Back when I was racing--and even when I wanted to stay in (or pretend that I was) in the same kind of shape I was when I was racing--one of the goals of training could be summed up in three letters: RPM.
In other words, we believed that spinning at the highest cadences possible would make us go our fastest. That meant riding, at least at first, in a lower gear and working up to higher gears. The one who could spin the highest gear would win the race.
Now, of course, nobody is going to turn cranks with a 54X11 gear (which I actually had on my road bike for a time) at the same rate as, say, a 42X15. But all of the trainers and training manuals told us that it was better to do 120 rpms on the latter (or a higher gear later in the season) than to mash the former. If nothing else, it gives you a better cardio workout and is easier on your knees.
Apparently, there are some folks who don't agree. Ever since the invention of the "safety" bicycle (two wheels of more or less equal size driven by sprockets and a chain), someone or another has tried to "improve" on circular pedaling motion. Examples of such endeavors include the oval and elliptical chainrings that seem to reappear in one form or another every generation or so. Shimano's Biopace is probably the most famous example; currently Osymetric rings have a following among some members of the peloton. There have been all sorts of other ways to make pedaling more efficient by eliminating the "dead" spots so that power is transferred all through the arc of pedaling.
Just recently, I came across something I saw in the bike magazines some years ago but never actually saw in person. It seemed like one of the most bizarre, Rube Goldberg-ian contraptions I'd ever seen on a bicycle. But, apparently, the idea has stuck around: The organization that patented it in 2007 was founded in 1998.
At the risk of offending anyone with any sense of political correctness, I will say that the idea is so high-tech and so complex (complicated?) that it could have come from one of only two countries: France or Japan.
If you chose the Land of the Rising Sun, enjoy your sake. OTEC, the company that patented and produces the SDV system, says "The direction of a motion of a pedal in its power phase is designed to coincide with the direction in which the rider can most easily apply force on the pedal while stretching his or her legs." The result is that its geometry "makes riders use larger muscles, resulting in lower cadences than expected".
That is exactly the opposite of what we were all trying to achieve all of those years! But, in looking at it in motion, I can see how it would make sense for, say, someone like a climber or, perhaps, an individual time trialist. It also seems to me that it also might be better suited to a recumbent bike, on which the rider pedals from behind, than on a diamond frame, on which the cyclist pedals from above.
I am curious enough to try an OTEC if given the opportunity. What differences, if any, would I notice in my pedal stroke or my ride?
In other words, we believed that spinning at the highest cadences possible would make us go our fastest. That meant riding, at least at first, in a lower gear and working up to higher gears. The one who could spin the highest gear would win the race.
Now, of course, nobody is going to turn cranks with a 54X11 gear (which I actually had on my road bike for a time) at the same rate as, say, a 42X15. But all of the trainers and training manuals told us that it was better to do 120 rpms on the latter (or a higher gear later in the season) than to mash the former. If nothing else, it gives you a better cardio workout and is easier on your knees.
Apparently, there are some folks who don't agree. Ever since the invention of the "safety" bicycle (two wheels of more or less equal size driven by sprockets and a chain), someone or another has tried to "improve" on circular pedaling motion. Examples of such endeavors include the oval and elliptical chainrings that seem to reappear in one form or another every generation or so. Shimano's Biopace is probably the most famous example; currently Osymetric rings have a following among some members of the peloton. There have been all sorts of other ways to make pedaling more efficient by eliminating the "dead" spots so that power is transferred all through the arc of pedaling.
Just recently, I came across something I saw in the bike magazines some years ago but never actually saw in person. It seemed like one of the most bizarre, Rube Goldberg-ian contraptions I'd ever seen on a bicycle. But, apparently, the idea has stuck around: The organization that patented it in 2007 was founded in 1998.
At the risk of offending anyone with any sense of political correctness, I will say that the idea is so high-tech and so complex (complicated?) that it could have come from one of only two countries: France or Japan.
If you chose the Land of the Rising Sun, enjoy your sake. OTEC, the company that patented and produces the SDV system, says "The direction of a motion of a pedal in its power phase is designed to coincide with the direction in which the rider can most easily apply force on the pedal while stretching his or her legs." The result is that its geometry "makes riders use larger muscles, resulting in lower cadences than expected".
That is exactly the opposite of what we were all trying to achieve all of those years! But, in looking at it in motion, I can see how it would make sense for, say, someone like a climber or, perhaps, an individual time trialist. It also seems to me that it also might be better suited to a recumbent bike, on which the rider pedals from behind, than on a diamond frame, on which the cyclist pedals from above.
I am curious enough to try an OTEC if given the opportunity. What differences, if any, would I notice in my pedal stroke or my ride?
