MTB:Road:Run

ddraver

Ok, so what do people reckon is the approximate ratio of "effort" between an average ride (no special training, intervals, sprints etc)

I reckon it's about 3:1 between Road and MTB (60km road = 20km MTB), but I'm not sure what the equivalent run is, could be around 3 again (1km run = 3km MTB = 6km Road?)

Opinions?

hbrashaw

if it's 3:1 between road/mtb, then surely it'd be 1:3:9 not 1:3:6
1:3:9 sounds right though

edjo

usual ratio is twice the distance on the road is equal to MTB...60km road is 30km MTB. clearly depends upon the terrain, but this is the general ratio.
running to riding ratio is much more difficult to measure due to the difference biomechanically. for a runner coming to riding, the ratio is very different to a rider going to running. for a cyclist in early phase running for a duathlon, some recent tests done that I know those involved with showed an effort level of 6:1 finding that running was six times harder than road riding...this fell to 4:1 after 6weeks of structured training. those involved are doing a split programme over the winter so the outcome will be clearer then.
bit of a ramble...input all the same.

ddraver

hbrashaw wrote:

if it's 3:1 between road/mtb, then surely it'd be 1:3:9 not 1:3:6
1:3:9 sounds right though

Yep, you re right - In my defence Geologists can't do maths :oops:

tsenior

Yep, you re right - In my defence Geologists can't do maths

we are more suited to colouring in pictures......conceptual models

ddraver

Exactly! There is not a problem in the world that can't be solved with a retractable pencil, a notebook and a set of colouring pencils!

Anonymous

I reckon road riding is easily more than double the equivalent distance of MTBing.
I don't have a road bike, but in summer I'll do some long road stints on my MTB just for fitness sake. I find I can cover around 45-60 miles on the road, even on the steep mountain passes, and including some singletrack sections to link them up.
But, when I head back off road, some of the climbs, even in Coed y Brenin, on the manicured trails will exhaust me.

If I had a proper road bike, that 45-60 miles would surely be easier still?

Running is an odd one. I found that I can be in a good level of fitness for cycling, or running, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'll be in good fitness for the other.
I mean, I can end up being ready for anything, bike wise, but still struggle to run 5 miles if I haven't run in a while.
BUT
I can also find that I can run 10 miles, but struggle to do a 20 mile MTB ride, if I haven't ridden the bike much recently.

ddraver

Good points Yeehaa - I reckon for fairness sake I mean Road riding on a road bike...!

(Just to minimise the variables!)

Steve_F

I do both the bike riding ones fairly regularly.

Did a 21 mile loop yesterday (Kirroughtree so fairly flowy and not too much climbing).

Based on that I was much tireder than I would have been on a 42 mile road loop (again at an average pace with average climbing).

Against a 63 mile road loop it would be getting closer but I still don't think it's there.

84 so 1:4 ratio is more like what I'd think.

After 21 miles off-road I could cycle further if I really had to but it is definitely time for me to get off the bike. The same with 84 on-road.

Of course it all depends on the trail/road, how many rests you have, hills and loads of other variables but I'd guess 1:3.5 to 1:4 would be about right.

Anonymous

The 1:4 ratio sounds about right in my experience too, but like I said, I don't own a road bike.

njee20

I think 1:2 is closer I must say, I reckon 100k on an MTB is harder than 100 miles on the road myself.

Anonymous

njee20 wrote:

I reckon 100k on an MTB is harder than 100 miles on the road myself.

I think we're all in agreement on that.

njee20

Oh yes, bugger!

But 100k on the MTB is far easier than 400k on the road, that's 244 miles. I still say 2:1.

Anonymous

I think maybe once you get up to that kind of distance njee, you're getting to the realms of extreme endurance.
Maybe that's the right way to compare, I don't know.
But I was thinking of a ride distance that is enough to make you feel bonked on either, not extreme endurances.

njee20

I still think 2:1's about right, I'd do 40 miles on the MTB without really thinking about it, if anything I'd be more knackered after 80 miles on the road.

Boy Lard

Is it maybe that someone who can comfortably clock up 100 miles on the road has increased their fitness to a level that makes their mtbing easier? So for njee maybe it is more like 2:1.

....But someone who does mainly mtbing and shorter 15-20 miles journeys, overall fitness levels are not as high and therefore it does feel more like 3:1 or even 4:1?

