The myth about "tough" climbs.

[T_S_A_R]

some people need to get back to high school.

you have two riders of the same weight climbing from sea level to the top to a peak. they are approaching the peak from opposite sides, one on a road with a 5% gradient and one on a road with a 10% gradient.

if both of these riders give the exact same power output they will both reach the peak at the same time. the rider on the 5% road will ride twice as far and at double the average speed of the rider on the 10% road but they will both use the same effort and hit the peak together.

climbing a steeper gradient will tire you out faster in terms of time but when discussing climbing the important factor isn't time but height. a lot of people on this thread are talking about comparing 3k at 5% to 3k at 10% when the real comparison is 6k at 5% to 3k at 10%.

there are obviously other variables such as biomechanics, technique and gearing but if we are only discussing the world's elite climbers they aren't that important.

merckx index in post 87 and rip:30 have explained it excellently, i do not understand how people can still be arguing against them.

 

[Ildabaoth]

some people need to get back to high school.

you have two riders of the same weight climbing from sea level to the top to a peak. they are approaching the peak from opposite sides, one on a road with a 5% gradient and one on a road with a 10% gradient.

if both of these riders give the exact same power output they will both reach the peak at the same time. the rider on the 5% road will ride twice as far and at double the average speed of the rider on the 10% road but they will both use the same effort and hit the peak together.

climbing a steeper gradient will tire you out faster in terms of time but when discussing climbing the important factor isn't time but height. a lot of people on this thread are talking about comparing 3k at 5% to 3k at 10% when the real comparison is 6k at 5% to 3k at 10%.

there are obviously other variables such as biomechanics, technique and gearing but if we are only discussing the world's elite climbers they aren't that important.

merckx index in post 87 and rip:30 have explained it excellently, i do not understand how people can still be arguing against them.

Your first post to tell people to go back to school? Ah, the classical ad ignorantiam trick . Ok, lets suppose both riders are identical. The same power too. One of them would be going faster than the other one. Achieved by having a faster cadence or by using a higher gear, similar cadence. We will discard the first option because that would mean biomechanics wouldbe different (and not negliable, as you claim). So double gearing, same caddence, double speed. Unfortunately, that doesn't relate to double power. Double speed, so quadruple air resistance.

There are quite a few climbing calculators online. For example, this one. Test your experiment there. Twice the distance, half the gradient, same power, to see if calculated time is the same . As you will see, the 10% climb will take as much as 20% less time than the 5% one.

I'd add some more physics explanation, but I have to go back to school.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Excellent! Comparing Mountain ITTs of similar length and with similar entrants:

GIRO D'ITALIA 2007 STAGE 13
Biella - Santuario di Oropa (12,6km @ 5,8%)

1 Marzio Bruseghin (Ita) Lampre - Fondital 28.55
2 Leonardo Piepoli (Ita) Saunier Duval - Prodir 0.01
3 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) Liquigas 0.08
4 David Zabriskie (USA) Team CSC 0.19
5 Franco Pellizotti (Ita) Liquigas 0.22
6 Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Acqua & Sapone - Caffe Mokambo 0.29
7 Evgeni Petrov (Rus) Tinkoff Credit System 0.31
8 Eddy Mazzoleni (Ita) Astana 0.33
9 Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre - Fondital 0.38
10 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team CSC 0.40


GIRO D'ITALIA 2008: STAGE 16
SAN VIGILIO DI MAREBBE - PLAN DE CORONES (KRONPLATZ)(12,9km @ 8,4%)
1 Franco Pellizotti (Ita) Liquigas 40.26 (19.142 km/h)
2 Emanuele Sella (Ita) CSF Group Navigare 0.06
3 Gilberto Simoni (Ita) Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni-Androni Giocattoli 0.17
4 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Astana 0.22
5 Riccardo Riccò (Ita) Saunier Duval - Scott 0.30
6 José Rujano Guillen (Ven) Caisse d'Epargne 0.49
7 Marzio Bruseghin (Ita) Lampre 1.04
8 Domenico Pozzovivo (Ita) CSF Group Navigare 1.43
9 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) LPR Brakes 1.45
10 Denis Menchov (Rus) Rabobank 1.49

The climb is 2,6% steeper on average, which converts to 11.31 longer for the fastest rider to complete.


