For the slower-cadence folks

[Shannon Menkveld]

In searching the list archives for things about Sturmey-Archer hubs, I ran across some posts from people who don't like to pedal with a higher cadence.

There are lots of reasons why one might choose to ride this way. Physiology, previous athletic experience, (pedaling a bicycle is just really, really different from anything else that any human ever does with their legs,) and feelings of control have all been mentioned.

None of those reasons are wrong.

But, for those who ride this way, I'd had a thought as soon as I read the posts:

Biopace.

Shimano designed the 1st-gen Biopace rings, the ones with the yellow stickers, on the assumption that recreational riders pedaled slowly. Since non-round chainrings have to be designed for a particular cadence range, Shimano's engineers had to pick one, and IIRC they picked 70-80 rpm.

I've spent some quality time on Biopace rings, and I think they nailed it... they worked great... for a way that basically nobody who was buying bike-shop bikes in 1987 rode bikes. For me, they worked best just below the point at which I'd stop spinning and start 'ankling.' (For those younger, that's the 'scrape mud off your shoe' pedaling style.) At my preferred flatland cadence, they felt really weird.

Can anybody in the slow-pedal gang tried this, and if so, am I right?

--Shannon

[Chris Halasz]

Our old friend Sheldon Brown liked Biopace, and here's the link! 

I'd be curious to try, if only it fit on my GRX cranks - ha (for that matter, I'd love to find a chainguard for my GRX cranks)!! 

And FWIW, I'm a diesel-frequency Jobst-influence pedaler myself. 

- Chris 

[Patrick Moore]

I used Biopace only on 1 bike, a 1988 or so yellow-green Sintesi,* an early mountain bike with 6 sp fw and 48/38/28 biopace chainrings. I self-consciously cultivated spinning back in those days (road cruising gear was 65”, and I could maintain 21-23 mph on paved flats in such a gear) and I found them offensive. Riding fixed made me a masher, and it would be interesting to see how they would feel during this afternoon’s ride in a 75” fixed gear with W/NW winds 15 gusts to 25 about 2/3 No/So and 1/3 E/W, out and back averaging 13.7-8 mph for the 18 miles — about 60 rpm, tho’ obviously slower facing the wind (damned slower!) and faster with it behind me.

Eric Norris, formerly of this list, described a W-E cross country tour back in the day on a 70” fixed gear; after crossing the Rockies he upgeared by a tooth or so (or so I remember the anecdote). I do remember him saying that his friends called him “Diesel."

* I think that this was the house brand for Bikeology, way back in the day. I got this one and a much more modern (as to design) 1989 replacement a year or so later, courtesy of my brother who worked there at the time. Does anyone know who actually made these frames? Aside: was annoyed at the 14-32 or so fw, gaps too big, so I had a lbs install a Sachs 13-19 6 speed, to the annoyance and consternation of the mechanics crew.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/6b8361d4-cc38-4719-a774-5a37d7e6ff9en%40googlegroups.com.

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[Patrick Moore]

 I forgot to ask: Chris, did you really ever adapt to consistent ankling? I remember that this was recommended by the old roadies in the few cycling books from the ‘50s and ‘60s that I could find in the Nairobi Municipal Library circa 1971. I scrupulously tried to adopt the method but always forgot to keep it up after the first few hundred yards. I thought that the presumed technique had been refuted, along with steel frames going soft, etc etc.

Note: You can do it briefly, and indeed, I did it this afternoon as ever was, momentarily, to regain momentum in the face of a fierce gust of wind. What I never could do was to keep it up for more than few pedal revolutions.

[Chris Halasz]

Patrick

This Chris has tried ankling, and has never been convinced of its efficacy. I'm reminded how Jobst wrote, bluntly, that "To artificially emulate someone's ankle motion or lack thereof, while pedaling, is as useless as emulating a walking gait. The study laid ankling to rest for a while, but because urban legends have a life of their own, rising again at the slightest opportunity, ankling, with its lore, is assured a long life.” As for me, who's to say that it doesn't work for some people, or like clipless pedals: if you like 'em, use 'em! 

As a 'slow-'n-steady' pedaler, I do, however, practice a breathing routine that James Nestor wrote was used by professional cyclists, whereupon during high and sustained exertion one inhales (nasally) for three (or so) breaths (or pedal cycles), and then exhales (still nasally, for me, to limit humble bees entering my mouth) for something like five breaths (or pedal cycles), or at least that's how I remember it, and how it works for me! 

