The myth about "tough" climbs.

[Bavarianrider]

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.

In a time trial obviously the first one is much harder.
Of course slipstreaming effects have to be englected. Therefore 0% mountain is a bad example.

 

[The Hitch]

In a time trial obviously the first one is much harder.

Parulo. Please find me an appropriate Picture caption to go with this quote.

Forget the precceeding 95k, 20% for 5km on its own is harder than 100k at 1%.

 

[Fatclimber]

...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.

I'm sure Contador would say nothing of the sort, considering he's beaten him on several of them.

FUNNY THREAD! Thank you rip30 and tsar, for introducing some logic. 6w/kilo is 6w/kilo. 5% or 15%, as long as they've chosen their gears properly it doesn't matter. That's what the op stated. As someone mentioned, the argument is a result of poor comprehension.

Thanks for the entertainment everyone! Although I had to struggle to get through those last few pages. Many laughs!

 

[indurain666]

Wronngggg

I'm sure Contador would say nothing of the sort, considering he's beaten him on several of them.

FUNNY THREAD! Thank you rip30 and tsar, for introducing some logic. 6w/kilo is 6w/kilo. 5% or 15%, as long as they've chosen their gears properly it doesn't matter. That's what the op stated. As someone mentioned, the argument is a result of poor comprehension.

Thanks for the entertainment everyone! Although I had to struggle to get through those last few pages. Many laughs!

No, no, no,... you and Bavarian are dead wrong and definitely missed 10 grade physics. At lower speeds, the wheels move less and store less moment of inertia, which makes it harder to pedal through the dead points (i.e. 0, 180 degrees). It does not matter if you use a lower gear. Less store kinetic energy in the wheels alos make it harder to overcome rough asphalt. These are not subjective "I think Cancellara is clean" arguments, it is pure physics! You are wrong period

There are many other points, but judging, that you and Bavarian do not understand the basics, no point arguing the biomechanics changes due to steeper grades, but do some reading..

Empirical experience: you and bavarian get a bike and start riding, you will realized its a totally different animal outputting 300 watts on flat terrain and same output on a 5% or 12%

Not only we have to school the non-cyclists, but now we have to educate the non-educate non-cyclists.

 

[Rip:30]

you forgot wind resistance

 

[Rip:30]

you forgot drag = velocity ^2

so it might actually take longer to cover 1000k vert on shallower climb with the same power. longer time at some effort = tougher.

 

[Bavarianrider]

No, no, no,... you and Bavarian are dead wrong and definitely missed 10 grade physics. At lower speeds, the wheels move less and store less moment of inertia, which makes it harder to pedal through the dead points (i.e. 0, 180 degrees). It does not matter if you use a lower gear. Less store kinetic energy in the wheels alos make it harder to overcome rough asphalt. These are not subjective "I think Cancellara is clean" arguments, it is pure physics! You are wrong period

There are many other points, but judging, that you and Bavarian do not understand the basics, no point arguing the biomechanics changes due to steeper grades, but do some reading..

Empirical experience: you and bavarian get a bike and start riding, you will realized its a totally different animal outputting 300 watts on flat terrain and same output on a 5% or 12%

Not only we have to school the non-cyclists, but now we have to educate the non-educate non-cyclists.

It may be harder to do 400 Watts on 12% then on 5%. But again, the effort stays the same. Full throttle ois full throttle. If you give all you got, 5 % is just as difficult as 12%

 

[indurain666]

It may be harder to do 400 Watts on 12% then on 5%. But again, the effort stays the same. Full throttle ois full throttle. If you give all you got, 5 % is just as difficult as 12%

Did you read what I tried to explain to you?

Not necessarily, your power output on a 12% will not be the same than your power output on a 5%, assuming the same heart rate of, for argument's sake, 170 bpm. It will depend on several characteristics such as kinetic energy of wheels and characteristics of riders.

Another example: on a 12% slope the effect of standing up (another factor) has a less aerodynamic impact than when riding 25 kmh on a 5% slope. Different muscles are used, and some people might be more efficient on gentler slopes while some of us are more efficient at 7%. Again, power output is not the same at the same heart rate!

