The perfect pedal stroke - Comparing Contador and Froome

[Red Lobster]

I am astonished that anyone could think that Froome has in any way a 'perfect style'; he just looks so ungainly on a bike! In fact his style is perhaps the worst-looking in the entire peloton.

You are being far too diplomatic here. I like someone else's characterization ... that he looks like a rabid gibbon humping a beach ball or something like that.

But yes, it is hard to imagine there is anything at all efficient about that atrocity. Makes me want to scratch my eyes out and wish for the ground to open up and swallow him whole.

 

[Robert21]

Myths are handed down through the generations

Very often by cycling coaches and other 'experts'.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

I'm happy to see a decent discussion going on. Thanks for that.

You are being far too diplomatic here. I like someone else's characterization ... that he looks like a rabid gibbon humping a beach ball or something like that.

But yes, it is hard to imagine there is anything at all efficient about that atrocity. Makes me want to scratch my eyes out and wish for the ground to open up and swallow him whole.

As some have mentioned, Froomes style is indeed ugly but could there be some method to it? In his pedal stroke he looks to utilize a more twitchy push-and-pull approach, rather than long flowing motions. Assuming his muscles are well adapted to and trained for that style, I could imagine a scenario where such a style could prove beneficial.
I think anyone who rides recognises that feeling whereby through good coordination, you can make the legs pas on the pedal stroke left and right without much travel in between. I see Froome doing that (note his accelerations on the Venteu), where as Contador makes use of his body weight to pedal long lasted strokes. I think the key for doing that right is the up stroke and again he's uses his upper body for that.

An interesting collection of "styles" here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THA59sKBkF0&feature=c4-overview&list=UUI9-Ix7G7Q8hGbgwCsLv82Q

The Thomas Voeckler cracked me up.

Good sample of Froome's climbing style in 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEGpv0xn0E8#t=7m022

Be sure to watch until at least past 8:20

Just hideous. Anyone care to give an analysis of that versus what we saw on Sunday? How much has his style changed? Considerably I'd say. He sits down a lot more for one thing.

Has Sky in the past said anything on this subject specifically? They seems to want to grab every opportunity to emphasis marginal gains and special training. Surely the have some wonderful things to say with regard to their lab work on pedalling style.

 

[Robert21]

As some have mentioned, Froomes style is indeed ugly but could there be some method to it? In his pedal stroke he looks to utilize a more twitchy push-and-pull approach, rather than long flowing motions.

If there is any relationship between style and efficiency the exact opposite is more likely to be the case.

A 'punchy' pedalling stroke is likely to have a higher peak torque for the same power output, and in turn rely more on the less efficient, more easily fatigued fast-twitch muscle fibres. On the other hand the preferential use of slow twitch fibres has been associated with a higher gross efficiency, as has a pedalling style where the torque is applied in a more even and prolonged portion of the downstroke. For example see:

INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS

http://biolsport.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=1003448‎

This found that:

at the LT, there was a significant correlation between GE and mean torque and evenness of torque distribution

 

[Robert21]

Has Sky in the past said anything on this subject specifically? They seems to want to grab every opportunity to emphasis marginal gains and special training. Surely the have some wonderful things to say with regard to their lab work on pedalling style.

One, pedalling style has nothing to do with the 'extra-terrestrial' performances of Froome.

Two, they probably recognise by now that it is best to say nothing, given the number of times they have 'explained' their performances, only for those explanations to be later exposed as pure BS. (Much as was the case with Armstrong!)

 

[biopass]

Pedaling with high cadence have a greater impact on ones physical fitness, versus riding with a lower cadence. Its not about saving power or have a greater efficiency. Its very simple. It doesnt give you a higher power output. You just get in better shape.

 

[armchairclimber]

Frome demonstrating the optimum riding style and pedal stroke.

 

[Granville57]

Clipless pedals are a comfort and safety issue, and they don't provide any mechanical advantage.

Not trolling, and not trying to bust your stones (because I appreciate your posts here) but how does one equate "comfort" with stiff, carbon-soled cycling shoes, and "safety" with the inability to quickly get one's foot out of one's pedal? (I realize that you only mentioned pedals, and not shoes specifically, but you can't have one without the other.)

How many slow-speed crashes are due to riders not being able unclip in time? Once your balance is lost, unclipping becomes nearly impossible. Your trapped in your shoe, which is trapped in the cleat/pedal.

I was always under the impression that they were designed for improved power transfer.

That was my impression as well. I never find myself wanting slip into my carbon road shoes when relaxing at home. Tennis shoes (or any kind of sneaker) are obviously far more comfortable. But they tend to be "squishy" when pushed hard on flat pedals. The one thing I do enjoy about cycling shoes is that I love to ride in the rain. Sneakers would become a soggy mess, and probably reek havoc on my feet on a six or seven hour ride. But "comfort"? Not in any traditional sense.

Being able to pull up on the pedals when climbing is a nice advantage of proper cleats, but it also comes at an expense—you can't really reposition your feet. I've always been astounded that this issue never seems to be addressed. With flat pedals, you can make those incremental shifts fore and aft on the pedals to find the point of maximum leverage, and that point is ever-so-slightly different when climbing, descending or on the flats.

The very idea if locking one's foot into a static position, and assuming that that the one position is optimal whether one is sitting, standing or applying different forces (climbing, descending, etc) has always seemed absurd to me. Even more so with the insanely over-priced market of "bike fitting" and cleat adjustment.



Sorry for the off-doping post in The Clinic. The pic below will make up for that (and tie into the theme).

 

[131313]

Not trolling, and not trying to bust your stones (because I appreciate your posts here) but how does one equate "comfort" with stiff, carbon-soled cycling shoes, and "safety" with the inability to quickly get one's foot out of one's pedal? (I realize that you only mentioned pedals, and not shoes specifically, but you can't have one without the other.)

