The myth about "tough" climbs.

[AlexRandall]

This post isn't about hills vs flat, but steep vs shallow.

Why do the steep ones effectively require more energy than the shallow (and yes they do, there is no doubting this to anyone who's actually done both)

The point has already partially been covered - gearing. Most roadbikes have suitable gearing for most amateurs up to about 8%. Then you are down to turning the lowest gear increasingly slowly. Most people don't get on well fatigue-wise with low cadence. This is about 10-12% for the pros.

The second is gravity related. As the hill gets steeper your 'dead spot' gets increasingly exposed. Once again with the pros it comes at higher % but its there. The steep will cause more of a HR spike effect as you have to overcome the weak spot that lasts more and more time the slower you cadence gets.

The last point is the physical change in your position on the bike. Steeper pitches require a more hunched and forward position on the seat to keep the KOPS in the same place. This different position is less efficient as the seat is essentially a bit lower, plus your hip flexor angle is higher. The latter inhibits your ability to throw your leg through the dead spot too.

 

[veganrob]

This post isn't about hills vs flat, but steep vs shallow.

Why do the steep ones effectively require more energy than the shallow (and yes they do, there is no doubting this to anyone who's actually done both)

The point has already partially been covered - gearing. Most roadbikes have suitable gearing for most amateurs up to about 8%. Then you are down to turning the lowest gear increasingly slowly. Most people don't get on well fatigue-wise with low cadence. This is about 10-12% for the pros.

The second is gravity related. As the hill gets steeper your 'dead spot' gets increasingly exposed. Once again with the pros it comes at higher % but its there. The steep will cause more of a HR spike effect as you have to overcome the weak spot that lasts more and more time the slower you cadence gets.

The last point is the physical change in your position on the bike. Steeper pitches require a more hunched and forward position on the seat to keep the KOPS in the same place. This different position is less efficient as the seat is essentially a bit lower, plus your hip flexor angle is higher. The latter inhibits your ability to throw your leg through the dead spot too.

Great points about efficiency of pedaling

 

[Descender]

Yet another thread opened by someone who has apparently never ridden a bicycle.

 

[The Hitch]

but i know what bavarianrider is trying to do here. he is juts trying to find a way to say that the tour is much tougher then the giro cus they race sooooooo muuuuuch haaarderrrrrr. ya a 5% climb at the tour is raced so fast that it puts the zoncolan to shame in terms of difficulty.

Possibly. Lets look at a few recent posts.

Why not run it against the Vuelta in Spetember? Vuelta is dead meat anyway.

Sorry but the Giro ís such a crap race.

A few of these have been popping up in Giro race threads too.

Borefest

Now in the OP we get another attack against the Giro, effectively arguing that Morzine Avoriaz is as hard as the Mortirolo, because it is at the Tour rather than the Giro,.

I cant help but feel that this is the TDF defense league upset that so many people like other gts too or TOC public strategies commencing attacks against the real grand tours.

Or maybe Bavarianrider really does believe that riders are more afraid of Col de Saises than Angiliru.

 

[Winterfold]

Yet another thread opened by someone who has apparently never ridden a bicycle.

Or certainly not raced one uphill

It's horrible being snobby on interweb forums but the bike racing expertise from the armchair cyclists on this forum is becoming silly if not yet tiresome.

Brown vs White muscle, cadence, gearing, % of MHR required to keep moving, body position - there are so many reasons.

Some posts are so uninformed you would prefer for it to be a troll...

 

[barn yard]

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!

have you ever raced a bike before?

 

[Magnus]

Can someone explain why it should be harder for me to produce 250 watt at 10% than 5%?

And @ everybody saying steeper is harder because 10 km at 12% takes longer than 10 km at 5%:
Of course it do. But for me (62 kg me + 8 kg bike and stuff) it will be easier to do 500 meters of ascension at 10% than at 5%.
And (again) for me when racing it's easier when it's uphill.

I don't think going full throttle is harder at steeper climbs (as long as I'm in control, when it's (ca) 13%+ it's only about surviving)

 

[rhubroma]

rhubroma,



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).




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.

Which doesn't contradict what I said in any way, because you are talking about pysical characteristics and natural propensity.

Look, I've suffered just as much on a 5% climb as I have on a 12% one. It all depends on how good I was vs. the competition and how well I gauged my effort.

There were times on a relatively low grade when I was over matched that I suffered more, vs a steep grade when I was among the strongest, or the strongest when I suffered strongest less.

End of story.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Can someone explain why it should be harder for me to produce 250 watt at 10% than 5%?

And @ everybody saying steeper is harder because 10 km at 12% takes longer than 10 km at 5%:
Of course it do. But for me (62 kg me + 8 kg bike and stuff) it will be easier to do 500 meters of ascension at 10% than at 5%.
And (again) for me when racing it's easier when it's uphill.

I don't think going full throttle is harder at steeper climbs (as long as I'm in control, when it's (ca) 13%+ it's only about surviving)

It won't be any harder for you to produce 250 watts, but it will be much harder for you to maintain 250 watts when your pace and pedal stroke become choppy due to the gradient.

 

[Winterfold]

Magnus - when the gradient increases then the power output required to keep moving (or stay with the rest of the group) increases - and will be a greater % of MHR.

Every rider will have a % gradient when they have to go into the red just to stay on the bike (or keep up with their rivals) and their cadence will drop so they will use brown muscles which tire more quickly, eventually they pop and out the back they go.

This effect becomes more pronounced the steeper the gradient. I can climb up 11-12% below threshold at 10-12 kmh but once it goes above that, it is only a matter of time before I am pedalling squares

A great example is Basso vs Evans on the Zoncolan last year. Basso appeared to choose a much lower gear ratio (I read 34:29) and could keep his cadence higher using his white endurance muscle and eventually Evans who was mashing a big gear could not keep it up any longer.

This is why Gilbert - who is quite muscular for a cyclist - is so good on short steep, he has more brown muscle and greater anaerobic strength and can ride high in the red for 1-2km - but he does not have the musculature to keep up with eg A Schleck on a 20km climb ridden at a high pace.

Riding a bike is about physiology and biomechanics as much as physics. Bavarianrider's OP is written from only from a newtonian perspective but there is a lot more going on.

 

[Frank Tuesday]

Nevermind.

 

[Bavarianrider]

I learned something new today. The unit of difficulty is the Joule-second. Since a Joule is a Watt-second, difficulty = Power * time^2. So since it takes longer to cover the same distance (assuming identical power output) on a steeper slope, and the difficulty (using your equation) is proportional to the square of the time (or the inverse of the square of the speed), steeper climbs are more difficult.

I had my doubts until you posted that equation, but hey, you can't argue with physics.

It takes longer to cover the same distance on a steeper climb, but it actually takes longer to cover the same height on a flatter one. A 5% mountain which covers 1000m takes longer then a 12% ,ountain. So actually on the flatter one you have to worker longer.

 

[UpTheRoad]

Is it correct to assume that there is a linear progression of effort required to climb steeper grades? I have my doubts.

Suppose we take an extreme comparison -- 60 km of 1% gradient vs. 1 km of 60 % gradient. They should be the same elevation gain, correct? (if not, I have my definition of gradient incorrect, but I can adjust and find a correct comparison).

The 60 km will be a long haul, but everybody in any race should be able to do it. The 1 km climb might not be climbable at all. Why should we consider the two as equal? One is too steep to even ride.

Again, it is an extreme comparison, but if bavarianrider's assertion is true there is a gradient threshold where it breaks down.

 

[hmsgenoa]

Bavarian rider I have never heard so much tosh from anyone in all my life. Quite why you bother to come on here and ask such a daft question, unless you like to make yourself look like a half wit, I do not know. I reckon the only riding you've ever done up 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 climbs has been on the back of a BMW motorbike, if at all.

Speaking of motor driven vehicles you could bet that a car would use more fuel trying to maintain 30mph up 5k of 20% than it would over 10k of 10% - enough said. Once you get beyond 12% a rider is going to need to get out of the saddle and use his whole body to get himself up the climb. You aren't talking about a tourist who has got all day and a 1:1 gear ratio. You aren't talking about riders who have a choice about how quick they get over the course (although the riders in the 'autobus' will be taking it easier than those fighting for the overall) . You are talking about riders of different power to weight ratios trying to match each others change in accelerations.

If your idea had any validity at all we wouldn't have climbers and sprinters - Cavendish or Hushovd would be fighting for the King of The Mountains. Best thing is not to come on here unless you have anything worthwhile to say, I cannot understand people making pointless arguments or statements, you obviously have nothing better to do. Know when you are beaten.

 

[Magnus]

Bavarian rider I have never heard so much tosh from anyone in all my life. Quite why you bother to come on here and ask such a daft question, unless you like to make yourself look like a half wit, I do not know. I reckon the only riding you've ever done up 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 climbs has been on the back of a BMW motorbike, if at all.

Speaking of motor driven vehicles you could bet that a car would use more fuel trying to maintain 30mph up 5k of 20% than it would over 10k of 10% - enough said. Once you get beyond 12% a rider is going to need to get out of the saddle and use his whole body to get himself up the climb. You aren't talking about a tourist who has got all day and a 1:1 gear ratio. You aren't talking about riders who have a choice about how quick they get over the course (although the riders in the 'autobus' will be taking it easier than those fighting for the overall) . You are talking about riders of different power to weight ratios trying to match each others change in accelerations.

