Slowman wrote:
trail wrote:
I am a flickering candle to Coggan's acetylene torch, but.... We already seem to have really good internal torque sensors. We innately are very good at knowing when to shift. And innately are very good at metering out torque to achieve a power. I don't see what would be achieved by looking at a torque value.
well, look, i'm just spitballing here. but, to answer your question, because i don't think we're as good as you think we are at sensing torque or, if we are, we pretty routinely, habitually, ignore our bodies' signals regarding when to shift.
I have cadence displayed on my bike computer because although I know what feels right, it's easy to drift away from that under various circumstances without realising it so long as the drift is gradual. If my legs are struggling but I'm not breathing terribly hard and I glance at the screen and see 65rpm, I'll instantly realise why and after a quick gear change normality is restored. It doesn't happen often but it does happen.
The problem in this case is not the cadence, it's the pedal force or torque. Since the cranks are a fixed length, pedal force and torque are directly proportional on a given bike so we don't need to differentiate at this point. As you say, we don't typically look at torque. And I'd agree that the reason is likely because it wasn't available until power was. However providing you have power I don't see much use in it.
Power tells you about total output energy and total propulsion. Torque only gives you a piece. Torque or cadence provides additional data about the manner in which you're producing the power but I think either will do, and having both adds nothing. Typically at lower power we balance cadence and torque so that both are within comfortable limits. The two are inextricably linked. For example, at low power I don't just drop the pedal load compared to a harder effort, I also drop the cadence because without the pedal load I'm less stable and more likely to bounce in the saddle. Also an unnecessarily high cadence expends unnecessary energy on body movement that contributes nothing extra to propulsion. Similarly at high power I will tend increase both load and cadence.
So long as I know power and comfortable cadence, I don't think I have much use for a torque figure. Not because torque is irrelevant but because it's already included in the relationship of the figures I'm looking at.
Lastly, torque being highly variable throughout the stroke and likely depending also on position and fatigue, lends itself less readily to useful monitoring. Oh, and cadence is much more intuitive and easily observed without a number. We often will know it's fast or slow just by the rhythm. No?