# of riders within 1 minute
Santuario di Oropa: 12
Kronplatz: 6

# of riders within 2 minutes
Santuario di Oropa: 22
Kronplatz: 12

# of riders within 3 minutes
Santuario di Oropa: 48
Kronplatz: 20

# of riders within 4 minutes
Santuario di Oropa: 87
Kronplatz: 39

# of riders missing the time cut
Santuario di Oropa: 0
Kronplatz: 6

Median completion time
Santuario di Oropa: Steve Zampieri (COF) @ 3.47
Kronplatz: Tiziano dall'Antonia (CSF) @ 5.43

 

[T_S_A_R]

Your first post to tell people to go back to school? Ah, the classical ad ignorantiam trick . Ok, lets suppose both riders are identical. The same power too. One of them would be going faster than the other one. Achieved by having a faster cadence or by using a higher gear, similar cadence. We will discard the first option because that would mean biomechanics wouldbe different (and not negliable, as you claim). So double gearing, same caddence, double speed. Unfortunately, that doesn't relate to double power. Double speed, so quadruple air resistance.

There are quite a few climbing calculators online. For example, this one. Test your experiment there. Twice the distance, half the gradient, same power, to see if calculated time is the same . As you will see, the 10% climb will take as much as 20% less time than the 5% one.

I'd add some more physics explanation, but I have to go back to school.

does that not still fly in the face of the steeper = harder arguments?

 

[Magnus]

Excellent! Comparing Mountain ITTs of similar length and with similar entrants:

Well, for the comparison to be interesting, it should probably be itt's with the same finishing time...

 

[Bavarianrider]

Excellent! Comparing Mountain ITTs of similar length and with similar entrants:

GIRO D'ITALIA 2007 STAGE 13
Biella - Santuario di Oropa (12,6km @ 5,8%)

1 Marzio Bruseghin (Ita) Lampre - Fondital 28.55
2 Leonardo Piepoli (Ita) Saunier Duval - Prodir 0.01
3 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) Liquigas 0.08
4 David Zabriskie (USA) Team CSC 0.19
5 Franco Pellizotti (Ita) Liquigas 0.22
6 Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Acqua & Sapone - Caffe Mokambo 0.29
7 Evgeni Petrov (Rus) Tinkoff Credit System 0.31
8 Eddy Mazzoleni (Ita) Astana 0.33
9 Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre - Fondital 0.38
10 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team CSC 0.40


GIRO D'ITALIA 2008: STAGE 16
SAN VIGILIO DI MAREBBE - PLAN DE CORONES (KRONPLATZ)(12,9km @ 8,4%)
1 Franco Pellizotti (Ita) Liquigas 40.26 (19.142 km/h)
2 Emanuele Sella (Ita) CSF Group Navigare 0.06
3 Gilberto Simoni (Ita) Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni-Androni Giocattoli 0.17
4 Alberto Contador Velasco (Spa) Astana 0.22
5 Riccardo Riccò (Ita) Saunier Duval - Scott 0.30
6 José Rujano Guillen (Ven) Caisse d'Epargne 0.49
7 Marzio Bruseghin (Ita) Lampre 1.04
8 Domenico Pozzovivo (Ita) CSF Group Navigare 1.43
9 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) LPR Brakes 1.45
10 Denis Menchov (Rus) Rabobank 1.49

The climb is 2,6% steeper on average, which converts to 11.31 longer for the fastest rider to complete.


# of riders within 1 minute
Santuario di Oropa: 12
Kronplatz: 6

# of riders within 2 minutes
Santuario di Oropa: 22
Kronplatz: 12

# of riders within 3 minutes
Santuario di Oropa: 48
Kronplatz: 20

# of riders within 4 minutes
Santuario di Oropa: 87
Kronplatz: 39

# of riders missing the time cut
Santuario di Oropa: 0
Kronplatz: 6

Median completion time
Santuario di Oropa: Steve Zampieri (COF) @ 3.47
Kronplatz: Tiziano dall'Antonia (CSF) @ 5.43

Time gaps in the first one are obviously smaller because the total time is much shorter. You have to adjust the overall times of course. I adjust the first time to a 40 minutes climb.

Proportionally adjusted it would look something like this.

