The myth about "tough" climbs.

[ghostofjoy]

Are you a cyclist?

Thank you for asking the question before I could. There's a phenomena known in cycling parlance as 'getting on top of the gear.' The steeper the climb, the harder it becomes to do so, and every pedal stroke becomes less efficient and more taxing.

Try riding a 15% + slope and let us know how it goes.

 

[FabulousCandelabra]

if the climb has a mellow grade, these guys go fast enough where drafting actually plays a factor going uphill. also, some of these places are very windy, wheel sucking a factor again.

troll has been slain by my brilliant cycling knowledge.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

You're all comparing the climbs when you're going fast. But try to compare when going 'slow'.
You can perfectly ride a 7% climb calmly, on a low heart rate. This is impossible on a 15% climb, no matter how slow you ride, or what gear you use...

 

[theyoungest]

Why should it be harder? Of course 6 watt/kilo on a 10% gradient makes you go slower then 6watt/Kilo on 5%. But effort is exactly the same, and itÄs exactly as difficult.

The effort is exactly the same... except for the lack of drafting and the time it takes you to get to the top. Ergo: steeper climb = harder.

If you want to make the point about the Tour being harder than the Giro: in terms of average speeds, it definitely is. But there's always a type of rider who could do well at the Giro and not at the Tour, and vice versa. The Tour is more suited to tempo climbers who can hold their own on the flats (thus not arriving at the foot of the final climb totally exhausted from trying to keep up).

 

[wirral]

I suggest you go out and find a slope that is at least 10% gradient, preferably higher. Let us know how far you got before a) wishing you had lower gears, b) getting seriously out of breath and c) reaching the point where you could not maintain sufficient forward momentum to stay on the bike. I look forward to your feedback.

 

[Mellow Velo]

In Bavarianrider's world, Cav could live with Phil Gil on the Muur de Huy.

 

[Special_oz_ed]

Peddling rubbish up a gradient is still rubbish!

Bavarian,

The garadient of a climb does not determine how tough it is!
The only thing which determines the difficulty of a climb is how hard the cyclists ride.
If a cyclist rides at 6 watt/Kilo on a 5 % gardient, it is exactly as tough as if he rides at 6 Watt/Kilo on a 12%gradient. If a cyclist rides at 6 watt/Kilo on a 2 % gardient, and on 5 Watt/Kilo on a 15 % gardient, the 2 % mountain is actually tougher. The gradient of a climb simply does not determine the difficulty at all! It's how cyclists ride those mountains, that's what determinates the toughness of a climb! So please stop crying about how difficult a climb is because of the gradient. The gradient doesn't mean anything!

This is rubbish. Simple physics tells you that a gradient means something. If you ride along flat surfaces, gravity is largely irrelevant, since it cannot accelerate your body downwards through the road (i.e., on Newton's law, the force of you and your bike on the road = the force of the road pushing back up on you). Let's use Contador for example. The force on him on flat roads = [65kg (AC body weight estimate) + 8kg bike]x9.8m per second squared ~ 715 Newtons of force; the road reacts with the same force in opposite direction, so the two cancel out (neglecting wind resistance and rolling resistance). On the other hand, when you ride up a slope, gravity comes into play (since the road no longer gives you an equal and opposite force to the action of gravity on you and your bike). That means you are pushed down the slope with the force "F" which is proportional to your body weight + bike weight, gravity, and involves the angle of the slope = ~106 Newtons of force for Contador, or a backwards acceleration of 1.4 metres per second squared. For Cancellara, with a body weight (I'm guessing 80kg + bike = 88kg), the numbers are bigger: 127 Newtons of force down the slope, but with the same 1.4 metres per second squared down the acceleration down the slope due to gravity. So it takes more work to combat that acceleration backwards (incidentally, this is why the force on larger riders makes it harder for them - it's proportional to body weight and the force down a slope on Contador will be less than Cancellara). This is why if Cancellara and Contador both put out the same power up a climb, Cancellara will always be behind Contador (i.e., his watts/kg will be lower than Contador - that's power to weight ratio).

So, in simple terms that all riders understand: it's harder to ride up a hill than it is along the flat. That is, it's harder to do 6 watt/kg up a hill than 6 watt/kg along the flat.

