Mine went from 75 down to 65 over about 6 years where my FTP went from 270 to 360. When I ride steady state TT efforts, my mantra is literally, push, push, push, push, push, push, push, push, push....

The 1st question you need to ask, even before "Does it matter?" is "Is this thing really showing me what it claims to be showing me?"

hint - Two legs but one load generator. Think about that.

Spinscan is irrelevant, just bike. Te only thing i somewhat use it for is the percentage diff between legs which still probably more of an uneducated guess. But i have had knee problems before from hockey and sometimes stop pedaling as hard with my right leg and it forces me to pay attention.

i find the same thing, i can really feel it in my hamstrings and calves when i focus on the number. i also agree that i generate more power when i just focus on pushing hard, i just cant hold it as long. where i notice the difference is on longer rides i have more left in my legs, knees feel better, can run better off the bike, when i ride more efficiently. if im doing a sprint tri, i dont focus on efficient, i just hammer. for an ironman, i think efficiency is much more important. not sure on the science behind anything i just said, just speaking from experience.

Mechanical efficiency != SpinScan.

Glutes are big, calves are small.

SpinScan is geeky and fun to look at, but largely irrelevant.

bump

---

http://www.ironmanglib.com

Either completely ignore it or work towards as low a number as possible. Faster cyclists push down harder rather than pull up harder.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

I haven't used it in many years but I always found the same thing that most on here are saying. The stronger I rode the lower my SpinScan number. In addition, I seemed to find that when I really concentrated on pedaling in circles, with a very smooth stroke, that yielded a lower number as well. My assessment after playing with it for a few years was that it was a completely worthless tool, and I haven't so much as looked at it in over 10 years.

Spinscan is designed to show how efficient you are at pedaling with equal torque distributions throughout your pedal stroke. Each of the 24 bars represents a 15 degree period in your stroke. The higher the bar, the more force is being put out over that section of your stroke. The taller sections are usually around 3-4 o clock and usually should be representative you using your glutes and quads. The low bars are hamstring / hip flexer or weaker muscles.... if you were a rotary engine you'd be at 100 percent efficiency, but people are not designed that way... usually folk who use clip in pedals can hang somewhere between 60-75 percent. If you are using Spinscan I recommend using it to keep a steady balance between you left and right legs... higher efficiency does not necessarily mean faster bike splits. And if you are showing extremely high numbers be careful, you potentially could be overworking.

---

"Pace is just a matter of having enough RedBull..." -Rappstar

there is some value in it. I agree there is little point in working toward becoming spinscan champion of the world, but...

I spent some time trying to get from the natural zone (65) to the high 70's/mid-80's. In the process, I learned to push the same wattage with a different balance of muscles when I needed to. I've found that helpful 'in the field' when I need to lighten up the load on the big muscles without slowing down. So.. i'd say I plow along at 65% like everyone else mentioned but.. a few times when I need a break I might do some 80% instead of coasting. And the way to do it, I've found, is to visualize pulling the pedals away from the crank center the way centrifugal force would. It makes for an efficient rest.

Incidentally, now that I know that, i don't need it any more.. but it was good to learn how to do it.

I've used spinscan in clinical use now for 5 years. Having assessed everyone one TDF riders to first timers, ultimately, I've believe SS is a poor measuring tool for cycling performance. Assessing efficiency is simple one. DO you produce greater watts for a longer period with less output (HR & blood lact) - simple as that. Given everyone has varying functional structure (limb length & shape, range, equalateral recruitment etc), just because subject A has a combined SS of 70, doesn't mean he'll perform better @ SS 80. Even power ratio differences (L/R %) can vary, and really shouldn't be corrected if performance dips. I think SS is a kick-arse marketing tool - that's it.

I'm typically 70 - 80% when I'm grinding at lower RPMs, and 55 - 70% when I'm spinning. The best numbers I can produce when I put maximum brain-bytes into sustaining an even, round stroke is just over 90%, but I can't put any significant power down (maybe about 60% of my FTP), nor can I do it for any significant time (~ 1 minute). IMO, it's a good tool to help you visualize laying down a smooth stroke, but it's just a tool, not gospel. For a long, sustained bike effort that I plan on running off of, I personally find it best to hit a sweet spot where, if I was hooked up to my CT and not riding outside, I would be somewhere around 67 - 73% and just hovering between where I feel I'm grinding and spinning, if that makes any sense to you. If I end up dropping my RPM too much, I take too much out of my running legs and if I get my RPM too high, I can't get enough power down without getting choppy and hammer-like.

Dave