- Chris 

[Patrick Moore]

Aha, James Nestor, that’s how I found that video. Very interesting, and yet one more rabbit hole to fall into.

FWIW, by haplessly following links into links, I found the “Roadman” cycling video blog, and one of the principal’s videos encourages low cadence, high torque training for more rapid aerobic improvement.

Now, I resolutely HATE “training,” but high torque/low cadence is how I ride. I must patent a training program involving riding a fixed gear into NM spring winds.

Well, at least we’ve dispensed with “ankling."

[Shannon Menkveld]

I find that consciously 'ankling', in the 'scraping mud off your shoes' kinda sense helps a lot in those times when it's too steep to keep spinning, you don't want to, or can't, stand, and the section is short enough that shifting isn't worth it.

I hit this point quite often on my '71 Raleigh Competition.

Because it's a 5-speed.

Because it's got downtubers. (Suntour Symmetrics, which rule.)

But mostly because I suck.

--Shannon

[Garth]

I find the scraping mud sensation quite natural, but I don't consider that ankling as I first heard of it. It's also not as if I or anyone is a robot/machine with the incapacity to use different mucscle groups on demand while riding variuos terrains and cadences. The term "ankling" to me infers a conscious effort to dip the heel throughout the stoke, even the bottom. What I'm referring to keeps the foot relatively level thoughout the downstroke, even at the bottom. No straining. If anything I find it more relaxing and very efficient. This is how I learned of it from the Greg Lemond book of the 80's. In scraping mud off your feet, the feet are level all the through the back pull. I do not scrape heel first either(nor walk heel first), it's mid-to-fore foot that hits first, then pull back with a level foot. It's still widely done today by many professionals, because for many riders it's their natural stroke, where their optimal power is. Everyone has their natural way of pedalling though, some keep a level foot, some tend to point the toes down. Saddle height also plays a role here, if the saddle is just too high it'll be impossible to do or even "test" this. Strength, flexibility, mobility all contribute. Even if one "tests" it, unless they stick with it for a long time and find it's suitable for them, they'll likely revert back to what they were doing before. This doesn't disprove the motion however

Regardless, this article speaks to what 'm referring to.

 https://cacyclinghub.com/what-is-ankling-in-cycling/

[Patrick Moore]

Segueing from the “anking” thread, already a segue from the biopace thread.

The method described by the link Garth includes keeping a constant cadence and KOPs, which I guess makes me an unworthy candidate, as I like a high saddle with large setback, a straight knee, toes-down pedaling style, and prefer to stay in the same gear over a widish range of conditions and cadences, with a penchant for low rpm torquing.

What is interesting, to me at any rate, is what different riders find to be their more “natural” pedaling styles, and why (body type, pedaling style, gearing choices, bike setup) it is “natural."

Am I right in thinking that a “natural” pedaling style (for an experienced rider) will be that rider’s most efficient pedaling style?

I like a high saddle well set back; when a saddle is even a wee bit too low, my knees feel cramped. My toes tend to point down when I pedal. I have short femurs and tend to run out of breath if I pedal too rapidly. I tend to mash, tho’ I often self-consciously “scrape” my feet through the bottom of the stroke for a bit of extra torque to crest a rise or handle a wind gust. 

I tend to cruise in 3 or 4 or 5 closely spaced gears and, when moving out of the cruising range, tend to coast on downhills and mash on uphills. This is reinforced because with butt back and when mashing at low rpm, this makes your torso support your upper body, so that your shoulders + arms + hands do the “piano playing” bit over the bar. One my most  pleasant cycling sensations is pedaling for distances at low cadence and high torque up a gradual incline or against a moderate headwind, shoved back in the saddle and in a highish gear. 

Interesting: We speak of the Sturmey Archer AW “three speed hub,” and of course talk about 5 or 6 or 7 or 10 speed auto transmissions. From what I read, in the auto industry, the term “speed” was originally literal: with inflexible (as to rpm) but torquey early engines you basically had speed ranges in each gear and didn’t shift to maintain optimum rpm or cadence but only when conditions were likely to make the engine stall or revolve uselessly with a lot of  noise but little forward effect. It was only at either limit that you shifted.

I recall a very early SA advertisement for the AW or a similar ancestor: basically, “You have all the gears you need: one for hills, one for downhills, and one for flatland cruising."

I feel like one of those early automotive engines, and I also feel like the poster boy for that SA advertisement.