 

[roundabout]

Also quality of surface comes into it. Finestre has the dirt surface, same as Kronplatz. Makes it hard to grip and gain momentum when you're making those turns, harder to ride out of the saddle and attack on. Remember that the infamous 2005 stage saw Simoni/di Luca/Rujano attack on the asphalt and build the lead on the sterrato.

It's slightly OT but I got the impression from yesterday that there were seemingly less bigger stones on the Finestre than in 2005 and it looked easier to control the bikes and do what you described.

 

[Bavarianrider]

this is silly.

From personal experience, while on my bike, the steeper the hill the more I just wanna get off and cry.

agree that changing gradients can make for difficult climbing.

Of course for us amateur riders it'sd adifferent thing! Obviously on steep mountains we can not pedal soft but we have to give it all to even make it to the top Therefore the steep ones are tougher for us. However, if you are riding full trottle on a 5% it's just as tough as on a 15% gradient. Again, it's a purely subjective thing.

 

[Bavarianrider]

You're all comparing the climbs when you're going fast. But try to compare when going 'slow'.
You can perfectly ride a 7% climb calmly, on a low heart rate. This is impossible on a 15% climb, no matter how slow you ride, or what gear you use...

Exactly that's my point! That's why a said for pro riders in a race situation!
When there's a final climb in a GT stage. It doesn'T matter if it's 8% or 12%. If riders go full throtlle, they suffer the same way!

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

In Bavarianrider's world, Cav could live with Phil Gil on the Muur de Huy.

That's actually a very good argument

 

[Bavarianrider]

Bavarian,



This is rubbish. Simple physics tells you that a gradient means something. If you ride along flat surfaces, gravity is largely irrelevant, since it cannot accelerate your body downwards through the road (i.e., on Newton's law, the force of you and your bike on the road = the force of the road pushing back up on you). Let's use Contador for example. The force on him on flat roads = [65kg (AC body weight estimate) + 8kg bike]x9.8m per second squared ~ 715 Newtons of force; the road reacts with the same force in opposite direction, so the two cancel out (neglecting wind resistance and rolling resistance). On the other hand, when you ride up a slope, gravity comes into play (since the road no longer gives you an equal and opposite force to the action of gravity on you and your bike). That means you are pushed down the slope with the force "F" which is proportional to your body weight + bike weight, gravity, and involves the angle of the slope = ~106 Newtons of force for Contador, or a backwards acceleration of 1.4 metres per second squared. For Cancellara, with a body weight (I'm guessing 80kg + bike = 88kg), the numbers are bigger: 127 Newtons of force down the slope, but with the same 1.4 metres per second squared down the acceleration down the slope due to gravity. So it takes more work to combat that acceleration backwards (incidentally, this is why the force on larger riders makes it harder for them - it's proportional to body weight and the force down a slope on Contador will be less than Cancellara). This is why if Cancellara and Contador both put out the same power up a climb, Cancellara will always be behind Contador (i.e., his watts/kg will be lower than Contador - that's power to weight ratio).

So, in simple terms that all riders understand: it's harder to ride up a hill than it is along the flat. That is, it's harder to do 6 watt/kg up a hill than 6 watt/kg along the flat.

Ok interesting point. However, still if Cancellara rides at 100% on a 5% gradient he suffers as much as when he rides 100% on a 12%. He might not prduce the same watt/Kilo but his effort his still the same. So again, it are the riders who make the climbs togh. Of course the steeper a climb themore it favors the light weights. But that does not eman that the climb is actualy "harder" How tough a climb is, purelx depends on the riders effort.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The gradient of a climb simply does not determine the difficulty at all! It's how cyclists ride those mountains, that's what determinates the toughness of a climb! So please stop crying about how difficult a climb is because of the gradient. The gradient doesn't mean anything!

This is a false assumption. What you are not taking into account is how long someone can output that effort at that gradient. While it is effort, the gradient will wear riders out faster, pure and simple. This is why you see huge time splits on climbs like Zoncolon or Angliru, while many riders finish within a minute of the leader on climbs like Morzine. Higher gradient causes riders to use more effort by the nature of gravity. It's simple logic.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Oh, but I agree about your statement that it are the riders who make the climbs tough, I think most here do.

