Defying the Dirty Dozen: Cyclists take on steepest of steep hills

[Le breton]

Interesting calculations, I wish I had the exact elevation, distance, and speed for you to double check with your data. I also should have stepped on a scale all geared up beforehand as well. I think I was hovering around 77 kilos at that time (I've only been 71 kilos once a couple years ago for a short time, a BF% below 6 is unsustainable for me) @182 cm. My bike was a 56 aluminum HB (Heavy *******), so you may want to add a little for that. Thus, bringing down your power/weight ratio calculations significantly.

For the record, I wasn't trying to set any records or do any sort of maximal power test. A 32.5% grade would be inappropriate for such a thing anyway IMO. All I wanted to do was not blow before the top and go fast enough to not tip over. I marginally achieved both. The surface was surprisingly clear of debris so traction was good.

If anybody is passing by that area and has a bike with them, I would highly recommend giving it a try. I was amazed at how exhilarating it felt. Apparently Canton Avenue in Pittsburg Pennsylvania is he steepest in the country @35%, minimum distance 1/10 mile.


BTW, compared to Andy Schleck, who isn't fat?

Chicken

It actually isn't my data, it's yours.I agree that such a hill is not a good place to set a power record as you waste a considerable amount of energy just pulling on the handle bar and balancing.

You gave us the total amount of energy : 578 watts during 64 sec = 37 kJ.

It's easy to verify that air + road resistance amount to actually less than 2% of the total, so that about 98.5% of your energy expenditure as measured by your powermeter was against gravity, which means (98,5/100) times 37 = 36.4 kJ against gravity.

Since now I know that your total weight, including the bike and clothe was more like 86 kg, I can conclude that the elevation was

86 times 9.8 times elevation = 36 400

Therefore the elevation is 43 meters and the distance 43/0.32 = 135 meters.

Therefore your average speed was 135/64 = 2.1 m/sec or 7.6 km/h

Assuming you had normal wheels, ie about 2.09 m circonference with 32 sprocket on the back, what did you have in the front?

Looks like it was a 33, as rotating it at 58 rpm with 32 in the back gives a speed of 2.09 m (58/60) (33/32) = 2.08 m/sec.

If it was a 32 or a 34 we have a slight inconsistency in the data you gave us.

Back to power/weight
578/77 = 7.5 watts/kg for 1 min. is still pretty good and 2420 vertical meters/ hour, even for only 64s, is quite respectable.

 

[Granville57]

Chicken

And thanks for sparing us another grotesque pic of M.R. or Wiggins.
---------------------

I'm curious to hear from Joe Papp if he's ridden any of those crazy hills in Pittsburgh.

Here's another link to a collection of steep hills (the ones already covered).
http://www.gran-angular.net/las-calles-mas-empinadas/2007/09/29/

Canton Ave, Pittsburgh. Listed at 37%

This picture of Fargo St. in L.A. speaks a thousand words. Listed at 32%

 

[Fatclimber]

Chicken

It actually isn't my data, it's yours.I agree that such a hill is not a good place to set a power record as you waste a considerable amount of energy just pulling on the handle bar and balancing.

You gave us the total amount of energy : 578 watts during 64 sec = 37 kJ.

It's easy to verify that air + road resistance amount to actually less than 2% of the total, so that about 98.5% of your energy expenditure as measured by your powermeter was against gravity, which means (98,5/100) times 37 = 36.4 kJ against gravity.

Since now I know that your total weight, including the bike and clothe was more like 86 kg, I can conclude that the elevation was

86 times 9.8 times elevation = 36 400

Therefore the elevation is 43 meters and the distance 43/0.32 = 135 meters.

Therefore your average speed was 135/64 = 2.1 m/sec or 7.6 km/h

Assuming you had normal wheels, ie about 2.09 m circonference with 32 sprocket on the back, what did you have in the front?

Looks like it was a 33, as rotating it at 58 rpm with 32 in the back gives a speed of 2.09 m (58/60) (33/32) = 2.08 m/sec.

If it was a 32 or a 34 we have a slight inconsistency in the data you gave us.

Back to power/weight
578/77 = 7.5 watts/kg for 1 min. is still pretty good and 2420 vertical meters/ hour, even for only 64s, is quite respectable.

It is a 34, so what % margin of error would that equate to? The slight inconsistency should be well within the powermeter specs (2%), or my weight estimation, or the data sample I took without precision, etc, etc, etc...

Thanks for keeping me honest, although I didn't bring any of this up to try and show off. It's simply a representation of the bare minimum it took to get up the hill with enough gas and without tipping over.

Thank you.

Hopefully we haven't derailed the thread too much. Personally I find it interesting to know the real numbers behind people's performances as they accomplish certain things. If so, my apologies.

 

[Eric8-A]

This picture of Fargo St. in L.A. speaks a thousand words. Listed at 32%

Alot of people climb it this way. Going side to side.

