The myth about "tough" climbs.

[robertocarlos]

even if we can do 6watts per kilo on different gradients wouldn't our position change and therefore we might put more effort on our systems just to hold the same wattage. on top of that there are some elevation to be made on stepeer climbs therefore riders body's have less oxygen to work with. the fact is that cadence drops for 95% of the riders make a difference to. think about a weightlifter trying to bench press 300 pounds 10 times and trying to lift 400 pounds 5 times but doing it slow. what is going to hurt more? if we change and do the 300pound set on an inclined bench what would it be? why is it that i can lift more weight while in a leg press machine than doing a squat with free weights.

 

[hmsgenoa]

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

No it's not mind bending. It didn't bend my mind and it won't.

Do you find this mind bending; on a steeper climb, the closer to vertical you get you will hit your maximum heart rate earlier, therefore the climb is tougher?

 

[hmsgenoa]

even if we can do 6watts per kilo on different gradients wouldn't our position change and therefore we might put more effort on our systems just to hold the same wattage. on top of that there are some elevation to be made on stepeer climbs therefore riders body's have less oxygen to work with. the fact is that cadence drops for 95% of the riders make a difference to. think about a weightlifter trying to bench press 300 pounds 10 times and trying to lift 400 pounds 5 times but doing it slow. what is going to hurt more? if we change and do the 300pound set on an inclined bench what would it be? why is it that i can lift more weight while in a leg press machine than doing a squat with free weights.

At last! Someone bringing some common sense to the table!

 

[Skip Madness]

I wish people would cut out all this scientific and mathematical reasoning for two principal reasons: (1) I'm not good at understanding it; and (2) just watch some races. Steep climbs cause more riders to suffer harder on them. The top performers going all out on the Mortirolo creates bigger gaps than the same thing happening on the Lunada, despite their similar height gain.

There is something to be said for the concept in the opening post, because I never get bored of hearing amateurs saying, "I've ridden the Ventoux, the Galibier and Alpe d'Huez and none of them comes close to Hardknott Pass/Rosedale Chimney Bank/Porlock Hill/other similar British climb", not realising that although it's possible to get up Alpe d'Huez comparatively comfortably in the granny, it's much harder in competition because there's a greater capacity for the top riders to make other riders suffer. But there's also a greater capacity in say, the Pan do Zarco side of Ancares than Alpe d'Huez.

In general, if you have two MTFs with climbs with identical height gain but one is twice as steep as half as long, the steeper one will do more damage. The gradient does matter. Watch some races and see for yourself.

You are all now welcome to reintroduce science and mathematics into the thread.

 

[Rip:30]

even if we can do 6watts per kilo on different gradients wouldn't our position change and therefore we might put more effort on our systems just to hold the same wattage. on top of that there are some elevation to be made on stepeer climbs therefore riders body's have less oxygen to work with. the fact is that cadence drops for 95% of the riders make a difference to. think about a weightlifter trying to bench press 300 pounds 10 times and trying to lift 400 pounds 5 times but doing it slow. what is going to hurt more? if we change and do the 300pound set on an inclined bench what would it be? why is it that i can lift more weight while in a leg press machine than doing a squat with free weights.

-if you train in a position enough you will become accustomed to it. many people here where I live are the opposite of what you describe. they are actually more efficient on steep climbs than shallow or flat. why, b/c we ride climbs most of the time.

-not all steep climbs are at a higher elevation. that's a completely different variable.

-cadence doesn't have to drop if you have the right gearing. most road bikes aren't set up for steep climbing (39x21). try the right gear ratio and you won't be out of the saddle at max pace automatically.

 

[Rip:30]

No it's not mind bending. It didn't bend my mind and it won't.

Do you find this mind bending; on a steeper climb, the closer to vertical you get you will hit your maximum heart rate earlier, therefore the climb is tougher?

what? who said anything about max hr? we're talking about using the same physiological effort on different types of terrian

just because you can't spin up a 12% climb sub-max rate dosen't mean others can't.