But you now say it yourself, at a same watt/kilo, you don't suffer as much on 5% as on 12%

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

A good example of how riders can define the difficulty of a climb, I think, is the Galibier. At an avg of 5% (that's with the Telegraph descent), never above 10% for more than 100m, this could be a rather easy climb, but if some favorites decide to make ware here, this can be a never ending monster...

 

[rokopt]

Very often you see people argue that a certain climb is especially tough cause it has a very high gradient.
Especially in Giro vs Tour discussions many often argue that the Giro has the the tougher route, cuase the mountains in the Giro have usually a hogher gradient then does in the Tour.
However, inrality, at least for pro riders, it does not matter what gardient a climb has, The garadient of a climb does not determine how tough it is!
The only thing which determines the difficulty of a climb is how hard the cyclists ride.
If a cyclist rides at 6 watt/Kilo on a 5 % gardient, it is exactly as tough as if he rides at 6 Watt/Kilo on a 12%gradient. If a cyclist rides at 6 watt/Kilo on a 2 % gardient, and on 5 Watt/Kilo on a 15 % gardient, the 2 % mountain is actually tougher. The gradient of a climb simply does not determine the difficulty at all! It's how cyclists ride those mountains, that's what determinates the toughness of a climb! So please stop crying about how difficult a climb is because of the gradient. The gradient doesn't mean anything!

It may be true that, for a given rider, it is no harder to put out, say, 400W on a 10% gradient than it is to put out 400W on a 5% gradient. And it may follow from that that to complete a time trial that takes you, say, 30 minutes going all out on a constant 10% gradient is no harder than to complete than a 30-minute time trial going all out on a constant 5% gradient, or even on a constant flat. In short, it may be true that the difficulty of a stretch of road is determined by how hard the rider rides it.

However, even if we accept those propositions, it does not follow that, in a race with non-constant gradients, the higher gradients won't be harder. In fact, I would say that they almost certainly will. The reason is that -- in reference to your statement that "it's how cyclists ride" -- optimal race strategy dictates that you should ride the higher gradients harder, at least if you want to win! This appears to be both predicted by theoretical models (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17497402) and shown by experiment (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21165802).

Trying to determine whether professionals actually do that, I searched for SRM data for time trials including both flat sections and climbs. Here was the first thing I've found:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2009...-power-data-from-the-solvang-time-trial_88344

Note that Larsson says something in the article that clearly reveals that he agrees that variable pacing is optimal: "I tried to hold to 480-490 watts all on the flat and then tried for 540 watts on the hill". The article's analysis of the power data suggests that he did exactly that: "When we look at his power file, notice how quickly he gets right to his threshold power, only about 2 minutes above his threshold and then right to 480-490 watts. For Gustav, at 480 watts, this is equal to 6.0w/kg, which is definitely the magic number.... He does an excellent job of pacing himself along the flats to Ballard Canyon. Once he gets there, he pushed hard at 542 watts average over the hill...".

Of course, that's only one piece of professional data -- maybe others can find more that either supports or contradicts this proposition. But all the evidence I've found so far seems to suggest that, while it's the power you put out that makes riding hard, optimal race strategy requires you, during a race with varying gradients, to put out more power uphill than on the flats, and more power over steeper uphill gradients than over shallower ones. Therefore, in an actual race with varying gradients, the steeper uphill gradients _are_ harder than the shallower ones.

Does that sound right?

 

[rhubroma]

Let's for the sake of argument say that a rider can go full throttle for the full length of any climb.

He goes full throttle on a 12 km climb at 5%.
He goes full throttle on a 12 km climb at 12%.

You can agree with me that the 12% climb will take longer.
And so the rider went full throttle for a longer period of time on the 12% climb.
And so he spent more energy, and so he is more tired at the end of it.
And so the rider will say that the 12% climb is tougher than the 5% climb.

This is an interesting debate. As far as I can tell, however, when going full throttle as they say one must also consider such factors as distance and time and thus the length of time one can sustain a certain effort/work load.

Is it thus possible that going 20 minutes all out say on a 5% grade is not possible on a 12% incline? Or is it that it's the same thing only, given the same lenght of time of the effort, you go farther on a 5% grade than you do on a 12% as would logically be the case? Because the speed is higher on the one and lower on the other.

