chrissie may win this race, she’s way ahead, there’s about 12mi left to go in the ride as i’m writing this. but i hope you guys see the difference between her cadence and the cadences of most of the men. and, she’s spending a lot of time riding with her hands on the pursuits now. she looks pretty cooked to me, and i think cadence is a part of the problem.
she may win, she may set a record, i don’t know what’ll happen from here. but, sitting up on the bike, on the flat, for extended stretches, is not anything a man could do and still win this race.
sometimes you win in spite of your bad habits, because you’re just that talented. the men’s field has always, however, been much tighter, you can get away with less, because there are a lot more around you in your competitive set. you can’t get away with bad habits and survive when you have a half-dozen in your competitive set all around you.
she has moments of looking brilliant on the bike, riding on the nose, in the aero position, about abouit 5 beats higher cadence. then she has moments where she looks cooked. again, she will probably win, but, she has improvement in front of her. every other person who wins this race rides a steady cadence of 84.
So are you saying that 84 is the better cadence to bike at? Just curious to hear what you think cause some say keep it fast 90-95+ but others say keep it in the 80’s to save the fast twitch muscles for the run. Not sure what the best advice to follow is.
well, it proves something. but what it proves is finite. when dave scott first won kona, he finished in 9:08. now, this wasn’t his first ironman, he’d been ironman racing for three years at this point, about as long as chrissie has. but he won, so, as the winner, that says you’re doing everything right, i guess. or does it? dave somehow found about an hour’s worth of improvement between october 82 and october 89, and i don’t think aerobars account for that.
chrissie’s bike position looks great to me. when she’s in it. but she spent a lot of time out of it in the last 12 or 15 miles, and i think that slows her down, and i think it’s probably her cadence that created a bit of wear and tear. i also think eneko llanos’ cranks look too long to me. i think it slows his cadence down, and creates a mechanical disadvantage at tdc, based on the position he’s chosen (a position which, otherwise, looks great to me). i don’t think riding 5 or 10 beats too slow, or with cranks 5mm too long, is going to keep a great athlete from a great performance. i just think there’s room for improvement.
“So are you saying that 84 is the better cadence to bike at? Just curious to hear what you think cause some say keep it fast 90-95+”
it depends on the distance and effort. both cadences are great, and, 70 is also a great cadence. for RAAM. and 105 is a great cadence, for a 40 minute effort. 84 or 85 is the mean cadence you see from the best men in kona. but i’d guess it’s more like 90rpm at clearwater.
Slowman… look at all the best girls riding… low cadance and brett sutton teaching. There is a reason for this. And a reason why they ride so well and can put solid marathon after. It wont work for men but for women… i think Brett is the expert on teaching girls how to ride…
i know it comes from brett. but some ex brett athletes improved their bike when they increased their cadences. hillary biscay comes to mind. most of brett’s IM athletes are still in the prime of their careers. we have a few more years to watch how all this plays out.
“So are you saying that 84 is the better cadence to bike at? Just curious to hear what you think cause some say keep it fast 90-95+”
it depends on the distance and effort. both cadences are great, and, 70 is also a great cadence. for RAAM. and 105 is a great cadence, for a 40 minute effort. 84 or 85 is the mean cadence you see from the best men in kona. but i’d guess it’s more like 90rpm at clearwater.
Isn't it true that cadence is a somewhat personal preference?
I was always under the impression that, while there is an ideal range, some people just feel comfortable at higher or lower cadences within that range. So while one person is most efficient at 80 rpm, another prefers and functions better at 90 rpm.
"well, that is interesting you bring Hillary up. Her performance arent in part with last year but perhaps you call this improvement? "
her last year with brett, she came to me for a bike fit, but it had to be on the down-low (and her case is not unique, i’ve fit several of his athletes). new fit, new cadence, great bike in brazil, then her first win later that year. finally, leading off the bike. now, this year, lots of things can create a problem for an athlete. i don’t like to use anecdotal evidence, just, you brought up brett’s females as a set of monolothic low-cadence riders, and, that’s not quite the case.
