The myth about "tough" climbs.

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I was talking about pro riders

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

So was I, slick. So was I.

 

[Gloin22]

I agree with bavarianrider on this one actually. If I go on climb that is 5% for 5km very hard and try my absolute best and on 10% for 5km I won't be able to hold that rhytm becasue it is tougher, but I will suffer exact same as I did on the 5% one because on that one I am able to give more and ride much faster, but suffering exactly the same.

 

[Arnout]

I agree with bavarianrider on this one actually. If I go on climb that is 5% for 5km very hard and try my absolute best and on 10% for 5km I won't be able to hold that rhytm becasue it is tougher, but I will suffer exact same as I did on the 5% one because on that one I am able to give more and ride much faster, but suffering exactly the same.

Its much easier to take it a bit easier and recover a bit on the 5% though. In the Tour, riders can choose how much they want to suffer on mountains (we have seen Bennati leading 2nd to last mountains in the Alps), whereas a mountain like the Zoncolan will be hard regardless.

 

[lancaster]

I was talking about pro riders

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

which do you think you're more likely to be dropped on if you're having a bad day, or drop others on if you're having a good day?

 

[richwagmn]

One thing that makes the really steep climbs tough is that you run out of gears and end up having to mash, which hurts a lot more than spinning.

The Zoncolan has a kilometre of 19%-odd climbing. Putting in some numbers, even towards the front end of the Giro field, the riders can probably maintain no more than 8-9 km/h.

At that speed, even with a compact crank and a 32 on the back, they're mashing, with a cadence of around 65 RPM.

Trying to maintain near your maximum sustainable wattage while spinning a cadence that slow *hurts like a b*&^*&^. Particularly when you've already been riding for four, five, or six hours, over a big climb or two. Or three hours and a small climb, if you're an overambitious amateur like myself

Bingo. Ride a hill where you can pedal at a reasonably quick pace and one where you have to grind and your cadence slows dramatically. Big difference in effort.

Some of the riders, like AC, were riding some pretty small gears and could maintain a good cadence. Watching others it was clear they were out of their normal RPM range and really suffering.

 

[Special_oz_ed]

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.

Exactly. Take this example 20% gradient vs 60% gradient for someone who weighs 65kg and 8kg bike (73kg in total).

60% gradient - force acting on you down the slope = 367 Newtons of force down the slope.

20% gradient - force down slope = 136.5 Newtons of force down the slope.

So, when we account for gearing of the sprocket and chainring, there will of course be a threshhold where, no matter if you use a 34T on front and back (i.e., a 1:1 gearing ratio), it'll still be impossible to ride up.

 

[Kwibus]

This is one of the silliest posts I've read here.

 

[hmsgenoa]

The only way that Bavarian riders post could be correct would be if he were talking about covering the different gradient climbs at the same speed.

The steeper a climb the sooner threshold heart rate is reached and you are on the limit just to get up the climb let alone match another riders effort or attack.

I just cannot believe all the pseudo scientists that comment on a post like this. Maybe people have just too much money or time on their hands; they think that to ride a bike you need power cranks and heart rate monitors and to know how many watts they are putting out.

Just get out there and ride on 'feel'.

I guarantee you one thing - to maintain the same speed up a steeper climb you will be working harder than on a lesser gradient, therefore it is by definition tougher. Hence when climbers such as Contador and Rujano maintain their speed as the gradient steepens the weaker riders drop away.

Remember, when talking about the pros you are not talking about a peloton where all the riders have exactly the same capability and all want to ride up together and stay within their limit. They are not there to stay comfortable and have time to look at the scenery.

 

[Dedelou]

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.

now this is a great armchair cyclist demonstration.. how did cancelara do on the 60 %? and did contador get off the bike before nibali.. or was it the beer that stopped them all and not the slope.. Sometimes intellectual arguments are so removed from the reality of cycling.
Of course all the variables mentioned are a factor in making the one climb harder than another.. most of the points made only confirm that in pro racing all of it comes to bear upon how hard a climb feels for each rider.. including how well they rested the night before. It is never about the numbers on a paper alone. So many things come to play in making a race. So even though I think that the original premice of this thread had an agenda . It still made a point that has some validity only it was a partial point that did not address the totality of the topic: Some steeper climbs may not be harder than some less steep because they are never as long and in the end you run out of climbing faster so end up spending less time on the slope. However we all know that keeping up with the climber will be hell on those steep climbs and I am sure that contador will tell you that keeping up with cancellera on a long flat TT is no fun for him.