It would therefore seem full throttle feels the same on either gradient, though one must consider both the length of the climb and its steepness to be able to properly gauge and dose one's effort.

In fact, as I recall, going all out didn't feel any better on a less steep climb than it did on a more steep one. In this sense the suffering is the same. However, if you can only go so hard for so long, then obviously you better hold back something on a steeper climb in the beginning if you don't want to blow before reaching the top.

In this case the gradient doesn't matter only the sustainability of effort, which is directly related to time and distance.

In theory anyway.

PS: Although, as it was already pointed out, drafting will come into play on a not very steep climb, though this means that where one benefits from a draft, provided we are talking about riders of equal strenght, that rider isn't really going full throttle at all as the guy at the front is. Where draft doesn't come into play on a steeper climb and given the same strenght factor, then it won't make a difference being at the front or sitting behind.

 

[Special_oz_ed]

Putting the same effort into pedding rubbish - it's still rubbish

Bavarian,

Ok interesting point. However, still if Cancellara rides at 100% on a 5% gradient he suffers as much as when he rides 100% on a 12%. He might not prduce the same watt/Kilo but his effort his still the same. So again, it are the riders who make the climbs togh. Of course the steeper a climb themore it favors the light weights. But that does not eman that the climb is actualy "harder" How tough a climb is, purelx depends on the riders effort.

Ah, yes and NO!!!!!!

Effort is related to heart rate, power output, and TIME!!!! Let's use two examples: 3km flat out on straight 0% gradient road at 6 watt/kg. Say that power for Cancellara generates 60km/hr (for ease of calculation). The EFFORT is only 3 minutes long! (at 60km/hr it takes 1 minute to cover 1km)

Now, on a 3km 12% climb - let's say (again for ease of calculation) that 6 watt/kg generates 20km/hr for Contador. Here's the killer: Contador has to sustain his 6 watt/hr for 9 minutes - three times LONGER than Cancellara on the flat to cover the same distance.

That's why hills suck more than the flat. We all know it without the physics. Now we know it with the physics. So, time to move on.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Bavarian,



Ah, yes and NO!!!!!!

Effort is related to heart rate, power output, and TIME!!!! Let's use two examples: 3km flat out on straight 0% gradient road at 6 watt/kg. Say that power for Cancellara generates 60km/hr (for ease of calculation). The EFFORT is only 3 minutes long! (at 60km/hr it takes 1 minute to cover 1km)

Now, on a 3km 12% climb - let's say (again for ease of calculation) that 6 watt/kg generates 20km/hr for Contador. Here's the killer: Contador has to sustain his 6 watt/hr for 9 minutes - three times LONGER than Cancellara on the flat to cover the same distance.

That's why hills suck more than the flat. We all know it without the physics. Now we know it with the physics. So, time to move on.

Of course time is crucial. Minutes * Effort = Difficulty

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Remember Bavarianrider also stated that because a heavier rider requires less work to reach the same w/kg climbing actually benefits the heavier riders.

From a purely base standpoint that ignores external factors, Bavarianrider may be correct. However, factors like gravity, and also highly importantly, inertia (which will be greater trying to accelerate at a 12% grade than a 5% grade, partly because of that gravity and partly because of a lower starting velocity), stand against it. It may work in a vacuum in a mountain time trial, but when riders are against each other and factors like altitude, tactics and gravity start to rear their heads it falls apart.

We need to consider climbs of comparable level - comparing a 10km climb at 5% and a 10km climb at 10% won't do. The climb at 10% in this instance is undoubtedly harder because regardless of the wattage output, you're climbing twice as far in the same distance, and thus it will take longer to do.

Now, a 10km climb at 5% vs. a 5km climb at 10% may be more comparable because at the same power output you would expect it to take a comparable time to complete.

So it's not just "how you race" that makes Zoncolán tougher than Montevergine. Zoncolán involves more vertical climbing, at a tougher average gradient, and with more alterations in gradient making it more difficult to find a rhythm.

