Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

too big to climb ?

jonnyconjonnycon Posts: 116
At 6'4" with a big frame and at my skinniest 14 stone I find my climbing really lets me down. I can pull like a steam train on the flat and up short sharp climbs, the longer ones make a big impact on my times though. I know I will never climb like a 10 stoner but I don't seem to be improving either & I have been hammering the climbs ! can anyone motivate me please ?
«1

Posts

  • richaricha Posts: 2,020
    Full name [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Bäckstedt
    ]Magnus Bäckstedt[/url]
    Date of birth January 30, 1975 (1975-01-30) (age 34)
    Country Sweden
    Height 1.93 m (6 ft 4 in)
    Weight 94 kg (210 lb; 14.8 st)
  • Gavin GilbertGavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    We've the same issue.

    I keep a trio of mantras in my head when being passed on hills.

    1. I'll kick your skinny censored on the flat
    2. I bet you couldn't finish the PBP
    3. I'm suffering more than you, ergo I'm harder than you
  • liversedgeliversedge Posts: 1,002
    Just let the sparrow-chested leprechauns with their spaghetti arms have there moment.

    :lol:
    --
    Obsessed is just a word elephants use to describe the dedicated. http://markliversedge.blogspot.com
  • ChrisszChrissz Posts: 727
    jonnycon wrote:
    At 6'4" with a big frame and at my skinniest 14 stone I find my climbing really lets me down. I can pull like a steam train on the flat and up short sharp climbs, the longer ones make a big impact on my times though. I know I will never climb like a 10 stoner but I don't seem to be improving either & I have been hammering the climbs ! can anyone motivate me please ?

    I have exactly the same problem mate (and I'm a stone heavier!). Frustrating when you can blow away smaller riders on the flat or drags but they get their own back once things start to go properly upwards :(
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 28,799
    spare a thought for us who roule like a sparrow and climb like a sumo wrestler...
  • pianomanpianoman Posts: 706
    If you get away from them on the flat you can always get together with a couple of other big guys on the hills and set up a mobile roadblock to stop the little people getting past :D
  • a_n_ta_n_t Posts: 2,011
    1. I'll kick your skinny ars* on the flat

    2 words, Bradley and Wiggins. :wink:
    Manchester wheelers

    PB's
    10m 20:21 2014
    25m 53:18 20:13
    50m 1:57:12 2013
    100m Yeah right.
  • jonnycon wrote:
    At 6'4" with a big frame and at my skinniest 14 stone I find my climbing really lets me down. I can pull like a steam train on the flat and up short sharp climbs, the longer ones make a big impact on my times though.

    I find at 6'2" and about 14 1/2 stone that the steady ones are relatively okay as there you can use the additional power in the legs to help drive you up...it is the short sharp ones where I have the issue :(
  • ride_wheneverride_whenever Posts: 13,279
    More practice, and improve your power to weight ratio.

    There is no reason why you can't have a higher power to weight ratio...
  • vorsprungvorsprung Posts: 1,953
    6'2" 12 and a half stone ( over 80kg )

    I live in Devon so I get plenty of practice on the hills

    The Pros really do loose all body weight. George Hincape, when he was Lance's domestique, was 6'4" ( two inches taller than me ) and 2 kg lighter at 78kg

    I read a description of a Pro cyclists diet plan "when my girlfriend can see my internal organs then I am thin enough"

    Can you diet to that extent? I can't :)
  • ride_wheneverride_whenever Posts: 13,279
    It is possible, my best mate did lightweight rowing this year. Just before racing the veins on his stomach were clealy clearly visible...
  • holmeboyholmeboy Posts: 674
    Wow! How are you over 6 footers under 13st, I'm 6 feet and 13 1/4 stone at my lightest. Still I can climb better than this time last year, can do hill after hill but if I put to much effort in I'll blow up! :oops:
  • jonnycon wrote:
    At 6'4" with a big frame and at my skinniest 14 stone I find my climbing really lets me down.