How many slow-speed crashes are due to riders not being able unclip in time? Once your balance is lost, unclipping becomes nearly impossible. Your trapped in your shoe, which is trapped in the cleat/pedal.

The "comfort" issue is in comparison to clips and straps, i.e. pedals that secure your foot to the pedal. As far as shoe stiffness and comfort I can only speak from my personal experience, which IME is that Vans are really comfortable to ride in for about 20 minutes, then my arches start to hurt. For long rides, the stiffer soles seem to help with comfort.

As far as "being locked onto the pedal" being a safety issue, I feel a lot more secure while standing and sprinting (and especially both at the same time!) if my foot is secured to the pedal in one fashion or another. This is one of the reason a lot of BMX'ers and some downhillers have switched to clipless: added security. It has nothing to do with power output, and the BMX guy using power (you'd be surprised) all mention that their peak power is the same on platforms or clipless.

As far as low-speed crashes, I have to admit I don't see many of those except in parking lots. They normally involve Cat 6 dudes carrying 3 sets of wheels to the wheel car...

Being able to pull up on the pedals when climbing is a nice advantage of proper cleats, but it also comes at an expense—you can't really reposition your feet. I've always been astounded that this issue never seems to be addressed. With flat pedals, you can make those incremental shifts fore and aft on the pedals to find the point of maximum leverage, and that point is ever-so-slightly different when climbing, descending or on the flats.

The very idea if locking one's foot into a static position, and assuming that that the one position is optimal whether one is sitting, standing or applying different forces (climbing, descending, etc) has always seemed absurd to me. Even more so with the insanely over-priced market of "bike fitting" and cleat adjustment.

Well, Time has been selling that whole thing. I actually used Time pedals for sponsorship reasons for a couple of seasons, and my experience is that while you can naturally move your foot around from side-to-side, I always ended up in the same place. I actually pedal a fair bit in Vans, and honestly my foot is pretty much always in the same place as when I'm using my normal shoes. But really, if one wanted to pedal in tennis shoes, it wouldn't come at an efficiency loss.

 

[131313]

Sorry for the off-doping post in The Clinic. The pic below will make up for that (and tie into the theme).

Is that a fat Lance chasing down Tyler? Awesome!

 

[Granville57]

As far as low-speed crashes, I have to admit I don't see many of those except in parking lots. They normally involve Cat 6 dudes carrying 3 sets of wheels to the wheel car...

OK, I knew that would draw a predictable response, but it wouldn't be hard for me to dig up a ton of footage of elite pros getting stuck in their pedals at the back of a pileup. That's the kind of "low speed" that I had in mind. Or who was it that crashed out of GC (maybe the Tour?) after getting tripped up on some television cables as he was slowly cruising to the start in either 2012 or 2011?

It happens to the best of 'em, is my only point.

Me? Only once.

Re: Safety in sprinting.
No argument there. Especially when in wet and slippery conditions, or in the cold—numb feet tend to become less trustworthy when control is desired.



Luckily, Chris managed to get his feet out in time.

 

[Almeisan]

Just hideous. Anyone care to give an analysis of that versus what we saw on Sunday? How much has his style changed? Considerably I'd say. He sits down a lot more for one thing.

He climbs exactly like that guy doing the Voeckler parody, only this one is for real.

Marginal gains I guess. If he could hang in there in the top 20 with such an inefficient style I guess this is what he can do with a more proper one.

 

[Le breton]

A test would tell of course, but I would be surprised if there was not a few % loss with tennis shoes : the sole is flexed at each pedal stroke and absorbs energy which does not get transmitted to the crank.

About the issue of efficiency, i have a friend who used to cycle in the same bike club. Invariably did worse than me in spite of his higher VO2.

When you looked at him cycling it was a horrible sight, he pedaled in a jerky motion with apparent sudden bursts of force at 3 o'clock. Never had a decent result, let alone a victory, even in the lowest categories.

Presumably disappointed with his cycling results he started foot racing at the age of 33. Won his first race : a marathon. He had been training for it for close to one year. Finished 22nd at the NY marathon a few years later.

Eventually, around or after the age of 45, he became 100 km "world champion" in Duluth.

You would have a hard time convincing me that his lack of results on the bike was not due to his abominable pedaling efficiency.

BTW. this thread is fun.

 

[Robert21]

Pedaling with high cadence have a greater impact on ones physical fitness, versus riding with a lower cadence. Its not about saving power or have a greater efficiency. Its very simple. It doesnt give you a higher power output. You just get in better shape.

Actually, for a given power output a higher cadence has a higher metabolic cost than a lower cadence. Of course, if you are blood doping and using Epo you can probably afford to pay the increased 'cost' of pedalling at a high cadence. Armstrong provided a good example of this strategy in action, as did Basso before he was busted.

 

[python]

champion" in Duluth.

You would have a hard time convincing me that his lack of results on the bike was not due to his abominable pedaling efficiency.

BTW. this thread is fun.

an interesting observation, though we've been to the subject several times - someone naturally cut for cycling may not posses the best cut for running and vv.

besides the real differences in Vo2 max and the sport-specific 'visual' efficiency, several other factors may play out - like the body build/type (generally muscular/ slander, size of lower levers/calves etc), the type of endurance racing one was involved in prior to his first big success etc.

as another example, i have in mind a 2:25 marathon friend who is a completely unremarkable cyclist but who excels at running ultras. he was born to be an efficient, long distance runner being very slander, light with almost no visually detectable musculature above or below his knees...being almost 2 meters tall and 20 kg heavier, i drop him on any hill or mountain when cycling. however, his best marathon is over 30 minutes better than mine and i hardly lacked the drive...

your friend might have been from the lot...