 

[daveinzambia]

Alot of people climb it this way. Going side to side.

surely defeats the purpose of riding up it. go ride a flatter hill somewhere. not that i could even walk up that.

 

[Eric8-A]

I wonder what it would be like to go downhill on that

 

[Eric8-A]

Here's another one I happened to take a picture of. It's fairly short. And I'm not sure if it looks as steep as it does here than it does in person.

 

[benpounder]

Here's another one I happened to take a picture of. It's fairly short. And I'm not sure if it looks as steep as it does here than it does in person.

The way I use to determine the steepness of a hill is whether the folks parking on it know enough to turn their wheel into the curb. Then again, that is an artifact of a time gone by when most cars were manual transmission and parking breaks suspect. I see some people have not forgotten.

 

[Eric8-A]

The way I use to determine the steepness of a hill is whether the folks parking on it know enough to turn their wheel into the curb. Then again, that is an artifact of a time gone by when most cars were manual transmission and parking breaks suspect. I see some people have not forgotten.

I only see two cars in this picture that have done that.

 

[benpounder]

I only see two cars in this picture that have done that.

If you look close, you can see six (if the hubcaps are showing the wheels are turned in).

Back to cycling though, I'm sure many here have ridden slickrock (found many places but put on the map by Moab). As someone upthread noted, though not very clearly, the problem with really steep ascents is primarily a body position issue - too forward and you lose traction, too backwards and you lose steering and it can be as difficult on pavement, or slickrock, as it is when riding scree slopes on a mountain bike.

I am skeptical of claims of slopes over 30% unless the cyclist has a good head of steam entering it, and the pitch is quite short. Unless you are zigzagging of course...

 

[Eric8-A]

the problem with really steep ascents is primarily a body position issue - too forward and you lose traction

That's how I sometimes climb. The upper part of my chest is outside the bars.

 

[Maxiton]

There are some climbs in San Francisco that are steeper/knarlier than Fargo.

 

[Eric8-A]

There are some climbs in San Francisco that are steeper/knarlier than Fargo.

Yup. And they're much longer too I believe.

 

[Maxiton]

Yup. And they're much longer too I believe.

Some of them are pretty damn long. Fargo does look like a leg buster, though. It would be cool to see it in some kind of circuit race.

 

[Fatclimber]

If you look close, you can see six (if the hubcaps are showing the wheels are turned in).

Back to cycling though, I'm sure many here have ridden slickrock (found many places but put on the map by Moab). As someone upthread noted, though not very clearly, the problem with really steep ascents is primarily a body position issue - too forward and you lose traction, too backwards and you lose steering and it can be as difficult on pavement, or slickrock, as it is when riding scree slopes on a mountain bike.

I am skeptical of claims of slopes over 30% unless the cyclist has a good head of steam entering it, and the pitch is quite short. Unless you are zigzagging of course...

I'm just curious of where this skepticism comes from. 30%+ is a terrifyingly steep grade, but nowhere near impossible on a road bike. My level of fitness is nowhere near that of the elite athletes and I was able to ride straight up it. I did, however, have the assistance of very low gears.

It's not plausible to get a good head of steam on Fargo as it is perpendicular to the road at the base with a fence on the other side. You could come at it hard and turn into it but your momentum would disappear very quickly, as you have alluded to.

I could understand your point of view if it were in a race and it was climbed repeatedly or encountered after some racing miles in your legs, but for just pulling up to it and riding, not that big of a deal.

 

[benpounder]

I'm just curious of where this skepticism comes from. 30%+ is a terrifyingly steep grade, but nowhere near impossible on a road bike. My level of fitness is nowhere near that of the elite athletes and I was able to ride straight up it. I did, however, have the assistance of very low gears.

[...]

I could understand your point of view if it were in a race and it was climbed repeatedly or encountered after some racing miles in your legs, but for just pulling up to it and riding, not that big of a deal.

I suspect we are talking by each other. When riding recreationally, or racing the Giro, riders set up their bikes for the roads they will encounter. I have a 12-28 for just these purposes; heck I rented a triple chain ring bike one year knowing that the Grand Fondo I was going to ride was going over 15-20% pitches.

So yes, when making my comment, I had a full ride in mind, one where changing a set up that radically just for one pitch makes the rest of the ride less than desirable (unbearable?). Incidentally, I started riding in Moab in the mid 80's - heavy rigid frames - we learned quickly to swap out the knobbies for the previous years well worn tires when riding the Slick Rock trail. Bragging rights went to the lads who conquered the steepest pitches - both up and down.

 

[Fatclimber]

Just asking for clarification, thanks.

 

[Offtheback]

Defying the Dirty Dozen: Cyclists take on steepest of steep hills

Here's one you would need your little ring for; unless you wanted to be passed by a granddad running

(The steepest hill in the southern hemisphere): http://www.cntraveler.com/daily-traveler/2011/12/Maphead-Baldwin-Street?mbid=ob_ppc_all