    Snap. Though I am getting a bit better. Have you tried getting out of the saddle and sprinting up the short, sharp climbs? I don't find the excess poundage too much of a disadvantage. Provided the lungs stay in the chest I can usually hold my own or even get the jump on the odd whippet. It's the long grinds that kill me. I normally take it a bit easy on the flat otherwise I can blow my legs up towing the little people only to have them whizz past shouting "Thanks George".

    I think I just have to get stronger.
    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
  • holmeboy wrote:
    Wow! How are you over 6 footers under 13st, I'm 6 feet and 13 1/4 stone at my lightest.

    I'm close to six foot five and weigh in at 67kg... Rather underweight but no matter what I eat I can't put weight on! No doubt thats a good thing for cycling!

    Rich.
  • nasahapleynasahapley Posts: 717
    holmeboy wrote:
    Wow! How are you over 6 footers under 13st, I'm 6 feet and 13 1/4 stone at my lightest.

    I'm close to six foot five and weigh in at 67kg... Rather underweight but no matter what I eat I can't put weight on! No doubt thats a good thing for cycling!

    Rich.

    That is seriously light; I'm just under 6' and 85kg, and I'm hardly a tank! You say being light is good for cycling, but what would be better is if you were a 'normal' weight but with the same power-to-weight you have now - you'd be just as good on the ups, but better on the downs and on the level. It sounds a bit counterintuitive, but for a given power-to-weight ratio it's better to be heavier!
  • nasahapley wrote:
    holmeboy wrote:
    Wow! How are you over 6 footers under 13st, I'm 6 feet and 13 1/4 stone at my lightest.

    I'm close to six foot five and weigh in at 67kg... Rather underweight but no matter what I eat I can't put weight on! No doubt thats a good thing for cycling!

    Rich.

    That is seriously light; I'm just under 6' and 85kg, and I'm hardly a tank! You say being light is good for cycling, but what would be better is if you were a 'normal' weight but with the same power-to-weight you have now - you'd be just as good on the ups, but better on the downs and on the level. It sounds a bit counterintuitive, but for a given power-to-weight ratio it's better to be heavier!

    Thats true, but it's easier to get a good power to weight ratio when you're lighter. I guess the best way to get a high power to weight ratio is to start of heavier and loose the weight from cycling. That way you're going to see a quicker power increase due to having to carry more weight and also because your weight is decreasing as you train.
  • Chaz.HardingChaz.Harding Posts: 3,228
    But, if you cast your minds back to phsyics lessons...

    If you have the same power to weight ratio of say 5w/kg.

    So someone who is 50kgs, has 250w. and a 100kg guy has 500w. The heavy guy will trash the lighter guy on the downhills, and the flats, ASSUMING THEY ARE THE SAME BODY SHAPE. If it's a little different (which it will be!), the big guy has more air-resistance. But not so much to make a huge difference.

    Now, hills. The lighter guy will be better. It takes 4x the effort, for double the weight to acclerate and slow down. So, if I'm correct, the hills will be much harder for the heavier guy, at any given power-to-weight ratio.

    Someone will correct me if I've just lied to you all, but I'm pretty confident I haven't! :D
    Boo-yah mofo
    Sick to the power of rad
    Fix it 'till it's broke

  • If you have the same power to weight ratio of say 5w/kg.

    So someone who is 50kgs, has 250w. and a 100kg guy has 500w. The heavy guy will trash the lighter guy on the downhills, and the flats, ASSUMING THEY ARE THE SAME BODY SHAPE. If it's a little different (which it will be!), the big guy has more air-resistance. But not so much to make a huge difference.

    Does the fact that the heavier guy has more mass to move not have an impact (on the flats anyway)? In my mind it would take a greater amount of energy to get a larger mass moving and keep it moving than a smaller mass. But I was always terrible at physics :P
  • ShezzerShezzer Posts: 229

    If you have the same power to weight ratio of say 5w/kg.

    So someone who is 50kgs, has 250w. and a 100kg guy has 500w. The heavy guy will trash the lighter guy on the downhills, and the flats, ASSUMING THEY ARE THE SAME BODY SHAPE. If it's a little different (which it will be!), the big guy has more air-resistance. But not so much to make a huge difference.