 

[Lanark]

I wish people would cut out all this scientific and mathematical reasoning for two principal reasons: (1) I'm not good at understanding it; and (2) just watch some races. Steep climbs cause more riders to suffer harder on them. The top performers going all out on the Mortirolo creates bigger gaps than the same thing happening on the Lunada, despite their similar height gain.

There is something to be said for the concept in the opening post, because I never get bored of hearing amateurs saying, "I've ridden the Ventoux, the Galibier and Alpe d'Huez and none of them comes close to Hardknott Pass/Rosedale Chimney Bank/Porlock Hill/other similar British climb", not realising that although it's possible to get up Alpe d'Huez comparatively comfortably in the granny, it's much harder in competition because there's a greater capacity for the top riders to make other riders suffer. But there's also a greater capacity in say, the Pan do Zarco side of Ancares than Alpe d'Huez.

In general, if you have two MTFs with climbs with identical height gain but one is twice as steep as half as long, the steeper one will do more damage. The gradient does matter. Watch some races and see for yourself.

You are all now welcome to reintroduce science and mathematics into the thread.

Yep, just look at last year's Big Bear Lake stage in the Tour of California. According to a couple of riders who did it, it was one of the hardest stages they ever did, and I'm sure it was, but the gradients were so lowthat all the favorites finished in the same group.

 

[hmsgenoa]

what? who said anything about max hr? we're talking about using the same physiological effort on different types of terrian

just because you can't spin up a 12% climb sub-max rate dosen't mean others can't.

Ha!

But seriously RIP30 stop burying your head in the sand. We aren't talking about me are we?

I used to ride end of season hill climbs and held the record up one climb (1986!). Funnily enough the toughest races were up the steepest climbs. My times in a couple of events weren't far short of Chris Lillywhite's, a former winner of The Milk Race (Tour of Britain). The year he won it he also won the prologue up Law Hill Edinburgh. Occasionally I was sick with the effort after a hillclimb, the only races I was sick after, despite warming up properly. I used to train by alternately riding all the way up a steep hill in the saddle, and then up all the way out of the saddle. When racing, assuming it was a short hill I'd ride up until it felt my thighs were about to bust the seams of my shorts and then I'd get out of the saddle and try and race all the way to the line out of the saddle (the bike goes backwards when you sit back down). On hills up to 10/12% I'd use 66", on steeper hills with 20% sections I'd use 53/54". I'm talking about 3-5 min climbs but the same universal law applies, its called gravity. I expect I wouldn't be sub max heart rate now, as I wasn't then during those rides. Can you enlighten us with your racing experiences up different climbs, were the shallower ones harder?

That's all from me folks this has been a very daft discussion!

 

[Rip:30]

Ha!

But seriously RIP30 stop burying your head in the sand. We aren't talking about me are we?

Can you enlighten us with your racing experiences up different climbs, were the shallower ones harder?

That's all from me folks this has been a very daft discussion!

Out of the the hundreds of road and off-road climbing races I've done, the Mount Evans Hill Climb stands out a one of my favorite courses. I put in a few sub 2 hour times.

But yes some of the hardest efforts I've put in were on nearly flat roads either due to stupid gutter fests or epic TT motivation on crappy aero equipment. I did a 50 something mile TTT once for collegiate nationals. Flat a pancake. 4 person team. Came through the half way time check tied for 3rd. Just after that, my team mate behind me touched my rear wheel and crashed hard. Then one of my aerobars came loose a few minutes after we regrouped. Still finished 4th but I had diarrhea and a head ache for the next day.

Some of the most intense moments on the bike have been in US pro short track xc races that were flat. I would imagine something like a pursuit on the track is pretty intense despite not climbing at all.

Pretty obvious the riders determine the difficulty of the pace on any given terrain, although yea with more incline the minimum effort to keep moving forward goes up.

 

[Rip:30]

I wish people would cut out all this scientific and mathematical reasoning for two principal reasons: (1) I'm not good at understanding it; and (2) just watch some races. Steep climbs cause more riders to suffer harder on them. The top performers going all out on the Mortirolo creates bigger gaps than the same thing happening on the Lunada, despite their similar height gain.

