• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Uphill hour

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The ideal gradient is probably ~10% unless you specifically train for 1 hour threshold efforts on steep gradients, then maybe more like 12-14%.

The idea of having a specific climb(s) is much better. Mt. Washington in New Hampshire is probably the closet thing in terms of super steep and long, although it is under an hour and the weather is a huge factor and always adds a net amount to the time because of "the world's worst weather": https://www.strava.com/segments/3237

Zoncolan is another steep climb with more favorable wind patterns but is even shorter: https://www.strava.com/segments/657601

Another idea is to borrow from mountain running the idea of a "Vertical Kilometer" race. This would make many more climbs accessible. Of course, the effort would only be in the 20-30 minute range.

To get a true hour I can really only think the best way is inclined treadmill, as suggest above. The rider could pick the gradient and potentially change it throughout the attempt, adding a little bit to the drama. Otherwise, a famous climb should be set as a standard.
 
Nah, I think it should be an hour. Plenty of steep climbs in the 40-50 minute range, I think it picking the right climb etc should be part of the challenge. It should be made special. It should take an extroardinary effort.

Indoor treadmill would be a farce to the sport.
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
kingjr said:
Red Rick said:
Treadmill **** up everything that makes cycling more than a watt/kg dragrace.

What's the point of a record that's influenced by weather, air resistance and altitude and the like.
I take it that includes gravity ;)
Now that you mention it, maybe they should do it on a treadmill on a space station :idea:

@Alex Simmons that's why I don't care much for records in many of such athletic endeavours
 
Re: Re:

kingjr said:
Netserk said:
kingjr said:
Red Rick said:
Treadmill **** up everything that makes cycling more than a watt/kg dragrace.

What's the point of a record that's influenced by weather, air resistance and altitude and the like.
I take it that includes gravity ;)
Now that you mention it, maybe they should do it on a treadmill on a space station :idea:

@Alex Simmons that's why I don't care much for records in many of such athletic endeavours
Which ones do you care for?
 
Re: Re:

kingjr said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Which ones do you care for?
Off the top of my head 100m, 400m, Alpe d'Huez, all for sentimental reasons.
OK, well athletics sprint times are significantly influenced by environmental conditions, as are climbing times up Alpe d'Huez (wind affects climbing speed quite a bit).

By significantly I mean in the context of the fine margins involved with setting records.
 
Re:

Netserk said:
I would've guessed weightlifting. Afaik (perhaps showing an extreme degree of ignorance), technology (not counting PEDs) and favorable conditions don't make much of a difference, and it is a clear measure of strength.
It's probably the least affected although the force exerted by gravity varies by about 0.5% depending on where in the world you are. IOW a 100kg mass in one location will weigh 500grams more than in some other locations.

The WR for clean and jerk is 263kg. A variance of 0.5% is 1.3kg.

Put another way, most of us will weigh nearly half a kilo less in Mexico City than we do in say, Oslo.
 
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
kingjr said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Which ones do you care for?
Off the top of my head 100m, 400m, Alpe d'Huez, all for sentimental reasons.
as are climbing times up Alpe d'Huez (wind affects climbing speed quite a bit).
e.g. for top climbers up ADH, a difference of only 0.5m/s (1.8km/h) in net wind speed is worth about 30 seconds on one's ascent time.
 
@Alex Simmons I know that you only asked me in the 1st place to then demonstrate how those I would name are also affected by conditions such as wind etc. etc.
So please read the 2nd part of that post again, if you don't understand it I'll elaborate (tomorrow) :)
 
Despite the manner in which it distorts performance, I think the issue of environmental variation is part of the "charm" of such records, however for the topic at hand, if people want a climbing record it'd make more sense to simply have an MTT on fixed courses. Conditions on the day are part of the luck of the draw*.

Besides the issue of suitable locations to get a full hour, accurate measurement of vertical metres gained for a set duration would be problematic. The hour record is recorded at and can be set in increments of ~0.002%. For a vertical ascent that would require nailing down altitude to the nearest 3cm, which would not be feasible. No one is going to survey the precise altitude of a random bit of road. Even the nearest metre would be difficult to nail down precisely, GPS is not overly accurate for altitude measurements. You'd probably have confidence in something like nearest +/- 5-10m. That would be like a regular hour record rounding to the nearest number of full laps.


* The UCI used to have different categories for hour records for indoor and outdoor tracks and for above and below a certain altitude (I think it was 600m IIRC). So, e.g. you could hold the amateur indoor record above 600m.

They also used to have a pro and amateur distinction, which has sort of been replaced by those who are in the bio-passport program and masters age category records.
 