    Does the fact that the heavier guy has more mass to move not have an impact (on the flats anyway)? In my mind it would take a greater amount of energy to get a larger mass moving and keep it moving than a smaller mass. But I was always terrible at physics :P

    I'm guessing momentum will come into play here.

    I'm pretty short (5ft 8") and don't weigh much so I absolutely love the hills. For you bigger guys just remember almost every ride has flat bits but not every ride has a decent hill.
  • volvicsparvolvicspar Posts: 208
    I'm 5'7" 50Kg and still rubbish at hills!! Lighter isn't always better!
  • Chaz.HardingChaz.Harding Posts: 3,228

    If you have the same power to weight ratio of say 5w/kg.

    So someone who is 50kgs, has 250w. and a 100kg guy has 500w. The heavy guy will trash the lighter guy on the downhills, and the flats, ASSUMING THEY ARE THE SAME BODY SHAPE. If it's a little different (which it will be!), the big guy has more air-resistance. But not so much to make a huge difference.

    Does the fact that the heavier guy has more mass to move not have an impact (on the flats anyway)? In my mind it would take a greater amount of energy to get a larger mass moving and keep it moving than a smaller mass. But I was always terrible at physics :P

    Yes, they do have more mass to get moving, and keep moving, so acceleration will be slower. But not by a huge amount. For the most part (something like 80-90% IIRC) of a cyclist's energy is merely overcoming the air resistance. So now it becomes more apparent that bigger, more powerful guys can rule on the flats and downhills, and the lighter guys (to a point!) rule on the uphills.

    Does this make sense?

    :lol:
    Boo-yah mofo
    Sick to the power of rad
    Fix it 'till it's broke
  • Chaz.HardingChaz.Harding Posts: 3,228
    Ah, meant to say though - on races like the TDF and GDT, it's more likely (NOT certain!!!) someone who is good on hills will do better, as on the flats, you can cruise along, drafting your team-mates :lol:

    Tactics are just as important, or maybe even more important than being super fit, or having a good power-to-weight ratio.
    Boo-yah mofo
    Sick to the power of rad
    Fix it 'till it's broke
  • Does this make sense?

    All apart from the IIRC bit... Don't know what it stands for :oops: :lol:
  • CheshleyCheshley Posts: 1,448
    IIRC = If I Remember Correctly
    1998 Marin Hawk Hill
    2008 Specialized FSR XC Comp
    2008 Scott Speedster S30 FB

    SLOW RIDES FOR UNFIT PEOPLE - Find us on Facebook or in the MTB Rides section of this forum.
  • will3will3 Posts: 2,173
    holmeboy wrote:
    Wow! How are you over 6 footers under 13st, I'm 6 feet and 13 1/4 stone at my lightest.

    I'm close to six foot five and weigh in at 67kg... Rather underweight but no matter what I eat I can't put weight on! No doubt thats a good thing for cycling!

    Rich.

    Do you have worms?
  • eheh Posts: 4,854
    But you've forgotten to take into effect any improvements due to training, to say heavy guys are better at flats is rubbish. I can think of two super light riders who have placed top 10 in national TTs. And vice versa a heavy rider who admitted to me he never could get good TT times, but was on the podium of Premier calender races like the Lincoln which isn't flat.

    Weight is a poor indicator of performance.
  • PoulsyPoulsy Posts: 155
    Contador is a great TTer and is hardly heavy...
  • a_n_ta_n_t Posts: 2,011
    Poulsy wrote:
    Contador is a great TTer and is hardly heavy...


    like i said before, Bradley Wiggins.
    Manchester wheelers

    PB's
    10m 20:21 2014
    25m 53:18 20:13
    50m 1:57:12 2013
    100m Yeah right.
  • PoulsyPoulsy Posts: 155
    a_n_t wrote:
    Poulsy wrote:
    Contador is a great TTer and is hardly heavy...


    like i said before, Bradley Wiggins.

    Who isnt really a great climber :shock:
  • a_n_ta_n_t Posts: 2,011
    thats not the point. Apparently, skinny guys get battered on the flat.
    Manchester wheelers

    PB's
    10m 20:21 2014
    25m 53:18 20:13
    50m 1:57:12 2013
    100m Yeah right.
Sign In or Register to comment.