There is something to be said for the concept in the opening post, because I never get bored of hearing amateurs saying, "I've ridden the Ventoux, the Galibier and Alpe d'Huez and none of them comes close to Hardknott Pass/Rosedale Chimney Bank/Porlock Hill/other similar British climb", not realising that although it's possible to get up Alpe d'Huez comparatively comfortably in the granny, it's much harder in competition because there's a greater capacity for the top riders to make other riders suffer. But there's also a greater capacity in say, the Pan do Zarco side of Ancares than Alpe d'Huez.

In general, if you have two MTFs with climbs with identical height gain but one is twice as steep as half as long, the steeper one will do more damage. The gradient does matter. Watch some races and see for yourself.

You are all now welcome to reintroduce science and mathematics into the thread.

As was mentioned earlier, I don't think the bigger gaps are because of more "difficulty". It's just that the speeds are slower so there's a reduction in the benefit of drafting.

My personal experience as more of diesel type climber is that it's sometimes easier to ride your own pace than pace behind some some fly weight dude who's punching it every switch back.

 

[Bavarianrider]

I wish people would cut out all this scientific and mathematical reasoning for two principal reasons: (1) I'm not good at understanding it; and (2) just watch some races. Steep climbs cause more riders to suffer harder on them. The top performers going all out on the Mortirolo creates bigger gaps than the same thing happening on the Lunada, despite their similar height gain.

There is something to be said for the concept in the opening post, because I never get bored of hearing amateurs saying, "I've ridden the Ventoux, the Galibier and Alpe d'Huez and none of them comes close to Hardknott Pass/Rosedale Chimney Bank/Porlock Hill/other similar British climb", not realising that although it's possible to get up Alpe d'Huez comparatively comfortably in the granny, it's much harder in competition because there's a greater capacity for the top riders to make other riders suffer. But there's also a greater capacity in say, the Pan do Zarco side of Ancares than Alpe d'Huez.

In general, if you have two MTFs with climbs with identical height gain but one is twice as steep as half as long, the steeper one will do more damage. The gradient does matter. Watch some races and see for yourself.

You are all now welcome to reintroduce science and mathematics into the thread.

I wouldn't agree on that. Often you get bigger time gaps on a 8% mountain with with 1000 gain then on a 12% mountain.

 

[Lanark]

I wouldn't agree on that. Often you get bigger time gaps on a 8% mountain with with 1000 gain then on a 12% mountain.

'Often'? Is there even a mountain outside of the Zoncolan that's 12%? Your argument is based on three Zoncolan climbs (all of which had pretty huge gaps)?

 

[Bavarianrider]

'Often'? Is there even a mountain outside of the Zoncolan that's 12%? Your argument is based on three Zoncolan climbs (all of which had pretty huge gaps)?

Zoncolan 2007
1. Gilberto Simoni (ITA) - Saunier Duval 3h:51:22 2. Leonardo Piepoli (ITA) - Saunier Duval gl.Zeit 3. Andy Schleck (LUX) - Team CSC +0:07 4. Danilo di Luca (ITA) - Liquigas +0:31 5. Damiano Cunego (ITA) - Lampre-Fondital +0:37 6. Massimo Codol (ITA) - Acqua & Sapone +0:58 7. Julio Perez Cuapio (MEX) - Ceramica Panria +1:19 8. Franco Pellizotti (ITA) - Liquigas +1:40 9. Marzio Bruseghin (ITA) - Lampre-Fondital +1:5710. Ivan Parra (COL) - Cofidis +2:02