Another example: on a steel slope cooling effect by air on the body is decreased, therefore, your body needs to waste some energy dissipating heat which is deducted from your biomechanic efficiency.

Since I am assuming you didn't understand a single word of the examples I gave you, forget about physics, just go and try it by yourself! cycling is a fun sport...

 

[Bavarianrider]

Did you read what I tried to explain to you?

Not necessarily, your power output on a 12% will not be the same than your power output on a 5%, assuming the same heart rate of, for argument's sake, 170 bpm. It will depend on several characteristics such as kinetic energy of wheels and characteristics of riders.

Another example: on a 12% slope the effect of standing up (another factor) has a less aerodynamic impact than when riding 25 kmh on a 5% slope. Different muscles are used, and some people might be more efficient on gentler slopes while some of us are more efficient at 7%. Again, power output is not the same at the same heart rate!

Another example: on a steel slope cooling effect by air on the body is decreased, therefore, your body needs to waste some energy dissipating heat which is deducted from your biomechanic efficiency.

Since I am assuming you didn't understand a single word of the examples I gave you, forget about physics, just go and try it by yourself! cycling is a fun sport...

 

[Fatclimber]

No, no, no,... you and Bavarian are dead wrong and definitely missed 10 grade physics. At lower speeds, the wheels move less and store less moment of inertia, which makes it harder to pedal through the dead points (i.e. 0, 180 degrees). It does not matter if you use a lower gear. Less store kinetic energy in the wheels alos make it harder to overcome rough asphalt. These are not subjective "I think Cancellara is clean" arguments, it is pure physics! You are wrong period

There are many other points, but judging, that you and Bavarian do not understand the basics, no point arguing the biomechanics changes due to steeper grades, but do some reading..

Empirical experience: you and bavarian get a bike and start riding, you will realized its a totally different animal outputting 300 watts on flat terrain and same output on a 5% or 12%

Not only we have to school the non-cyclists, but now we have to educate the non-educate non-cyclists.

Is that you Hein?

And here I was foolishly thinking that 300 watts equals 300 watts, when as you stated, 300 watts is actually more than 300 watts! Thank you for clearing that up for me.

That's great that wheels have lower inertia at lower speeds, but remember the riders are racing each other, not the mountain. They all have the same circumstances, barring negligible differences.

 

[indurain666]

Is that you Hein?

And here I was foolishly thinking that 300 watts equals 300 watts, when as you stated, 300 watts is actually more than 300 watts! Thank you for clearing that up for me.

That's great that wheels have lower inertia at lower speeds, but remember the riders are racing each other, not the mountain. They all have the same circumstances, barring negligible differences.

Oh dear......I give up.

 

[iZnoGouD]

this thread made my day

 

[indurain666]

Nope, I was just trying to do some charity physics teaching, explaining bit of 10 grade physics to you and Fatclimber so you would stop making fools out of yourselves. But if you two can't grasp the concept, you can't grasp it, period. Internet is a useful tool for information, but does not have the ability to increase peoples' IQ.

Peace

 

[Rip:30]

Did you read what I tried to explain to you?

Not necessarily, your power output on a 12% will not be the same than your power output on a 5%, assuming the same heart rate of, for argument's sake, 170 bpm. It will depend on several characteristics such as kinetic energy of wheels and characteristics of riders.

Another example: on a 12% slope the effect of standing up (another factor) has a less aerodynamic impact than when riding 25 kmh on a 5% slope. Different muscles are used, and some people might be more efficient on gentler slopes while some of us are more efficient at 7%. Again, power output is not the same at the same heart rate!

Another example: on a steel slope cooling effect by air on the body is decreased, therefore, your body needs to waste some energy dissipating heat which is deducted from your biomechanic efficiency.

Since I am assuming you didn't understand a single word of the examples I gave you, forget about physics, just go and try it by yourself! cycling is a fun sport...