1 Marzio Bruseghin (Ita) Lampre - Fondital 40.00 Leonardo Piepoli (Ita) Saunier Duval - Prodir 0.02
3 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) Liquigas 0.011
4 David Zabriskie (USA) Team CSC 0.25
5 Franco Pellizotti (Ita) Liquigas 0.30
6 Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Acqua & Sapone - Caffe Mokambo 0.40
7 Evgeni Petrov (Rus) Tinkoff Credit System 0.45
8 Eddy Mazzoleni (Ita) Astana 0.48
9 Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre - Fondital 0.50
10 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team CSC 0.55

So this already makes it closer to the gaps of the second TT. Furthermore, you have to take into consideration that in TTs usually time gaps don't go up proprtionally with overall time ore miles, but the longer a TT the faster the gaps open up at the last kilometres. So if that TT would have been a 40 TT the gaps surely would have been bigger in reality then those adjusted ones.

 

[jobiwan]

Time gaps in the first one are obviously smaller because the total time is much shorter. You have to adjust the overall times of course. I adjust the first time to a 40 minutes climb.

Proportionally adjusted it would look something like this.

1 Marzio Bruseghin (Ita) Lampre - Fondital 40.00 Leonardo Piepoli (Ita) Saunier Duval - Prodir 0.02
3 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) Liquigas 0.011
4 David Zabriskie (USA) Team CSC 0.25
5 Franco Pellizotti (Ita) Liquigas 0.30
6 Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Acqua & Sapone - Caffe Mokambo 0.40
7 Evgeni Petrov (Rus) Tinkoff Credit System 0.45
8 Eddy Mazzoleni (Ita) Astana 0.48
9 Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre - Fondital 0.50
10 Andy Schleck (Lux) Team CSC 0.55

So this already makes it closer to the gaps of the second TT. Furthermore, you have to take into consideration that in TTs usually time gaps don't go up proprtionally with overall time ore miles, but the longer a TT the faster the gaps open up at the last kilometres. So if that TT would have been a 40 TT the gaps surely would have been bigger in reality then those adjusted ones.

No, time gaps are smaller because the 1st climb is so much easier!!!!!

Climbs of the same length, with different gradients.
The less steep of the 2 produces faster times, and smaller time gaps.
The steeper of the 2 produces slower timers, and larger time gaps.

Ergo, putting 2 and 2 together, you get that the steeper climb is tougher.

This whole thread (especially your first and last posts) is nonsense.

 

[Bavarianrider]

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!

Climbs of the same length, with different gradients.
The less steep of the 2 produces faster times, and smaller time gaps.
The steeper of the 2 produces slower timers, and larger time gaps.

Ergo, putting 2 and 2 together, you get that the steeper climb is tougher.

This whole thread (especially your first and last posts) is nonsense.

I always said mountains that cover the same height!
The less steep produces faste rtmes cause the overall height gain is lower. If the same height would be gained the time gaps would be similar to the Kronplatz time trial

 

[jobiwan]

I always said mountains that cover the same height!
The less steep produces faste rtmes cause the overall height gain is lower. If the same height would be gained the time gaps would be similar to the Kronplatz time trial

But that's not the point you've been making.

You have been saying that the gradient doesn't matter.
You have been saying a 6 km 5% climb is just as hard as a 6 km 8% climb.

From your OP:

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

Libertine compared 2 equal length mountain TT's of different gradients and it showed a tougher difficulty in the steeper climb.
Yet you still don't grasp this simple fact.

Why?

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

That's what I'm wondering as well...

 

[Bavarianrider]

But that's not the point you've been making.

You have been saying that the gradient doesn't matter.
You have been saying a 6 km 5% climb is just as hard as a 6 km 8% climb.

From your OP:

Libertine compared 2 equal length mountain TT's of different gradients and it showed a tougher difficulty in the steeper climb.
Yet you still don't grasp this simple fact.

Why?

No what i said was that a 6%,ountain that covers 1000m on paper is just as tough as a 12% mountain that covers 1000m

Of course you can't compare climbs of equal lenght but of equal covered heights.

 

[T_S_A_R]

to get a true comparison you have to consider mountains of the same height.

in libertine seguros comparison the riders on the 5.8% gradient rise 730m and on the steeper one they rise 1083m. that skews the comparison.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I always said mountains that cover the same height!
The less steep produces faste rtmes cause the overall height gain is lower. If the same height would be gained the time gaps would be similar to the Kronplatz time trial

Mountains covering the same vertical gain will often be comparable in difficulty, yes - but how often do we rate climbs in vertical metres gained? Usually it's % gradient, and length.

Using two climbs of the same gradient, we would say the longer climb is harder.
Using two climbs of the same length, we would say the steeper climb is harder.

