energy required to clmb a hil....
Comments
-
Come on, let's get back on topic. I was enjoying the big boned vs virgin banter!0
-
keef66 wrote:Come on, let's get back on topic. I was enjoying the big boned vs virgin banter!
I won that convincingly. Just goes to show - you don't need to have known the touch of a man to triumph in an argument on the internet.0 -
rich164h wrote:I find it hard to believe that I would have an equally efficient pedal action as a pro cyclist. In fact improving this is one of the major selling points of the Wattbike products isn't it? I could easily see that despite having a body that's equally as efficient at processing food as an elite athlete that I'd be wasting energy with every turn of the pedals compared to a pro cyclist, therefore my efficiency overall would be lower. I can't believe that the 23% figure is static if we take that in to account.
I don't think we have even established that everyone can convert food to output equally. I think all that has been shown is that for a given amount of processed fuel (cell level) and oxygen, we have broadly the same ability to convert that in to muscle movement and output. Seems logical, but its only the very last part of the chemical process.Froomes Edgar wrote:keef66 wrote:Come on, let's get back on topic. I was enjoying the big boned vs virgin banter!
I won that convincingly. Just goes to show - you don't need to have known the touch of a man to triumph in an argument on the internet.
or the alternative is you just really annoyed a 6'8" body builder. But yes big man vs skinny man = big man definitely consumed more energy moving the bigger mass. Basic physics and explains why my motorbike does more mpg than my 4x4.0 -
I hope he doesn't 'bustacapp' in Froome's Edgar's ass, like those 'gangstas' with their hipping and their hopping.
Have I got the lingo right bustacapp? Don't want to upset the 'west side'!0 -
diy wrote:I don't think we have even established that everyone can convert food to output equally. I think all that has been shown is that for a given amount of processed fuel (cell level) and oxygen, we have broadly the same ability to convert that in to muscle movement and output. Seems logical, but its only the very last part of the chemical process.
Well that's beyond the scope of a cycling forum, and the question at hand, I'd suggest. But since the average (sedentary) bloke requires in the region of 2,500 calories per day to take care of food digestion as well as all other bodily processes, and cycling at a chippertastic 250w up a big hill requires about 1,000 per hour, I'd question whether we're straying into the grounds of immateriality again.
The mitochondria stuff - yes, increasing mitochondrial density is a known adaptation to aerobic exercise and is one of the components of Froome's bigger (as compared to the chipper) engine. Doesn't say anywhere that conversion form fat is more efficient than from glycogen though (it might well be BTW, I don't know). Would contradict the finding that efficiency doesn't vary much if so.
This has gone too far. No-one knows what they're talking about, including me.0 -
diy wrote:or the alternative is you just really annoyed a 6'8" body builder. But yes big man vs skinny man = big man definitely consumed more energy moving the bigger mass. Basic physics and explains why my motorbike does more mpg than my 4x4.
No worries, if he tracks me down I'll just cycle up the nearest hill. Well, the nearest hill without a Greggs at the top, as I suspect with such an incentive he'd beat Philippe Gilbert to the summit in the same way as a mother might lift a car off her child0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:No worries, if he tracks me down I'll just cycle up the nearest hill.
No you won't. You'd want me to catch you and bum you.
In fact if you tape a scotch egg above your balloon-knot you may very well be having your cherry popped very soon young man!0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:No worries, if he tracks me down I'll just cycle up the nearest hill.
No you won't. You'd want me to catch you and bum you.
In fact if you tape a scotch egg above your balloon-knot you may very well be having your cherry popped very soon young man!
Sorry, but I take my men like I take my coffee. Skinny or black.0 -
What a pity I only spotted this thread now...I love these "I don't care what the physics says, surely you have to be stronger/use fewer calories/have more power" type comments that make no sense at all
Anyone going for the "you have to get stronger to ride up hills faster" argument so I can dive in?