Who said anything about hr? We're controlling for that by using power. Read the first post. 6w/kg = 6w/kg.

With inertia, there's also the possibility that less may force you to distribute the workload across more muscles and be more efficient at a given workload (smooth).

Also standing up? We talked about this already. If you have the right set up you can use the same torque and cadence on 5 and 12% climbs.

And yes I have done it so spare the lame "go out and try riding" come back.

 

[Rip:30]

Nope, I was just trying to do some charity physics teaching, explaining bit of 10 grade physics to you and Fatclimber so you would stop making fools out of yourselves. But if you two can't grasp the concept, you can't grasp it, period. Internet is a useful tool for information, but does not have the ability to increase peoples' IQ.

Peace

More like unsolicited charity condescension. Which we already have a enough of thank you very much.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Bavarianrider once tried to argue that being heavier was a benefit to climbing because it required less effort to sustain the same power.

Applying simplistic physics works in a vacuum. But the goalposts have had to be moved again and again in order to make it work.

300w is 300w - but that's a power output. You can reach 300w on 5% and you can reach 300w on 12%. But inertia and gravity make it harder to attain that output from a standing start on the steeper climb. And again, we're assuming a consistent climb that doesn't fall and rise in gradient; momentum makes returning to the optimal output easier at lower gradients. Each time you lose momentum or your rhythm is disturbed, you have to build up to that optimal output again - which is harder on the steeper climb.

Operating in ideal situations, i.e. a mountain ITT on two sides of the same climb with the same height gain, both of which are totally consistent in gradient and in perfect weather conditions, then maybe the 5% side and the 10% side will show little to no difference.

But the real world isn't so perfect in its conditions. Plus, of course, we have the psychological aspect, as quoted above with the Zoncolán, knowing you only have 10km to go, but that you're moving at the speed of tectonic drift making every tiny bit more demoralising because it's taking so long.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Each time you lose momentum or your rhythm is disturbed, you have to build up to that optimal output again
...

===============================================
I think this is the real part of the physics that makes steep hills more difficult.

A steeper climb causes more velocity loss (deceleration due to the gravity vector) between power strokes to the cranks.

In order to maintain a somewhat steady speed the rider must accelerate a little on each power stroke, and the amount of acceleration that is needed increases with the steepness of the climb (because the deceleration due to gravity is more).

These repetitive accelerations require more energy output than if a truly 'constant velocity' could be maintained.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[Rip:30]

Agree with both of you about the difficulty of dealing with acceleration and recovery on steep slopes, but wonder how trainable pedaling technique and pacing are with more practice on that terrain.

Potential for some simple but interesting biomechanical/physiological studies perhaps.

 

[hmsgenoa]

I couldn't help thinking about this thread when I read this;

The Giro had a profound effect on Kennaugh, especially the two toughest legs. "The Zoncolan and Gardeccia stages, they changed me as a person and as a bike rider," he said. 



"They're not normal climbs. To experience that... you can't do those things in training, you can't get that pain and suffering tolerance anywhere else. It just gives you that little bit extra for races."

 

[The Hitch]

Good to hear that from Kennaugh.

Stage 14 should have changed people a lot more than it did.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

If you see how riders did who came from the Giro, for example Rodriguez in the Dauphine and Kruijswijk in Suisse, you can see they became really strong

 

[auscyclefan94]

We need mountains, cause on the flat riders can just hang in the slipstream.
But Zoncolan is not a tougher climb then 7% gradient mountain. The toughness of a climb is deremianted by the time a cyclist rides at a certain power level. Not by the gradient.
Surface doesnt matter too. It's simply about the power level. Of course if a rider can safe energy in the slipstream, then the climb gtes easier.
But the difficulty of a climb is a purely subjctive isue.

I have never heard so much rubbish in my life.

 

[Bavarianrider]

I have never heard so much rubbish in my life.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Your arguments are completely illogical. Face it!!!!

 

[Bavarianrider]

Your arguments are completely illogical. Face it!!!!

Maybe you have no clue, face it