to put some context into it, Pog's running 165mm cranks spinning at 100rpm while probably producing close to 450w, which means he's applying 260N of force on the pedals or 26kg, he only weighs 66kg. If he pedalled slower the force would be so great he'd struggle to stay on the saddle. 

In reply to captain paranoia:

don't forget durianrider's 'spin to win', 'smash the sugar' etc..

youtube.com/watch?v=1KW1KFj11dQ&

looking forward to the Olympics..

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

Would he be able to pedal slower using the same force but with longer cranks?

In reply to Baz P:

I just tried doing that on a stationary bike - it's really quite hard. I suppose it's a matter of becoming accustomed to it, but it feels so much more intense cardiovascularly (for me). Presumably there's a balance to be struck in the reduction in strain and the increase in breathing effort?

In reply to Cusco:

Just got to say well done, I’ve done a lot of sportives and I think it’s one of their harder ones, wonderful end of you’ve still got the legs to blast is down to the finish.  I did it one year and passed Martin Johnson the England rugby Captain going up Pork Hill.  Not built for cycling but powering up the hill in the way only pro athletes do when they try any other sport!

Chapeau.

Toby

In reply to Baz P:

Yes. If power is Force x Distance / Time then to achieve the same power holding Force the same his foot needs to cover a fixed (circumferential) distance in a given time. With the longer circumference of a longer crank he would do fewer revolutions per unit time.

I think the use of shorter cranks muddies the water when it comes to the cadence debate. For a given crank length a higher cadence means lower force which (up to some value) seems to reduce fatigue. Shorter cranks lend themselves to a higher cadence, but that does not come with a reduction in force (as we have seen above), so it is not clear whether that reduces fatigue.

Instead I suspect there is some bio-mechanical reason for the (purported) advantage of short cranks. Reduction in knee flex and associated injury has been suggested, or that the leg muscles work in a more efficient part of their range of motion.

In reply to Baz P:

Yes cadence can be lower with longer cranks because torque increases for the same applied force.

In reply to Rampart:

unless your stationary bike has a power meter you're comparing apples with oranges. Resistance is fixed on a stationary bike so power is directly proportional to cadence.