Compare this to 2007 Hautacam

1. Alberto Contador (ESP) - Discovery Channel 5h25:48 2. Michael Rasmussen (DEN) - Rabobank gl.Zeit 3. Mauricio Soler (COL) - Barloworld +0:37 4. Levi Leipheimer (USA) - Discovery Channel +0:40 5. Carlos Sastre (ESP) - Team CSC +0:53 6. Andreas Klöden (GER) - Astana Team +1:52 7. Cadel Evans (AUS) - Predictor-Lotto gl.Zeit 8. Antonio Colom (KAZ) - Astana Team +2:23 9. Andrej Kaschetschkin (KAZ) - Astana Team gl.Zeit10. Jaroslaw Popowitsch (UKR) - Discovery Channel +3:06

Zoncolan is way steeper but gaps are pretty similar

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

*facepalm*

Comparing a race with Contador and super-Rasmussen with a race with simoni and Piepoli and a very very young Andy Schleck

*facepalm*

It's not that hard to explain, lower speeds lead to bigger time gaps, steeper climbs have lower speeds...

 

[Bavarianrider]

*facepalm*

Comparing a race with Contador and super-Rasmussen with a race with simoni and Piepoli and a very very young Andy Schleck

*facepalm*

It's not that hard to explain, lower speeds lead to bigger time gaps, steeper climbs have lower speeds...

Lower speeds only leed to bigger gaps whwn the total amount of climbing time is bigger. Climbing 40 minutes on 10% and climbing 40minutes on 8% will give you similar gaps.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

So it's a bad comparison

You need climbs of same length and then different steepness. The steeper ones always leed to bigger gaps.

 

[hmsgenoa]

I wouldn't agree on that. Often you get bigger time gaps on a 8% mountain with with 1000 gain then on a 12% mountain.

I thought I'd finished here, but not quite.

That's because the mountain has brought most of the riders to their limit, by virtue of its toughness and, at their maximum h/rate and similiar abilities, they are finishing closer together. It does not mean that the terrain isn't tougher, just that it is a 'leveller' limiting them.

 

[hmsgenoa]

Out of the the hundreds of road and off-road climbing races I've done, the Mount Evans Hill Climb stands out a one of my favorite courses. I put in a few sub 2 hour times.

But yes some of the hardest efforts I've put in were on nearly flat roads either due to stupid gutter fests or epic TT motivation on crappy aero equipment. I did a 50 something mile TTT once for collegiate nationals. Flat a pancake. 4 person team. Came through the half way time check tied for 3rd. Just after that, my team mate behind me touched my rear wheel and crashed hard. Then one of my aerobars came loose a few minutes after we regrouped. Still finished 4th but I had diarrhea and a head ache for the next day.

Some of the most intense moments on the bike have been in US pro short track xc races that were flat. I would imagine something like a pursuit on the track is pretty intense despite not climbing at all.

Pretty obvious the riders determine the difficulty of the pace on any given terrain, although yea with more incline the minimum effort to keep moving forward goes up.

You're lucky to have some big hills there!

And you are right about efforts on the track, but I detect with the last line you are coming round to my way of thinking!

Don't ever blame the equipment - as Fabian says "I'd beat them on a steel bike!".

Shame you are on that side of the water and I'm unfit and got family considerations! If you fancy it I'm hoping to get out to the Tour to watch the stage that goes over the Col D'Agnel, now that will be a monster climb to test our theories out. Chances are I'd have to wave goodbye before hlf way and you'd be descending before I got to the top (in my current state!).

 

[Lanark]

Zoncolan 2007
1. Gilberto Simoni (ITA) - Saunier Duval 3h:51:22 2. Leonardo Piepoli (ITA) - Saunier Duval gl.Zeit 3. Andy Schleck (LUX) - Team CSC +0:07 4. Danilo di Luca (ITA) - Liquigas +0:31 5. Damiano Cunego (ITA) - Lampre-Fondital +0:37 6. Massimo Codol (ITA) - Acqua & Sapone +0:58 7. Julio Perez Cuapio (MEX) - Ceramica Panria +1:19 8. Franco Pellizotti (ITA) - Liquigas +1:40 9. Marzio Bruseghin (ITA) - Lampre-Fondital +1:5710. Ivan Parra (COL) - Cofidis +2:02


