3 ms·

We have a large amount of power meter data demonstrating that elite and pro cyclists do not, in fact, exert much force on the rising stroke when in the saddle.

We have a large amount of power meter data demonstrating that elite and pro cyclists do not, in fact, exert much force on the rising stroke when in the saddle. They maintain a net downward force on the pedal most of the time. The benefit of clipless pedals is repeatable positioning and the ability to start the downstroke right at top dead center, without slipping off the pedal. The benefit is not from powering the backstroke.

hinkley 3y ago
Personally outside of dramatic moments like the Big Hill or the club smartass trying to drop everyone for giggles, driving through the bottom of the stroke was the only thing that felt like it 1) mattered and 2) could be sustained. But I think you have to go to triathletes to really see that effect more pronounced. Since they like to sit tilted a couple degrees farther forward on the bike, the hamstring is more accessible. At the end of the day a pro is 5-10% better than a serious cyclist at five different things. Even before you get to diet and genetics (and doping, sorry) they’re already outputting more watts and getting more of them to the wheels than I could hope to. Technique adds up.
stouset 3y ago
Yet cycling events are frequently won out of the saddle on the slopes or out of the saddle in the sprint. And yes, sometimes they’re won by someone time trialing away from the pack while in the saddle. But even then, most of the time it’s a breakaway pack which fights for the podium in an all-out sprint.
- hinkley 3y ago
  The breakaway pack also typically sprints away from the peloton. Because drafting is 30% easier than riding at the front. If you don’t catch a wheel as it goes past, you’re dropped. I’m looking around at all this ”data that we have about pedal strokes” and nobody mentions sprinters or climbing specialists. If they don’t know it’s important they won’t test for it. Sounds like “science” being done by domain neophytes and called objective. What is interesting though is that one claimed that advanced amateurs have higher peak stroke torque than pros. Pros are spreading more power out over a larger arc of the circle. Now that could still be 130° of the stroke for all I know but that still sounds like circularizing to me. I also haven’t found anyone yet who says LeMond was wrong about driving through the bottom of the stroke, which is how I rode.

hinkley 3y ago

Personally outside of dramatic moments like the Big Hill or the club smartass trying to drop everyone for giggles, driving through the bottom of the stroke was the only thing that felt like it 1) mattered and 2) could be sustained. But I think you have to go to triathletes to really see that effect more pronounced. Since they like to sit tilted a couple degrees farther forward on the bike, the hamstring is more accessible. At the end of the day a pro is 5-10% better than a serious cyclist at five different things. Even before you get to diet and genetics (and doping, sorry) they’re already outputting more watts and getting more of them to the wheels than I could hope to. Technique adds up.

stouset 3y ago

Yet cycling events are frequently won out of the saddle on the slopes or out of the saddle in the sprint. And yes, sometimes they’re won by someone time trialing away from the pack while in the saddle. But even then, most of the time it’s a breakaway pack which fights for the podium in an all-out sprint.

hinkley 3y ago
The breakaway pack also typically sprints away from the peloton. Because drafting is 30% easier than riding at the front. If you don’t catch a wheel as it goes past, you’re dropped. I’m looking around at all this ”data that we have about pedal strokes” and nobody mentions sprinters or climbing specialists. If they don’t know it’s important they won’t test for it. Sounds like “science” being done by domain neophytes and called objective. What is interesting though is that one claimed that advanced amateurs have higher peak stroke torque than pros. Pros are spreading more power out over a larger arc of the circle. Now that could still be 130° of the stroke for all I know but that still sounds like circularizing to me. I also haven’t found anyone yet who says LeMond was wrong about driving through the bottom of the stroke, which is how I rode.