 

[Dedelou]

The only way that Bavarian riders post could be correct would be if he were talking about covering the different gradient climbs at the same speed.

The steeper a climb the sooner threshold heart rate is reached and you are on the limit just to get up the climb let alone match another riders effort or attack.

I just cannot believe all the pseudo scientists that comment on a post like this. Maybe people have just too much money or time on their hands; they think that to ride a bike you need power cranks and heart rate monitors and to know how many watts they are putting out.

Just get out there and ride on 'feel'.

I guarantee you one thing - to maintain the same speed up a steeper climb you will be working harder than on a lesser gradient, therefore it is by definition tougher. Hence when climbers such as Contador and Rujano maintain their speed as the gradient steepens the weaker riders drop away.

Remember, when talking about the pros you are not talking about a peloton where all the riders have exactly the same capability and all want to ride up together and stay within their limit. They are not there to stay comfortable and have time to look at the scenery.

let me ask.. How long did it take to ride up the steepest climb we can think off? one hour? two? what exactly. How long it takes tell us how fast they climb it and that brings you back to bavarianrider's point. who you ride against makes it how hard it is going to be for you on the day you ride it.
Same principle will apply to a TT. A long TT at Cancelera's speed will be hell for many.

 

[La Pandera]

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.

No offense, but do you even ride a bike at all?

 

[Merckx index]

BR is approximately right (see below for qualifier) that if riders are going all out, power output will be the same regardless of gradient. It’s important not to compare pack racing here, though, because on the flat or shallow gradient, most riders are drafting and not putting out maximal power, whereas on steep gradients, there is little advantage to drafting. The better comparison would be a mountain time trial vs. a flat time trial. In either event, riders are putting out maximal power, and for every roleur who groans how difficult it is climbing, I think you will find there is a climber who groans how difficult it is to time trial.

There is thread right now in the clinic on the hour record, with the OP asking why there has been no attempt at it recently by the best riders in the world. One reason (not discussed, because the OP seems to want to make this a doping issue) is that time trialing for an hour is brutally difficult. Eddy Merckx reportedly said setting the hour record was the hardest thing he ever did. Why? Because you have to put out maximal power for a sustained length of time, no drafting. It is “easier” to do this climbing, again, because drafting doesn’t help, and because any slacking off has a much more obvious effect on speed than it does in ITT. IOW, climbing by its nature tends to force riders to put out maximal power, whereas flat riding does not. But with motivation, which time trialling provides, one can put out maximal power in either event.

Now for the qualifier. It is actually possible to put out slightly more power on climbs than on the flats. In fact, there is an ideal gradient in which maximal power output is possible. This is reflected in the formula used to convert VAM, or vertical meters climbed, into watts/kg. So climbing all out will require a slightly greater power output than time trialling all out, and climbing some gradients will result in slightly more power than lesser or steeper gradients.

Finally, there is another factor that those of you who insist that climbing "feels" harder are probably referring to: One important difference between a steep gradient and a shallow gradient or flat is cadence. On a steep gradient, riders generally ride at a lower cadence than on the flat (yes, even HWMNBN). This puts more stress on the muscles and less on the heart, and is a major reason why climbing is often perceived as more difficult than riding on the flat. It is harder on the muscles, and since much of the pain from effort comes from lactic acid build-up, it follows that there will be more pain. IOW, pain is not strictly correlated with effort or power.

 

[El Pistolero]

Lol at all the long posts here. Just ride a bike and see what goes easier: a 5% climb or a 15% climb for 3 km.

Facepalm all the way.

 

[Rip:30]

The only way that Bavarian riders post could be correct would be if he were talking about covering the different gradient climbs at the same speed.

The steeper a climb the sooner threshold heart rate is reached and you are on the limit just to get up the climb let alone match another riders effort or attack.

I just cannot believe all the pseudo scientists that comment on a post like this. Maybe people have just too much money or time on their hands; they think that to ride a bike you need power cranks and heart rate monitors and to know how many watts they are putting out.

Just get out there and ride on 'feel'.

I guarantee you one thing - to maintain the same speed up a steeper climb you will be working harder than on a lesser gradient, therefore it is by definition tougher. Hence when climbers such as Contador and Rujano maintain their speed as the gradient steepens the weaker riders drop away.

Remember, when talking about the pros you are not talking about a peloton where all the riders have exactly the same capability and all want to ride up together and stay within their limit. They are not there to stay comfortable and have time to look at the scenery.

No he's talking about different climbs at the same power, so therefore different speeds.

Holy crap people this is some simple physics.

