I just collected this data for the first time today. My L/R pedal smoothness (PS) was 24%/24% and torque effectiveness (TE) was 74%/76%. Garmin states at the link below that the normal range for PS is 10-40% and TE is 60-100%. Ok, great, I’m in the range. But does that mean I’m average? What is best, at the upper end of these ranges? Or in the middle? Should I be aiming for something? If this is important can someone point me to drills I can do to improve?
I just collected this data for the first time today. My L/R pedal smoothness (PS) was 24%/24% and torque effectiveness (TE) was 74%/76%. Garmin states at the link below that the normal range for PS is 10-40% and TE is 60-100%. Ok, great, I’m in the range. But does that mean I’m average? What is best, at the upper end of these ranges? Or in the middle? Should I be aiming for something? If this is important can someone point me to drills I can do to improve?
High scores in pedal smoothness and torque effectiveness are indicative of “circular” pedaling. If you think that’s important, then do drills to emphasize/train that style. One legged drills, as suggested, are a good way to see how high you can get; but even then, over 40% PS is pretty tough to get to.
Probably a more useful thing to do is to train to maximize your power output, and use trends in PS/TE as indicators of fatigue.
Studies of pro cyclists have shown no correlation between pedaling smoothness (eliminating dead spots, pulling up, etc.) and success. The only thing that correlated was the magnitude of down force.
Studies of pro cyclists have shown no correlation between pedaling smoothness (eliminating dead spots, pulling up, etc.) and success. The only thing that correlated was the magnitude of down force.
As others have said, just work on watts.
^^ This
In fact I can’t remember where, but I did read something on this that indicated the inverse was actually true. That in fact the higher the level of racer (or w/kg at FTP) the less ‘circular’ the power distribution was through the pedal stroke. Mash away with those quads and glutes
If you want to improve pedal smoothness, ride rollers rather than a trainer in the winter. It does wonders for bike handling and PS. I focus a bit more on PS when I am fatigued, a more circular pedal stroke helps me recover better and save a bit of energy, but when the chips are down I don’t pay much attention to it.
how do P/S and T/E stack up when using oval rings?
if its all about circular motion then are they useful or do they take account of the shape of the whole curve, whether oval or circular?
as an aside does anyone know why both these metrics might not work on an edge 520 and vector 1s (double sided ones)? all the other metrics work but when i select these two, they just show zero values while riding and after. Also, my garmin connect web page shows all the other metrics but not these two. emailed garmin and they just said update both vector and edge software, which wasnt really the answer i was looking for and doesnt work!
The pedal still moves in a circle regardless of the shape of the chainring…
The Edge 520 has a setting to enable or disable the various cycling dynamics options. The default for TE/PS is to have it disabled. You need to find the right menu and tick the ‘enable’ box.
yeah agree the pedals still move circular but the force around that circle is different on oval rings than non oval ones, especially on more aggressive oval rings (naturally that’s the point of them).
if P/S measures how smoothly power is transmitted throughout a circular revolution, it assumes (rightly or wrongly) that the aim is to apply power equally throughout, whereas oval rings aim differently i.e. to take advantage of peak arcs and quickly pass through the dead spots. clearly P/S of 100% is unachievable and below 50% is more realistic but if that theoretical P/S aim is indeed correct, then would P/S on oval rings always be lower, all other things being equal? the ability for 100% smooth power on oval rings is diminished because different forces apply at different parts of the arc, not necessarily a bad thing…
similarly, if T/E measures the force applied to push forwards, should T/E not benefit from oval rings, all other things equal, since the dead spot that reduces the T/E score is reduced by the oval ring?
therefore, do oval rings see lower P/S and higher T/E?
understand this raises the debate about circular vs oval rings and may be better suited to one of those forums but if you remove that wider argument, does this stack up? I may be wrong and this may all be taken account of within the formulae but the shape of the drive mechanism should have an impact on the smoothness and torque, perhaps?
thanks re edge tip, must have missed it in the myriad of menus of the 520!
yeah agree the pedals still move circular but the force around that circle is different on oval rings than non oval ones, especially on more aggressive oval rings (naturally that’s the point of them).
if P/S measures how smoothly power is transmitted throughout a circular revolution, it assumes (rightly or wrongly) that the aim is to apply power equally throughout, whereas oval rings aim differently i.e. to take advantage of peak arcs and quickly pass through the dead spots. clearly P/S of 100% is unachievable and below 50% is more realistic but if that theoretical P/S aim is indeed correct, then would P/S on oval rings always be lower, all other things being equal? the ability for 100% smooth power on oval rings is diminished because different forces apply at different parts of the arc, not necessarily a bad thing…
similarly, if T/E measures the force applied to push forwards, should T/E not benefit from oval rings, all other things equal, since the dead spot that reduces the T/E score is reduced by the oval ring?
therefore, do oval rings see lower P/S and higher T/E?
understand this raises the debate about circular vs oval rings and may be better suited to one of those forums but if you remove that wider argument, does this stack up? I may be wrong and this may all be taken account of within the formulae but the shape of the drive mechanism should have an impact on the smoothness and torque, perhaps?
thanks re edge tip, must have missed it in the myriad of menus of the 520!
It just changes the leverage ratio, or gear ratio at certain points of the pedal stroke. Or in another way, it allows you to move through the weakest part of the pedal stroke quicker.
Here’s always the million dollar question… is that a limiting factor to power output? Maybe at very high intensities (300%+) and high RPM. Specific muscular strength isn’t normally a limiting factor. It’s metabolic output and the supporting processes. We often focus too much on the motor, and not enough on the power plant.
Resurrecting an old-thread because I was just reading up on this topic.
I was surprised at the magnitude of difference in the “gross efficiency” between the subject’s *preferred *pedaling styles and upstroke- or *circular-emphasized *pedaling style.
In their conclusions, the authors note that:
“A limitation of our study, however, is that it does not rule out the possibility that there may be a more efficient pedaling style if participants are given enough time to adapt to it. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore this possibility.”
There was a recent study published that compared the pedalling technique of UCI ProTour cyclists (>30,000kms annually) and UCI Continental cyclists (15,000-30,000kms annually; Garcia-Lopez et al. 2015). They found that the ProTour cyclists had a more efficient pedalling form above 200W. In fact, the ProTour cyclists required 1.5-3.3% less power during the downstroke to maintain a given power output. The authors concluded that this was the result of the ProTour cyclists raising their feet more during the upstroke and their increased range of motion at the ankle joint. The results of Garcia-Lopez et al. (2015) suggest that ProTour cyclists develop their efficient form over long periods of training. However, perhaps it is possible to achieve similar form by actively practicing. If this is the case, a power meter that measures torque efficiency could give cyclists a quantifiable measure of their form.
GarcÃa-López, J., DÃez-Leal, S., Ogueta-Alday, A., Larrazabal, J., & RodrÃguez-Marroyo, J. A. (2015). Differences in pedalling technique between road cyclists of different competitive levels. Journal of sports sciences, 1-8.
A firmware update recently showed me these on my Stages and Bolt. I farted around with it tonight on the fluid trainer and could force numbers higher or lower by changing things. If I focused on kicking the toe at the top towards the bars (forward then down), the number went up. Higher power and low rpm really seemed to be the best way to inflate torque efficiency. Almost if you want to improve that do some slow rpm spin grinds up hills.
Not sure what I think about it yet. I see about 70-75 percent efficiency totally not training against that kind of metric.