Just a guess.

Anonymous

I think Boy Lard might be right.

Steve_F

A trip round Glentress red is around 12.5 miles. No matter how fit you are you're going to know you've put some effort in around there.

At the 2:1 ratio that would be 25 miles on a road bike. That's just going to be a warm up (assuming the same level of fitness) out on the road unless it's a super steep route.

e999sam

As Greg Lemound once said "it doesn't get any easier you just get faster" I think the same could be said when comparing road and off road riding.

IanTrcp

Interesting question. Some random thoughts (from a roadie who does some MTBing):

1. The Etape (A sportive comprising a mountain stage of the TdF, say 180km and 4000m climbing) is a lot harder than a running marathon. I've not seen anyone complete the Etape dressed as a chicken, there are no "fun-riders" climbing Ventoux after 160km in the saddle etc. [On reflection that's somewhat irrelevant although vaguely interesting]

2. Looking at my typical Sunday morning out in the Surrey Hills, I tend to average a little less in kph on the MTB than I do in mph on the road bike for what feels like a similar level of effort. Say 60 miles in 4 hours on the road, 50km on the MTB.

3. Where there are road and off-road versions of essentially the same climb (I'm thinking of something like White Down for those who know the Surrey Hills) the off-road version is a lot harder due to traction issues and how easy it is to lose momentum

4. The "Tour of the Surrey Hills" (road) is 107km with about 2000m of climbing. The "Surrey Hills Killer Loop" (MTB) is 57km with about 1300m of climbing. I reckon that these two are similar challenges - neither is an easy day out for the untrained!

So on balance I'd say that 2:1 feels about right to me. With the caveat that some offroad climbs can be a lot harder than their onroad equivalents.

njee20

A trip round Glentress red is around 12.5 miles. No matter how fit you are you're going to know you've put some effort in around there.

At the 2:1 ratio that would be 25 miles on a road bike. That's just going to be a warm up (assuming the same level of fitness) out on the road unless it's a super steep route.

That's apples and oranges though surely? You're saying a hard 12.5 mile MTB ride is harder than an easy 25 mile road ride? That's common sense, equally, a 12.5 mile spin on a tow path is easier than 25 miles of alpine road riding!

3. Where there are road and off-road versions of essentially the same climb (I'm thinking of something like White Down for those who know the Surrey Hills) the off-road version is a lot harder due to traction issues and how easy it is to lose momentum

I'd disagree there, I can climb more or less everything on the Surrey Hills in the big ring on my MTB, Leith, White Down etc, but latter particularly is an absolutely fcuker on the road, far far harder than the offroad climb. Same with Winterfold, if you come up Barhatch Lane from Cranleigh on the road I can barely keep moving, off road there's nothing nearly as tough.

Maybe that shifts the ratios somewhat... I run a 53/39 with an 11-23 block on the road, which means I can't just spin up climbs, making road riding comparably tougher to the MTB. If I had a compact and a 12-28 block I'd probably agree with you!

IanTrcp

njee20 wrote:

I'd disagree there, I can climb more or less everything on the Surrey Hills in the big ring on my MTB, Leith, White Down etc, but latter particularly is an absolutely fcuker on the road, far far harder than the offroad climb. Same with Winterfold, if you come up Barhatch Lane from Cranleigh on the road I can barely keep moving, off road there's nothing nearly as tough.

Maybe that shifts the ratios somewhat... I run a 53/39 with an 11-23 block on the road, which means I can't just spin up climbs, making road riding comparably tougher to the MTB. If I had a compact and a 12-28 block I'd probably agree with you!

Yep - Barhatch and White Down are both absolute fcukers onroad as you say.

They are easier with 50/34 and 11-28 (29 if you've got Campag!). Easier that is, not easy.

But I haven't yet managed the offroad climb from Hackhurst Lane without stopping for a blow and I'm not sure I ever will!

Omar Little

I'd say about 3:1 is a fair enough ratio - but it is hard to compare as it is very terrain and conditions dependant.

Off road on the mountain bike where i ride is more like doing intervals on the road bike - hard effort followed by recovery, followed by hard effort etc. Whereas on a long road ride i will be at a more constant level of effort, not going into the red too much unless it is a big hill but at the same time not doing much freewheeling and recovery either. As a result i get into and maintain a rhythm on the road and that is when exercise seems so much easier.