Miscellaneous musings. I’d like too hear others’ styles, experiences, thoughts, suggestions, even well-intentioned (but informed!!) criticisms.

Patrick “still likes 1-tooth jumps between about 60” and 80” Moore, who bailed into the 68” granny on the 17/19 t Dingle on the NW return this noon against the variable NW spring wind — for about 3 miles, then got off and shifted the chain back to the 17/75".

[Patrick Moore]

I forgot to add, because this is a big part of the pleasure:  on a perfectly set up bike (saddle and cockpit just right), shoved back, torquing, upper body balanced over the bar: arms well bent at elbow with hands lightly on hoods, just a bit higher than in the less comfortable hooks position, head and hands and arms and shoulders relaxed: cycling perfection, at least as far as regards comfort.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 4:40 PM Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

… One my most  pleasant cycling sensations is pedaling for distances at low cadence and high torque up a gradual incline or against a moderate headwind, shoved back in the saddle and in a highish gear.

[Shannon Menkveld]

Since:

A) This seems to have become the "define 'ankling' " and 'discuss pedaling strokes/styles and how they interact with one's velocipede' thread.

and

B) It's my thread and I'll drift it if I want to.

I will now define the motion I think of as 'ankling'.

At about five-of-the-clock, drop the heel of the downstroke leg.

Do the 'scrape the dog turd off of your shoe' thing until about 7.

Raise heel to neutral. (Mostly, you won't have to 'do' this... it'll just happen.)

If you're really-honkin'-but-not-standin', you push your foot forward from 11 to 1, but mostly nobody does that because it feels hella weird.

And, to turn slightly in the direction of getting back on topic, this is where I remember Biopace rings really paying the bills: In that zone between stomping and spinning. Outside of that band, they felt... odd.

--Shannon

[Galen Gruman]

I remember elliptical chain rings! I had one in the 1990s on my road bike, brand not recalled. I loved it; pedaling felt much smoother and power better distributed. 

I’ve been accused of being a masher, and I had been riding 50-60rpm until recently, after much needling by my cycling buddies. (“Shift!” they would exhort on inclines.) I’m now 60-80rpm, so I guess out of range of those old Biotechs. 

The higher cadence does increase endurance, though I still need to feel some resistance to believe I am actually going somewhere! After 80rpm, it feels like a cartoon ride. But most of my cycling buddies prefer that high cadence and think I’m nuts to want some of that resistance. At the end of the day, though, we’re going about the same speeds.

On Thursday, March 12, 2026 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-7 shannon....@gmail.com wrote:

[Patrick Moore]

Actually, I started a new thread, so it’s my thread. But you may continue.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bc931ca4-b9c6-417e-b967-d862e95696f6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Guy Jett]

Grant has written extensively about this over the years.  It seems his personal preference is for slower but a wider range.  But he also acknowledges this is a personal preference. 

My personal preference is a narrow range between 90 and 100.  In very low gears I do go much lower.  I'm also working to widen my range. 

In the end, if you are comfortable with a lower cadence and keeping up, you are doing nothing wrong.  It's just YOUR personal preference. 

GAJett

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5118ec64-20a4-4f46-ab48-eefb1c5defadn%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Moore]

It’s very interesting to watch old race video from the 1940s and 1950s when, as I think was said by Skye Yeager, “Coppi climbed the Alp d’Huez in a 48/19.” And he had a top gear of 48/14. You see riders spinning madly on the flats — Coppi in particular seems to use the “twiddle and coast” method: rattle along at 120 rpm for 100 strokes, then coast briefly.

But on the climbs, oh my! Well below 60 rpm, with bodies all over the place — recall a scene described by Thomas Merton in Seven Story Mountain, how as a small boy living in a rural French village with his artist father in the 1920s, he’d watch the Tour peloton go by, riders’ “noses almost on their front wheels” — paraphrasing — as they grunted up hills in the lower but still far to high gear of the 2 sprockets allotted by their flip flop wheels. This was even true in Eddy’s era; climbing was muscling far too high gears up steep walls and using all your body English to help things along.

I used to twiddle between 104 and 120 in a mid 60s gear — obsessively measured it; but riding fixed and perhaps age made me a masher.

[Patrick Moore]

Well, perhaps Skye misremembered, or perhaps I misremembered Skye, but Coppi’s climbing gear in the 1949 Tour might have been a 47/21: 60” instead of 68”. But in 1930?

https://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.com/2013/07/gearing-in-1949-tour-de-france.html

Still, a lot different from a 34/32 or 29”.