 

[Special_oz_ed]

It's all so obvious

Bavarian,

Of course time is crucial. Minutes * Effort = Difficulty

Ah, yes, I'm aware that time is crucial (that's why I raised it). BUT this is what makes mountains harder than flat stages. It requires EVERYONE in the peloton to expend lots of energy over longer periods of time - EVERYONE in the peloton has gravity working against them. As opposed to wind resistance/draughting on the flats - where wind resistance can be cut down by 30% - you can't cut down the role of gravity! You simply don't get much benefit draughting behind riders at 20km/hr or less. Further, with the forces working against you down the slope, and then the issues of cadence, muscle fatigue etc etc it is simply harder to climb than to ride on the flat.

No amount of 6 watt/kg on flat vs 6 watt/kg on climb = same difficulty will do away with that fact. Simple physics.

 

[benpounder]

Also quality of surface comes into it. Finestre has the dirt surface, same as Kronplatz. Makes it hard to grip and gain momentum when you're making those turns, harder to ride out of the saddle and attack on.

Additionally...
On a mountain bike, on slickrock, you can climb amazingly steep pitches. But on those pitches, a good rider is acutely in tune with where his center of gravity needs to be. Too far forward, you lose traction; too far backwards, you lose steering. On a climb, you have to use energy to put your body in the right position. But the flats, you can plant your fat ass firmly in the saddle.

Contrary to the OP's accertation, pitch matters.

 

[rhubroma]

Bavarian,



Ah, yes and NO!!!!!!

Effort is related to heart rate, power output, and TIME!!!! Let's use two examples: 3km flat out on straight 0% gradient road at 6 watt/kg. Say that power for Cancellara generates 60km/hr (for ease of calculation). The EFFORT is only 3 minutes long! (at 60km/hr it takes 1 minute to cover 1km)

Now, on a 3km 12% climb - let's say (again for ease of calculation) that 6 watt/kg generates 20km/hr for Contador. Here's the killer: Contador has to sustain his 6 watt/hr for 9 minutes - three times LONGER than Cancellara on the flat to cover the same distance.

That's why hills suck more than the flat. We all know it without the physics. Now we know it with the physics. So, time to move on.

This was exactly my point, put differently, because in 3 minutes at 6 watt/kg Cancellara covers far more distance (due to the elevated speed obviously), than Contador does at the same power rate relationship going up hill. Although the sufferning will be similar during the same 3 minute interval.

The only variable is that both going on the flat at the same 6 watt/k, probably means Cancellara generates more speed, whereas climbing a mountain all things being equal, Contador is way up the road. Because Cancellara is a drag racer and Conta is a climber.

Thus there is also a human factor, based on ability, class and prowess that is ineffable and can't be relogated to a mere physical analysis.

In reality, therefore, it's the human factor that's most determinant. Suffering is suffering, though, as Marco Pantani responded when asked why he goes so fast up hill: "To shorten my agony."

 

[Pantani_lives]

Then why didn't Cavendish win on the Zoncolan?

My experience is that a kilometer with a gradient of 7% or more is steep enough to make the difference for a climber.

However it's true that the riders make the race. Sometimes you see a spectacular race on a not so tough climb, and sometimes you see a boring race on an extremely tough climb.

 

[Special_oz_ed]

rhubroma,

This was exactly my point, put differently, because in 3 minutes at 6 watt/kg Cancellara covers far more distance (due to the elevated speed obviously), than Contador does at the same power rate relationship going up hill. Although the sufferning will be similar during the same 3 minute interval.

The only variable is that both going on the flat at the same 6 watt/k, probably means Cancellara generates more speed, whereas climbing a mountain all things being equal, Contador is way up the road. Because Cancellara is a drag racer and Conta is a climber.

Suffering is much more complicated than this. It has to do with physiology, with muscle mass, how muscles respond (fast twitch and slow twitch), psychology etc etc. So, yes, there is a 'human factor' (if you mean psychological factor).

In reality, therefore, it's the human factor that's most determinant. Suffering is suffering, though, as Marco Pantani responded when asked why he goes so fast up hill: "To shorten my agony."

No. Going up hill is a simple thing - force down the slope for Cancellara, because of his weight (since Force = mass x acceleration), is going to have much more of an impact than on skinny Contador. Cancellara can ride 6 watts/kg up a hill, but I guarantee you he will not be able to sustain it as long as Contador because of his larger weight and the forces acting against him vs Contador. On the other hand, on the flat, Cancellara will go like a race car, and Contador won't be able to keep up.