If one hour isn't enough, you could also choose
http://www.altimetrias.net/aspbk/verPerfilusu.asp?id=1310
Starting at 1075 m in the Amazon, the road (built about 8 years ago to replace the infamous death road on the other side of the valley) climbs relentlessly to a bit more than 3000m,
but then, you can continue up to 4653 m at La Cumbre, well above La Paz (Bolivia).
I imagine Colombia has a great choice of climbs requiring more than 1 hour.
 
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
Despite the manner in which it distorts performance, I think the issue of environmental variation is part of the "charm" of such records, however for the topic at hand, if people want a climbing record it'd make more sense to simply have an MTT on fixed courses. Conditions on the day are part of the luck of the draw*.

Besides the issue of suitable locations to get a full hour, accurate measurement of vertical metres gained for a set duration would be problematic. The hour record is recorded at and can be set in increments of ~0.002%. For a vertical ascent that would require nailing down altitude to the nearest 3cm, which would not be feasible. No one is going to survey the precise altitude of a random bit of road. Even the nearest metre would be difficult to nail down precisely, GPS is not overly accurate for altitude measurements. You'd probably have confidence in something like nearest +/- 5-10m. That would be like a regular hour record rounding to the nearest number of full laps.


* The UCI used to have different categories for hour records for indoor and outdoor tracks and for above and below a certain altitude (I think it was 600m IIRC). So, e.g. you could hold the amateur indoor record above 600m.

They also used to have a pro and amateur distinction, which has sort of been replaced by those who are in the bio-passport program and masters age category records.

Differential GPS measurements can give elevation accuracies of 0.1 m.
http://www.academia.edu/2505374/Direct_acquistion_of_elevation_data_using_dGPS
 
Re: Re:

ice&fire said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Despite the manner in which it distorts performance, I think the issue of environmental variation is part of the "charm" of such records, however for the topic at hand, if people want a climbing record it'd make more sense to simply have an MTT on fixed courses. Conditions on the day are part of the luck of the draw*.

Besides the issue of suitable locations to get a full hour, accurate measurement of vertical metres gained for a set duration would be problematic. The hour record is recorded at and can be set in increments of ~0.002%. For a vertical ascent that would require nailing down altitude to the nearest 3cm, which would not be feasible. No one is going to survey the precise altitude of a random bit of road. Even the nearest metre would be difficult to nail down precisely, GPS is not overly accurate for altitude measurements. You'd probably have confidence in something like nearest +/- 5-10m. That would be like a regular hour record rounding to the nearest number of full laps.


* The UCI used to have different categories for hour records for indoor and outdoor tracks and for above and below a certain altitude (I think it was 600m IIRC). So, e.g. you could hold the amateur indoor record above 600m.

They also used to have a pro and amateur distinction, which has sort of been replaced by those who are in the bio-passport program and masters age category records.

Differential GPS measurements can give elevation accuracies of 0.1 m.
http://www.academia.edu/2505374/Direct_acquistion_of_elevation_data_using_dGPS
Thanks for the link. I'm not familiar with the practical application of that technique, seems they suggest it is expensive.

Not sure I see where altitude is measurable to that level of precision although lat/lon is by looks of it.

0.1m would be reasonable.
 
So I've been taking a (Strava) look at North and South America, and really, I haven't found anything better than the Stelvio (or the Blockhaus). The biggest (in terms of elevation gain) suitable (over 7%) climb in Colombia would be La Linea, which goes for 21.2km at 7.8%. A little longer and ever so slightly steeper than Ventoux. Nothing else paved seems to be as suitable in the whole of the Americas. There are plenty of bigger climbs, but they're either unpaved (Pueblo Bello) or too gentle (Mt. Evans). But that would still "only" be 1662 VAM, which Dombrowski seems to believe is far short of what would be required. Still, it would likely take an absolute World Class climber to do Letras under an hour.

Maybe if someone like Phil Gaimon (only two hours jetlag and a 7 hour direct flight from LA) or Joe D (5 hour direct flight to DC no jetlag a week from now) puts up somewhere close to an hour, it might push someone like Quintana or Will Smith to take up the challenge. Or one of them or someone like Laurens Ten Dam start the movement on Stelvio (which might really be the best place, given the climb, the location, the road and the history).
 
Max Rockatansky said:
Okay. Another idea could be Pic Maïdo on the island of La Réunion.

Linkinito already wrote about it -> viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20813&p=1274845&hilit=Ma%C3%AFdo#p1274845

Maïdo is a volcanic peak, that starts from sea level. 26,5 kms @ 8,2%. There is an elevation gain 2.170 meters and the road is completely asphalted. The road conditions seem to be very good.
Excellent suggestion.
The climate there should be favourable all year long, with distinctive wind seasons.
It has potential for sport's globalisation and carries a symbolic feature (island - solo effort).
Touristic aspect I won't even comment... It's obvious.