Also, this is making the assumption that the climb is consistent throughout, of course. The Alto da Torre is a harder climb from Seia (28,5km @ 5,1%) than from Manteigas (20,3km @ 6,3%), which seems counterintuitive until you realise that from Seia you have bits of descent and false flat, plus ramps up to ca.17% max including about 500m vertical gain at an average of something like 9%.

 

[Bavarianrider]

to get a true comparison you have to consider mountains of the same height.

in libertine seguros comparison the riders on the 5.8% gradient rise 730m and on the steeper one they rise 1083m. that skews the comparison.

Exactly, finally someone who gets it, thanks!

 

[Rip:30]

Mountains covering the same vertical gain will often be comparable in difficulty, yes - but how often do we rate climbs in vertical metres gained? Usually it's % gradient, and length.

Using two climbs of the same gradient, we would say the longer climb is harder.
Using two climbs of the same length, we would say the steeper climb is harder.

Also, this is making the assumption that the climb is consistent throughout, of course. The Alto da Torre is a harder climb from Seia (28,5km @ 5,1%) than from Manteigas (20,3km @ 6,3%), which seems counterintuitive until you realise that from Seia you have bits of descent and false flat, plus ramps up to ca.17% max including about 500m vertical gain at an average of something like 9%.

I think that's the main point, that we should reconsider how climb "toughness" is ranked. % gradient shouldn't automatically mean tougher.

Good point about consistency though. Same goes for saying anything about "average" power. The spikes and troughs are a big part of how power relates to real physiology.

 

[Rip:30]

That's what I'm wondering as well...

Ha. Says the guy that lives below sea level.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

In what world is Limburg beneath sea level?
we're all above sea level here

#rip30 fail

 

[Ildabaoth]

does that not still fly in the face of the steeper = harder arguments?

No, it doesn't. To put it clear: it you climb 1000 meters over 100 km the slope is really really low. You need a lot more energy to do that route than if you climb the same 1000m over 5 km. That because the potential energy differential is the same, but you have quite more losses due to mechanic and aerodinamic issues. That doesn't mean the 100 km route is more difficult, because anybody can ride it, while the 5 km one isn't so reachable. You use a lot of power just to achieve the minimal speed needed to stand on your bike without falling over.

Anyways, comparing difficulty because of the differential height is useless. The trick isn't just the energy required (actually higher for the longer route, same differential). You can lift 300 kg in one weight.If you lift 20 kg 15 times you need the same energy (more precisely, a little more, but anyways) but it is piece of cake. The potential energy is, however, the same. The same thing is about height differential in climbs.

It is pretty rare to see a rider saying that the stage was too hard if it was 200 km long. A shorter one, lets say a 80 km one but with a final 5 km 12% climb will be more commonly described as hard. And the funny fact is that you expend more energy in the former stage.

On the other hand, I do quit. This is pretty pointless. If some people continue to think a climb difficulty isn't related to its slope, let it be.

 

[bobbins]

But which is faster? Red bike or blue bike?

 

[Rip:30]

In what world is Limburg beneath sea level?
we're all above sea level here

#rip30 fail

Give it a decade or two...

J/K.

I seriously hope not.

I've never been, but hoping to make a trip someday soon

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Ah then we could have an underwater Cauberg finish. Imagine that

 

[robertocarlos]

-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.

standing on the pedals is less efficient than riding on the saddle the fact is that we use more muscles. now some guys like myself might be more efficient than most of their riding buddies while standing but that does not mean that standing is more efficient. i ride a 53/39 combined with a sram 11-26 cassette and i am not able to spin above 77rpm on longer climbs and i only seem able to go between 10-12mph because if i go any slower i feel than i have to labor too much to keep myself upright on my rides to mt baldy.

 

[Rip:30]

Well ya I hear ya, no shame in getting a compact or tipple if it helps you drop your mates I would say.

 

[hmsgenoa]

A question posed to Michael Morkov;

PEZ: Which did you find the hardest climb?
MM: There are too many of them to pick one out!

"But the Zoncolan was very hard; when you go under the ten kilometre banner you still have an hour to ride because you’re going so slow – mentally that’s tough.

I was on 34 x 32 on the Zoncolan but needed it to survive"

Ex world Madison Champion gives a pro's perspective on which climb was the hardest. Zoncolan? That's the steep one isn't it?

 

[lancaster]

which is harder

100km @ 1%

or

95km @ 0% and 5km @ 20%


same altitude gain, same length of road.

the 2nd would be brutal enough to put minutes into most of a pro field, the 1st would likely be a bunch gallop with few losing time.