I expect it would feel like riding up a very steep hill*, in a given gear.

(*incline geometry ignored)

i.e. a scenario where wind resistance is negligible/ignored, and so speed is directly proportional to the torque you put on the pedals. Pedal at twice the cadence, and you generate twice the power and go twice as fast, but the force (torque) resistance at the pedals wouldn't change.

Wouldn't it more be a result of your cadence and power, and not a pursuable metric as such?
You might be able to tweak to ideal torque, but your cadence and power are main factors, that will give you a very small window to optimize.

---

NO

why? i didn't say high torque. i just said torque.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

power is a function of torque and cadence. so, if we know power, and we know cadence, we know torque. it's a direct measure. you can't generate power unless you know torque. so it's easy to measure and display torque or, if it isn't, why?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Powertap hubs measure torque. I don't know 'bout the new-fangled ones, but my old wired ones can be put in "torque mode", where the torque is displayed on the head unit.

I'll sell you one cheap!

I didn't say a high gear. i just said a given gear.

<edit> let me elaborate. The steep hill scenario is just a way to remove wind resistance from the speed/force equation. Then you get a linear relationship between speed and power, or in a nutshell a constant force (at the tyre) required to move you up the hill, regardless of speed.

Force is directly proportional to crank torque via your gear ratio. Fix the gear ratio, and you end up with a fixed force/torque at the pedals.

It could be a really low gear ratio and you need very low torque, but of course your power output and speed are low. Still, double the cadence and you'll double your speed, but the force would stay the same.

Torque is what all strain gauge power meters actually directly* measure. Then they multiply it by cadence to get power.

I suppose they don't display it because it's not a useful metric?

(*sort of directly. Let's not dig too deep)

Because your optimal cadence is already set to a certain window, decided by "what's good for you", and so is power, being the amount of work your body can produce.
Torque is - as far as I can reason - not a direct measure of your physical output, but rather a mathematical result of said output.
I think that by far most people won't benefit from reading something that's not tangible. Just like a cda display would probably not help most to dial in their position.

---

NO

That's what I meant!

---

NO

Well then don't use a phrase like "actually directly measure" in front of an engineer when the more accurate phrase is "indirectly estimate." :)

Why is riding by torque desirable to you?

I think that it is clear that torque applied and local muscle fatigue will be related. But the real limiter in endurance exercise performance is cardiovascular output. And that, l believe, will have very little to do with torque applied.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

[quote DarkSpeedWorksBut the real limiter in endurance exercise performance is cardiovascular output.[/quote]

Power output is a better predictor of endurance performance than cardiovascular output.

Sure, but l was saying something different.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

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.

If I understand the question the reason that torque is not used is because it changes a lot during each pedal stroke. The number would be so inconsistent as to be useless.
In my studies I've used force measuring pedals which measure 3d force application. They are really only useful for diagnosis of asymmetries or checking that people are actually doing a specific pedaling technique for research.

Most people already do ride to torque or a little more precise, force.
If it feels like too much force, you change down a gear, too little and you change up.
It is what the new auto changing groupsets work on too.

I am Slowmans age and I now notice that force is becoming an important consideration.
I spin more now because I simply cannot spin really slow as I am not strong enough to turn the cranks in too big of a gear.
I notice it more if I let my weight get out of normal bounds.
It's telling me I need to hit the gym.

I am also wanting this measurement as I would use it to configure gearing to keep force within bounds for 24h or more efforts.
It is probably one of the more useful measurements to know at submaximal power efforts.
Keeping pedal force low also keeps stress off of feet for longer rides.

Maybe the Garmin pedals can do as you wish.

Probably more correct would be to call it pedal force and measure it in newtons, as torque measured at the crank would involve crank length as well.
The Powertap will give you wheel torque, not what the rider feels.

Google says there's a Connect IQ app that displays torque. Haven't tried it.

---

Less is more.

right. thank you. so, i think what where we've gotten to in this thread is that, yes, torque is a direct measure. you can't generate a true power number without measuring torque. so, is torque a useful metric?

why not? we're all highly influenced by cadence in our cycling. i think that's largely out of habit and history. we never could measure torque in cycling, until recently. now we can. but we could always measure cadence. so we did.

since power is torque x cadence, if we measure cadence and we think it's beneficial, why is torque not? for example - and i'm sort of talking out my ass, but bear with me as i make something up - let's say that a goal is fiber recruitment up to a particular point. maybe to the point where my type 1 fibers are fully recruited, but no big reliance on type 2 recruitment during a contraction (a pedal cycle). let's say you determine that this point was reached while producing so many foot pounds through exhaled gases, or through lactate accumulation. whatever.

why isn't torque a better measure of fiber recruitment than cadence? and, mind, i had to think up some bullshit in a hurry to establish a point.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

by that do you mean your aerobic system? then why don't we all pedal at 55rpm in a triathlon? because O2 consumption drops as cadence drops. HR drops as cadence drops.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

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.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

i don't mean torque throughout the entire pedal cycle. i mean peak torque during a pedal cycle. and, if that number is so inconsistent as to be useless, then so is power. or if not, why?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It seems like you really just want pedal force, not torque. If you are exerting force on the pedals at a low to no speed, that has more of an isometric nature. And the faster you fire, it becomes more isokenetic. Torque is kind of irrelevant, because your body does not care if it is pushing against a short or long crank arm. It just knows it is firing muscles at a constant speed but variable force.

Because torque at zero cadence is zero power, and zero power is zero speed. ergo, torque alone isn't useful.

Cadence is important because for many people (and up to a point) an increase in cadence leads to an increase in power, despite a corresponding drop in torque. And more power makes you go faster.

but cadence at zero torque is also zero power. if you're going downhill and you're pedaling a cadence lower than is required to pressure the pedals, zero power is the result. so, look, very possibly there's a very compelling reason why torque is useless, but that argument isn't it.

i agree an increase in cadence leads to an increase in power. but so does an increase in torque. the *possible* difference is that torque is more closely associated, i think, than cadence is with fiber recruitment. that's why i *might* be interested in torque, if what i'm really trying to do is maintain a more steady rate of fiber recruitment.

i think we already do this, to a degree. cadence scales with effort. froome exhibits this during a bike race better than anybody, by far. is that what he's doing, regardless of what he thinks he's doing, if he thinks about it at all? torque could be an interesting insight into that.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman