Catford CC Hill Climb
Comments
-
Here is the finish line of the Catford hill climb at Yorks Hill.
Notice how the road abruptly disappears just beyond it....0 -
0
-
Le Commentateur wrote:
Just looked that up on Climb By Bike, 7.5km at an average of 17.8%!!! I'm amazed the Giro organisers haven't included it yet!
http://www.climbbybike.com/profile.asp?Climbprofile=Scanuppia---Malga-Palazzo&MountainID=35970 -
mroli wrote:Yorks Hill is not a piece of wee wee if it is wet. It gets covered in muck and is pretty nasty.
My blog on it is here:http://www.100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/hill-no-75-15-yorks-hill.html
Sorry to bring this back to the not-very Pro Race Catford HC (although there are 2 Pro riders on the start list, and Sean Yates).... if it's wet, and the forecast is for rain on Sunday, is it better to be in a higher (harder) or lower (easier) gear to minimise wheel spin? It was a bit slippery last Sunday when I rode it, but I think on the day it will properly wet, and very slippery. I know to run slightly softer tyres, and try and keep my weight over the back wheel, but any top tips for managing these conditions are welcomed! Thanks.0 -
Lower and stay seated as much as possible.0
-
Thanks Pross. That's what I initially thought, but then I realised that in a car driving in ice, I think the advice is to be in a higher gear to avoid wheel spin - maybe that's just when pulling away. Obviously I realise a bike's not a car!0
-
Yes - defo - lower. If only because you can control power to wheel a lot better and it will be easier to remain in saddle - pushing a higher gear lifts you out of the saddle too much.
Of course, if the slope is too great, you'll get front wheel lift if you remain seated. Then its a conundrum....!
Oh - and BigMat - you're going to Cornwall and not taking your bike - shame on you!!!
http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Extralight, in case I forget...best of luck on Sunday! 0
-
mroli wrote:Yes - defo - lower. If only because you can control power to wheel a lot better and it will be easier to remain in saddle - pushing a higher gear lifts you out of the saddle too much.
Of course, if the slope is too great, you'll get front wheel lift if you remain seated. Then its a conundrum....!
Oh - and BigMat - you're going to Cornwall and not taking your bike - shame on you!!!
Its a very rare weekend without the kids, I think I would be a dead man if I even suggested taking the bike!
Re hill climb strategy in the wet, staying seated is obviously preferable to avoid rear wheel spin, but there will be occasions where you need to stand (unless you want to get a very slow time), I think key is to avoid jerky movements as much as possible - keep the front end straight, weight over the back wheel - will hurt your uppr body, makes it a real killer effort - good luck to anybody racing!0 -
Dont worry Extralight, I "rode" it Tuesday, I thought it would be easier than when I did it on KOTD, but it wasn't.
My Strava time Tuesday was 3:45, which puts me round about last. I'm more of a triathlete/runner than cyclist if the truth be told, so god only knows what come over me when I entered this.
A car followed me up White Lane, afterwards he stopped beside me and sad, "well done I know I couldn't do that!". I couldn't answer back as my lungs were in hyper mode, desperately trying to recover oxygen.
There is mud and leaves over most of the road on the very steep sections, they do sweep it apparently, not sure if they'll be able to get all of this off, but picking a line for traction was difficult enough without the people that will probably be standing on the only decent bits of road!0 -
-
Went down (rather than up) Yorks today on the club run. Usual crap all over the road, plus plenty of leaves fresh off the trees. Will certainly make it interesting if it's wet - not sure if any of the very heavy showers that hit SE London this afternoon also landed in the Sevenoaks area.
Good luck to anyone riding tomorrow - you'll need it, especially if it's greasy...0 -
Feeling distinctly nervous now0
-
gattocattivo wrote:
Pretty wide of the mark. Only the first 100 metres or so are below 10% (you start off on a 'gentle' 8% slope). The average over the whole climb is >12% and the steepest ramps are well over 20%, nearer 25%.
http://app.strava.com/segments/895046
I did it for the first time last year in 2:46, will be back for more punishment again this year.
bof, 80 meters of vertical, I could sprint up that, it is a race for ladyboys. If you want a challenge do some of the French hillclimbs. At the start of September we have Bastille in Grenoble and Fort St Eynard on the same weekend. The Bastille is 260 meters vertical at 17% average. Fort St Eynard is not as steep but is over 1000 vertical meters.
Hinault had to get off on the Bastille and was in tears before remounting his bike after getting a push from his mechanic.
Regarding the Scannupia, no part of it is 45%, there are some steep bits but I'm told by someone who has ridden it that the ClimbByBike data overrates the steepness but the surface makes the ride hard.BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
If you've got up there in 2:46 before, you've got nothing to worry about 8)gattocattivo wrote:Feeling distinctly nervous now0 -
http://youtu.be/9OLMlp_OOD0
^ Robert Gough winning. I was about 1.5 seconds slower than last year, but I think it was harder this year (back wheel slipping on the wet muddy road a bit at times). My club mate says that we beat Sean Yates - I haven't seen the results to confirm this, but I suppose he does have a heart condition and his mind is probably on other things right now. I rode round and did Toys Hill afterwards - that seems to go on for ever. Still got a nasty cough.0 -
Apparently Yates did it in 3m20s, so I think most people beat him. The first half was tough as there was so little grip. I was constantly spinning my back wheel. Still, was a lot of fun, despite not coming close to threatening the leaderboard.0
-
0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:
Times have not improved much over the decades, I posted this some time ago on another forum.
http://www.catfordcc...rs.aspx?sm=21_5
Time trial & track times have improved dramatically over the decades particularly with the introduction of tri bars disc wheels and aero frames etc etc.
So to see how much riders have improved over the last 50 years is almost impossible. Hill climbs would seem to be a reasonable event to look at, particularly steep ones where aerodynamics play little part.
The Catford Hill Climb up Yorks Hill would seem to be an event which might be useful; because the event has been held almost every year and we have figures going back to 1961, it is a steep hill, so slow speeds will make aerodynamics largely irrelevant. Equipment may have got a little lighter over the years, a machine of 20lbs in 1961, compared to 13lbs in the 2000s or less? Obviously wind & temperature will make a difference, as times show, and the road surface may have been better in some years than in others. Wet & mud would cause loss of traction. Taking winners times only may not be fair so I have taken the average of the fastest 3 winning and the slowest 3 winning rides each decade to try and even out performances. Obviously there will be exceptional riders, but anyone winning this hill climb would be very much 'top class'.
If we keep an open mind and do not jump to conclusions, first thoughts are:-
1. Winner in 1961 PJ Graham rode 1.56.2 and 50 years later on a lighter machine the winner in 2011 R Gough, did 1.54.5 less than 2 seconds faster. Were conditions similar?
2. The record is held by P Mason at 1.47.6 set in 1983. We must assume conditions were perfect.
3. Lighter machines on such a steep gradient do make a difference - how much?
4. Perhaps in some decades hill climbs attracted more top riders than in other decades?
5. Is the road surface the same today as it was in earlier decades?
Here are some figures.
Fastest ride 1960s is 1.56.2
Fastest ride 1970s is 1.55.0
Fastest ride 1980s is 1.47.6
Fastest ride 1990s is 1.52.4
Fastest ride 2000s is 1.48.2
Fastest 3 winning rides 1961 to 1969, average 5.53.2
Fastest 3 winning rides 1970 to 1979, average 5.48.8
Fastest 3 winning rides 1980 to 1989, average 5.28.3
Fastest 3 winning rides 1990 to 1999, average 5.42.7
Fastest 3 winning rides 2000 to 2011, average 5.29.7
The 1980s wins just, but 2000s are a close second.
Averages of the slowest 3 winning times over the decades are,
1960s 6.10.4
1970s 6.10.6
1980s 5.59.4
1990s 6.10.8
2000s 5.55.5
Here the 2000s wins with 1980s in second.
How much do we allow for lighter machines? I assume aluminium arrived for the 1980s, and carbon late 1990s? Even half a kilo would make a difference of a few seconds on such a steep hill at average 12.5% and 25% in some places.
Obviously hill climbing is a single discipline but being all about power to weight ratio this hill climb does give us some sort of idea of the power riders might have produced. We can only guess the weight of the riders, but a rider & bike weighing 160lbs, doing the ride in 2 min would need at least 480 watts before we add in rolling resistance etc. Even a 2lb lighter machine would be worth 6 watts or 1.5 seconds on this climb, so this must be taken into account when comparing the 1960s & 1970s riders. I assume bikes in the 1980s were almost as light as the latest carbon frame bikes.
Contrast these times which are broadly very similar over 50 years with the massive improvements in 10 mile and 25 mile time trial times. I contend that these improved times are entirely down to improved equipment and position not any improvement in riders power to weight ratio or fitness.
Obviously this is only one hill climb and other hill climbs may show more improvements over the decades, but being a well known famous hill climb which would have attracted top riders every year, I think this illustrates that in truth riders have not improved their power to weight ratio over the last 50 years by much if anything.
In my opinion, whatever the training the riders were doing back in the period 1960 through to 1989, those methods must have been at least as effective as today's methods. Possibly hill climbs attracted better athletes in those decades? Possibly athletes were leaner in those decades? Possibly riders in earlier decades had a better training base built up as children & teenagers? Was their diet better?
I think this subject is worth reasoned discussion at least. I think there is a tendency to always assume the latest methods are better or that modern athletes must be better because they have access to power meters and modern training techniques or know more about diet and have access to to sports drinks & gels and supplements. And yes, I know this is only one event so it proves nothing, but surely if there were substantial gains to be made from modern training methods, shouldn't they have shown up?0 -
Surely it depends on who enters in any given year, I don't know who competed in past years, but if you got a top level pro doing it back in one year, and then the next year it was just local pro's the times would not reflect fairly I don't think?Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com0
-
okgo wrote:Surely it depends on who enters in any given year, I don't know who competed in past years, but if you got a top level pro doing it back in one year, and then the next year it was just local pro's the times would not reflect fairly I don't think?