For those that claim, well steep climbs are inefficient or whatever, I might suggest that it's not that the steep climb is harder, it's that you're weaker on steep grades because you probably live in Kansas or Amsterdam and don't spend much time on long sustained steep climbs. You are efficient on terrain that you spend your training time on.

 

[Rip:30]

Lol at all the long posts here. Just ride a bike and see what goes easier: a 5% climb or a 15% climb for 3 km.

Facepalm all the way.

The test is to compare a 5% climb that gains 1k vertical vs a 12% climb that gains 1k vertical. With the right gearing you can maintain not only the exact same power, but also the same torque and cadence.

 

[bobs nob]

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.

When I went to the mountains, I was amazed at what a difference 'just a couple %' means. I could probably ride 5% for a pretty considerable amount of time without it seeming like I was in Hel!. 8% ? Sheeezzuusss. I did 8% in the Blue Ridge Parkway for what went on for miles, like 10 -13 miles, (15-20k) My fat a$$ (and I mean fat compared to some of you sticks) just wanted to roll back down that hill and I was giving it all I had for hours to counteract that extra weight.

I get the impression the OP is in a math class and is just bored with his calculator and the numbers all work out the same so it must mean it must be an equivalent exertion and is perceived similarly.

It is interesting though, to see how some guys do great on certain pitches while others favor steeper or shallower.

I also think the surface of the road has a lot to do with it. Maybe that's a different thread. I like to scope out newly paved country roads. I am quite certain I am far from alone.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

I'm one of those sticks you are talking about, but also pretty tall, which works against me. I always catch a lot of wind. And that doesn't really help let me tell you that.

I do notice though that indeed the tougher it gets in gradient, the better I become, or rather, the worse heavier guys become. On 5% climbs I'm nowhere, others just have far more power.
On 8% climbs it's far less already. And above 10% I really start to notice I suffer less on steep gradients. Ofcourse it's hell, but I'm not that heavy and as long as I spin a light gear I get there. While others seem to go worse and worse the longer that 10% gradient goes.
I ride with a tour group plenty of times and nearly all of them are 70-80kg (so heavier than me). They own me at 5% climbs. At 8% climbs im i'n the middle. At 10% and above I'm nearly always with the best of that group

 

[bobs nob]

I'm one of those sticks you are talking about, but also pretty tall, which works against me. I always catch a lot of wind. And that doesn't really help let me tell you that.

I do notice though that indeed the tougher it gets in gradient, the better I become, or rather, the worse heavier guys become. On 5% climbs I'm nowhere, others just have far more power.
On 8% climbs it's far less already. And above 10% I really start to notice I suffer less on steep gradients. Ofcourse it's hell, but I'm not that heavy and as long as I spin a light gear I get there. While others seem to go worse and worse the longer that 10% gradient goes.
I ride with a tour group plenty of times and nearly all of them are 70-80kg (so heavier than me). They own me at 5% climbs. At 8% climbs im i'n the middle. At 10% and above I'm nearly always with the best of that group

Looks like this thread is grinding to a merciful halt. Proving again that in fact, there is a God.

Se what you mean about the sweet spot in gradients as those with more muscle and weight hit the sweet spot at shallower grades while leaner builds and those more susceptible to the vagaries of wind come into form on the steeper pitch.

As was mentioned earlier, no offense to the OP, but do you actually ride a bike and are there any hills whatsoever in your bicycle travels? Either no clue at all or the next cannibal, I am thinking the former.

My build is entirely illl suited for riding bikes at all, should have played (american) football or boxing.

 

[Rip:30]

Not everyone is automatically in the red zone from a > 5% climb.

Pretty funny how all the non-climbers find this difficult to believe.

 

[hmsgenoa]

let me ask.. How long did it take to ride up the steepest climb we can think off? one hour? two? what exactly. How long it takes tell us how fast they climb it and that brings you back to bavarianrider's point. who you ride against makes it how hard it is going to be for you on the day you ride it.
Same principle will apply to a TT. A long TT at Cancelera's speed will be hell for many.

Claptrap, are we to believe terrain makes no difference at all, that it is only a matter of 'watts' and measuring things as though they were a constant, how an earth anyone could contend that a 1 in 5 were no tougher than a 1 in 10 I just cannot believe. Oh and Cancellara, he'll stay there for quite a while at 5%, 10% but won't be there for long at 20% - are we sure terrain makes no difference?