If your idea had any validity at all we wouldn't have climbers and sprinters - Cavendish or Hushovd would be fighting for the King of The Mountains. Best thing is not to come on here unless you have anything worthwhile to say, I cannot understand people making pointless arguments or statements, you obviously have nothing better to do. Know when you are beaten.

I think you misunderstood OP. He's talking about watt/kg. So cav and Thor wouldn't be fighting for KOM.

According to bikecalculator.com a cyclist would use less energy doing a 5km 20% climb at 50 km/h (approx 30 miles/hour) than he would doing a 10 km 10 % climb at 50 km/h so I'm guessing you're wrong about the car.

You're also wrong about riders needing to get out of the saddle when the gradient exceed 12%.

 

[liftman]

Makes sense to me...
A 100 meter sprint at 100% effort is exactly as difficult as a 100 mile TT at 100% effort right?

 

[180mmCrank]

I know this kind of conversation is just for fun and (I hope) no one is taking it too seriously!

It's one of those times when I think we are talking about different aspects of the same thing. A climb is classified as harder depending on it's steepness and/or duration. And it does of course typically take more effort to climb a steeper (or longer) gradient.

That is a different question than are some climbs more significant (tougher?) because of their position in a race and/or what is at stake - and riders have to push themselves harder as a result!

We have all seen the same climb (Mt. Ventoux) blow a race apart one year and look like a Sunday club ride another.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It takes longer to cover the same distance on a steeper climb, but it actually takes longer to cover the same height on a flatter one. A 5% mountain which covers 1000m takes longer then a 12% ,ountain. So actually on the flatter one you have to worker longer.

But if you're putting out the same power, you won't be going at the same velocity at a higher gradient, so your argument is a fallacy.

Take a car, and run it in the same gear at the same revs. Drive up a 5% hill, then a 10% hill, and note how the car cannot run at the same speed unless you add more revs or use a different gear.

This is the same, but with humans.

20km @ 5% roughly equals 10km @ 10% in difficulty terms.

 

[hmsgenoa]

I think you misunderstood OP. He's talking about watt/kg. So cav and Thor wouldn't be fighting for KOM.

According to bikecalculator.com a cyclist would use less energy doing a 5km 20% climb at 50 km/h (approx 30 miles/hour) than he would doing a 10 km 10 % climb at 50 km/h so I'm guessing you're wrong about the car.

You're also wrong about riders needing to get out of the saddle when the gradient exceed 12%.

I think this is all a load of baloney, it's just like musicologists arguing about authenticity in music. Use all the scientific calculations you like they body works harder on a steeper climb. I'm telling you a car uses shedloads of fuel when climbing something steep and the average mpg will be more if taken over a steep climb meaning the engine has had to work harder.

As for you rubbishing my comment about riders needing to get out of the saddle above 12% I'm talking about riders racing in tour stages and doing so periodically, burning more calories while they do so and working more of their body than while sat down. Of course a tourist with granny ring can sit down up the whole climb if they wish. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest a climb cannot be tougher because of it's greater gradient just because it doesn't go on as long as another climb that goes on a bit longer.

 

[Climbing]

Well... I don't know why are you people trying to resonate with a trolling post, which in fact is simply saying that the Tour climbs are raced harder than Giro's, so gradients means nothing in the end.

Take a ****ing bike, train hard if you like cycling, and then go and see for yourself before talking nonsense.
I'll assure you that in that case you'll see the differences firsthand.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Well... I don't know why are you people trying to resonate with a trolling post, which in fact is simply saying that the Tour climbs are raced harder than Giro's, so gradients means nothing in the end.

Take a ****ing bike, train hard if you like cycling, and then go and see for yourself before talking nonsense.
I'll assure you that in that case you'll see the differences firsthand.

 

[dgodave]

Climbs are harder when they are a. longer, b. steeper.
.
Pretty much everybody who rides a bike considers that to be true.
.
That said... I find super hard Zoncolan+ climbs a bit dull, as theyre more like mtb races where you just grind your opponent off your wheel rather than attacking... generally.
.

 

[Polyarmour]

Post Deleted

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I say get all the gear you need, Bavarianrider, and go test your hypothesis out.

Let us know the results.

 

[Bavarianrider]

I say get all the gear you need, Bavarianrider, and go test your hypothesis out.

Let us know the results.

I was talking about pro riders

But anyway, if i give it all on 5% i suffer as much as on 15