Compare this to 2007 Hautacam

1. Alberto Contador (ESP) - Discovery Channel 5h25:48 2. Michael Rasmussen (DEN) - Rabobank gl.Zeit 3. Mauricio Soler (COL) - Barloworld +0:37 4. Levi Leipheimer (USA) - Discovery Channel +0:40 5. Carlos Sastre (ESP) - Team CSC +0:53 6. Andreas Klöden (GER) - Astana Team +1:52 7. Cadel Evans (AUS) - Predictor-Lotto gl.Zeit 8. Antonio Colom (KAZ) - Astana Team +2:23 9. Andrej Kaschetschkin (KAZ) - Astana Team gl.Zeit10. Jaroslaw Popowitsch (UKR) - Discovery Channel +3:06

Zoncolan is way steeper but gaps are pretty similar

To be honest, I find it quite funny that you had to compare the differences on the Zoncolan to Plateau de Beille (not Hautacam as you claim), which is pretty much the toughest mountain they do in the Tour, but I guess you won't see the irony in that. Why didn't you compare it to Tignes from that same year? Or compare last year's Zoncolan climb to Morzine Avoriaz in the Tour?

A better comparison would be to compare steep to less steep climbs within the same race, because you would more likely have similar competitors and tactics (so you're not comparing a couple of Saunier Duval dudes who had nothing to win apart from a stage with Contador and Rasmussen who were flying up the mountains). Why don't you compare the 2010 Zoncolan climb with the climb to Terminilo, or this year's Zoncolan climb with the Etna, and then get back to me.

 

[Bavarianrider]

To be honest, I find it quite funny that you had to compare the differences on the Zoncolan to Plateau de Beille (not Hautacam as you claim), which is pretty much the toughest mountain they do in the Tour, but I guess you won't see the irony in that. Why didn't you compare it to Tignes from that same year? Or compare last year's Zoncolan climb to Morzine Avoriaz in the Tour?

A better comparison would be to compare steep to less steep climbs within the same race, because you would more likely have similar competitors and tactics (so you're not comparing a couple of Saunier Duval dudes who had nothing to win apart from a stage with Contador and Rasmussen who were flying up the mountains). Why don't you compare the 2010 Zoncolan climb with the climb to Terminilo, or this year's Zoncolan climb with the Etna, and then get back to me.

Obviously the problem here is slipstreaming. Meaning that riders in the slipstream don't have to ride at 100%. It's more a matter of how this mountains are raced then a question of the mountain itself. However. Make a Mountain TT on a 5% gradient with 1000m gain and on a 12% Mountain with 100m gain. Time differences won't be bigger on the 12% mountain.

 

[Ildabaoth]

Funny thing is Bavarianrider says that it doesn't matter the gradient but at the same time he claims Tony Martin is top 15 in not so steep climbs. If the former was true, Tony Martin would be top 15 in steeper climbs too.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Funny thing is Bavarianrider says that it doesn't matter the gradient but at the same time he claims Tony Martin is top 15 in not so steep climbs. If the former was true, Tony Martin would be top 15 in steeper climbs too.

Hold on, i say that they are not "tougher", but of course the steeper the better for the lightweights. That are two different concepts

 

[Ildabaoth]

Hold on, i say that they are not "tougher", but of course the steeper the better for the lightweights. That are two different concepts

Then why are you trying to compare time gaps between different climbs if you accept steeper ones will favour lighter riders, hence higher time gaps? Silly me, you were trying to show the opposite; time gaps would be similar regardless the steepness.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Then why are you trying to compare time gaps between different climbs if you accept steeper ones will favour lighter riders, hence higher time gaps? Silly me, you were trying to show the opposite; time gaps would be similar regardless the steepness.

Time gaps are similar, they are spread in a different way. Super light weights who are better on steep climb drop on the flatter ones. While power guys like Tony move up.
Do a mountain time trail with the same riders in Alpe and on Zoncolan. Gaps will be similar, but different riders will be upfront

 

[saganftw]

"toughness" is subjective opinion...i consider zoncolan easier than flat,because for some odd reason i m way better climber than rouleur