Totally agree. HCs like this are a free-for-all in terms of entrants - elites, amateurs, a sprinkling of pros - but its hardly top level fields at any of them. Cant really see what conclusions can be drawn from a club HC.0 -
I put it up as a point of discussion. The point of interest being it is an event which has a long history and being a hill climb aerodynamics pay little part. Bike weight would though. I know you can't draw scientific conclusion, but I was surprised to see that times have not improved despite better equipment.0
-
I was out on a ride with a mate of mine yesterday who's a very decent Cat 2 - he mentioned a 'general' suspicion that the record holder must have had a little 'help' - because the record has stood for so long. Scurrilous - I'm sure - but its the times imes we live in, eh?0
-
The road was completely resurfaced in the 80's too before deteriorating again, so rolling resistence was not at all constant over the years. A strong southerly wind can make a huge difference. The equipment hasn't particularly improved - sure 1kg can be worth a couple of seconds but that same 1kg can be counteracted by 2mph headwind.
Don't read too much into it.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:I was out on a ride with a mate of mine yesterday who's a very decent Cat 2 - he mentioned a 'general' suspicion that the record holder must have had a little 'help' - because the record has stood for so long. Scurrilous - I'm sure - but its the times imes we live in, eh?
It isn't so much that a record set in 1983, pre EPO, that stands out, it is how well all the times from the 60s, 70s, & 80s hold up.
Scurrilous I know to point out that perhaps young chaps these days are just a bunch of poofters compared to blokes who rode prior to the helmet, tri bar, aerodynamic, carbon, sports drink, recovery drink, power meter era.
There were and are far more effective drugs available in the 1990s and 2000s than in the 1980s.
I know wind direction changes, that is why i showed times for 3 fastes and 3 slowest etc, rather than just compare the fastest time in each decade.0 -
EPO is not the only helper. Doping does predate EPO.
But I dont want to turn this into a doping discussion re a local HC. I mentioned it more as a reflection of how some people think re this record standing for so long.0 -
Just seen this (I know I am slow) - jsut realised that is the b*stard hill my ride partner takes me up a some weekends - no idea how slow I do it - but I am fecking dead at the top and need a breather - well done to anyone who races up it - I just try and survive up it!0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:EPO is not the only helper. Doping does predate EPO.
But I dont want to turn this into a doping discussion re a local HC. I mentioned it more as a reflection of how some people think re this record standing for so long.
Phil taking and setting that record was a combination of good form and fantastic conditions;
1/ Phil Mason was in great form
2/ A storm had taken a lot of the tree coverage down.
3/ The road surface was allegedly good after being resurfaced
4/ The weather had been dry so grip was good.
5/ All riders had a helping tail wind up the hill.
Slippery surface is the killer to a ride on that hill, the thick foliage cover shades the road and local farmers vehicles leave a muddy damp slippery coating on the road that I reckon would need a few decent days to dry out.
Cheers
Steve
Catford CC
Don\'t stop pedalling
My bikes on flickr
http://www.catfordcc.co.uk/default.aspx?sm=1
http://www.aukweb.net/events/0 -
Fixed Wheelnut wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:EPO is not the only helper. Doping does predate EPO.
But I dont want to turn this into a doping discussion re a local HC. I mentioned it more as a reflection of how some people think re this record standing for so long.
Phil taking and setting that record was a combination of good form and fantastic conditions;
1/ Phil Mason was in great form
2/ A storm had taken a lot of the tree coverage down.
3/ The road surface was allegedly good after being resurfaced
4/ The weather had been dry so grip was good.
5/ All riders had a helping tail wind up the hill.
Slippery surface is the killer to a ride on that hill, the thick foliage cover shades the road and local farmers vehicles leave a muddy damp slippery coating on the road that I reckon would need a few decent days to dry out.
Cheers
Steve
Catford CC
Thanks Steve - I'll make sure to repeat all this to my mate when we go out tomorrow - and he can pass it on to others0 -
Fixed Wheelnut wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:EPO is not the only helper. Doping does predate EPO.
But I dont want to turn this into a doping discussion re a local HC. I mentioned it more as a reflection of how some people think re this record standing for so long.
Phil taking and setting that record was a combination of good form and fantastic conditions;
1/ Phil Mason was in great form
2/ A storm had taken a lot of the tree coverage down.
3/ The road surface was allegedly good after being resurfaced
4/ The weather had been dry so grip was good.
5/ All riders had a helping tail wind up the hill.
Slippery surface is the killer to a ride on that hill, the thick foliage cover shades the road and local farmers vehicles leave a muddy damp slippery coating on the road that I reckon would need a few decent days to dry out.
Cheers
Steve
Catford CC
Thought the storm was 1987? Or was this a previous storm?0
![:\](https://forum.bikeradar.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\"){kind=small}