Don't be silly. If all it were about were simple maths and kingcycle tests etc then Cavendish wouldn't be winning tour stages galore for example (apparently the scientific tests he'd done showed he didin't have much potential). Terrain, think about it........that's why Cancellara wins TT's and Lucien Van Impe won many 'King of The Mountains' (and all without a kingcycle test or SRM in sight). The fact that lighter riders prevail when the going gets steeper should be telling us something. The closer you get to going vertically 'up' the harder it gets ie (once again) - it is tougher. Now tell me about simple physics RIP:30, yes, I have a good basic grasp of them.

 

[Master50]

This might be a good place to put a power output diagram Can anyone model it?
The steeper a clime the more Peaky the power output Really high peaks with flatter mid points a little like Rotor elliptical rings.

Power output changes for different riders and some riders don't generate the same average power at %12 as they might at %7.

Not everyone generates their power the same at every load. and not every bike can carry the complete gear range to ensure the optimal cadence can be maintained

 

[Rip:30]

Claptrap, are we to believe terrain makes no difference at all, that it is only a matter of 'watts' and measuring things as though they were a constant, how an earth anyone could contend that a 1 in 5 were no tougher than a 1 in 10 I just cannot believe. Oh and Cancellara, he'll stay there for quite a while at 5%, 10% but won't be there for long at 20% - are we sure terrain makes no difference?

Don't be silly. If all it were about were simple maths and kingcycle tests etc then Cavendish wouldn't be winning tour stages galore for example (apparently the scientific tests he'd done showed he didin't have much potential). Terrain, think about it........that's why Cancellara wins TT's and Lucien Van Impe won many 'King of The Mountains' (and all without a kingcycle test or SRM in sight). The fact that lighter riders prevail when the going gets steeper should be telling us something. The closer you get to going vertically 'up' the harder it gets ie (once again) - it is tougher. Now tell me about simple physics RIP:30, yes, I have a good basic grasp of them.

totally different phenomena you are talking about. big guys TT better b/c of the relationship between mass and cross sectional surface area, or more specifically about how FTP output vs wind resistance typically scales with mass and xsectional area.

cav is a totally other thing related to the inverse relationship between fast and slow twitch muscle content, plus probably his optimal wind resistance due to super low position.

overall small guys typically climb better because of how VO2max scales with body mass due to bla bla bla....

NONE OF WHICH relates to the OP's topic. So perhaps it's a lack of reading comprehension rather than a physics fail.

 

[Rip:30]

This might be a good place to put a power output diagram Can anyone model it?
The steeper a clime the more Peaky the power output Really high peaks with flatter mid points a little like Rotor elliptical rings.

Power output changes for different riders and some riders don't generate the same average power at %12 as they might at %7.

Not everyone generates their power the same at every load. and not every bike can carry the complete gear range to ensure the optimal cadence can be maintained

That's all true, but if we're going on the OP he's talking about keeping power constant between the different slopes, which is totally possible between 5 and 12 % if you have the right bike setup and training.

 

[hmsgenoa]

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!

totally different phenomena you are talking about. big guys TT better b/c of the relationship between mass and cross sectional surface area, or more specifically about how FTP output vs wind resistance typically scales with mass and xsectional area.

cav is a totally other thing related to the inverse relationship between fast and slow twitch muscle content, plus probably his optimal wind resistance due to super low position.

overall small guys typically climb better because of how VO2max scales with body mass due to bla bla bla....

NONE OF WHICH relates to the OP's topic. So perhaps it's a lack of reading comprehension rather than a physics fail.

I simply mention Cav as an example of how 'scientific' assumptions or calculations do not always apply in the real world. Regarding the statements about Cancellara/tt I am merely responding to someone else's comments and explaining in my own way why I believe all those making calculations are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe there is something wrong with your reading comprehension?

Lets test your comprehension of;

"However, in reality, at least for pro riders, it does not matter what gradient a climb has, The gradient 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."

"The gradient of a climb simply does not determine the difficulty at all! "

"The gradient doesn't mean anything!"

 

[Rip:30]

I simply mention Cav as an example of how 'scientific' assumptions or calculations do not always apply in the real world. Regarding the statements about Cancellara/tt I am merely responding to someone else's comments and explaining in my own way why I believe all those making calculations are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe there is something wrong with your reading comprehension?

Lets test your comprehension of;

"However, in reality, at least for pro riders, it does not matter what gradient a climb has, The gradient 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."

"The gradient of a climb simply does not determine the difficulty at all! "

"The gradient doesn't mean anything!"

Right, he's saying 6 w/kg = 6 w/kg. You can put the same effort out on different gradients. Not that mind bending.