I prefer white, full fat , with some extra whipped cream on top0 -
nickyboy zz wrote:I prefer white, full fat , with some extra whipped cream on top
Or as bustacapp's boyfriend calls it, Thursday night.0 -
Ok I have read very little of this but for me the answer is simple
The amount of energy required to climb a given hill is always way bloody more than I would have liked :shock:Yellow is the new Black.0 -
its like the:
- if I pass him its because I am a superior rider
- if he passes me its because he is younger, taller, riding shorter distances, has a better bike, has drafted me.0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:YIMan wrote:Ultimately, if there are two people weighing 80kg, of exactly the same size and shape to climb 1000 vertical metres on exactly the same bikes, the energy required to move their 80kg mass 1000m vertically is exactly the same i.e. they both have to expend energy to gain the potential energy of being 1000m higher. So the energy output (which equals the potential energy gained) is exactly the same.....even if one does it in 1 hour and the other in 3 hours.
No, because air resistance isn't zeroYIMan wrote:I guess the question is then, how much energy input does each person have to put in to secure the same energy output. I presume the fitter one will be much more efficient at turning stored "food" energy via the cardiovascular and muscular/skeletal system....into the force on the bike pedals that secures the potential energy gain?
No, the answer is exactly the same, unless you dispute the principle of the conservation of energy.
That said, the fitter rider will generally burn a greater proportion of fat compared to the chipper and thus save glycogen because he's riding at a lower proportion of his FTP. Since glycogen is a limiting factor for cycling but fat is not, if you made these two hypothetical riders ride up this hill repeatedly without any food, the chipper would collapse first.
But air resistance is the same for both of them, so over the same distance they expend the same energy pushing the air out of the way.
The answer is not exactly the same for the energy expended unless they have identical cardiovascular systems. It is reasonable to believe that the fitter rider is more efficient, hence needs less energy input for the same output?0 -
I really thought this was a cycling forum...not somewhere to make childish silly gay jokes at each other!!!!
However I agree with the post along the lines of...if they pass me ...in my opinion they are simply BETTER than me...end of...I don't really need to know/understand why....I will simply endeavour to train harder/work more, and hopefully if I see the same person again give them a better challenge next time!!!0 -
bernithebiker wrote:Hilarious stuff!
But to drag this kicking and screaming back onto topic, lets compare again the average 70kg biker versus a 70kg pro up a hill;
15km/h up a 6%, 10km hill (assume wind effects negligible). Temp 20'C.
Av.biker working fairly hard, HR 160bpm, breathing quite hard, sweating freely. Cadence 80.
Pro finding it very easy, HR 130bpm or less, breathing normally, hardly sweating. Cadence 80.
At the summit, both have had to deliver the exact same energy (call it 500kJ) to get to the top. (Identical bikes). BUT, given the extra cardiovascular effort by the av.biker, heart, lungs, sweat, surely he has consumed more energy making those 500kJ. No?
Yes, this is how I see it. Output energy is the same, "internal" energy expended to achieve the output is higher in the average biker.0 -
How much higher? Where does this extra energy go?0
-
YIMan wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:YIMan wrote:Ultimately, if there are two people weighing 80kg, of exactly the same size and shape to climb 1000 vertical metres on exactly the same bikes, the energy required to move their 80kg mass 1000m vertically is exactly the same i.e. they both have to expend energy to gain the potential energy of being 1000m higher. So the energy output (which equals the potential energy gained) is exactly the same.....even if one does it in 1 hour and the other in 3 hours.
No, because air resistance isn't zeroYIMan wrote:I guess the question is then, how much energy input does each person have to put in to secure the same energy output. I presume the fitter one will be much more efficient at turning stored "food" energy via the cardiovascular and muscular/skeletal system....into the force on the bike pedals that secures the potential energy gain?
No, the answer is exactly the same, unless you dispute the principle of the conservation of energy.
That said, the fitter rider will generally burn a greater proportion of fat compared to the chipper and thus save glycogen because he's riding at a lower proportion of his FTP. Since glycogen is a limiting factor for cycling but fat is not, if you made these two hypothetical riders ride up this hill repeatedly without any food, the chipper would collapse first.
But air resistance is the same for both of them, so over the same distance they expend the same energy pushing the air out of the way.
The answer is not exactly the same for the energy expended unless they have identical cardiovascular systems. It is reasonable to believe that the fitter rider is more efficient, hence needs less energy input for the same output?
Unfortunately not, air resistance is proportionate to the square of the speed. So if you have a 10 mile hill and you cycle up at 10mph you experience 100 units of air resistance (10 x 10) for 1 hour. If you cycle up at 5mph you experience 25 units of air resistance (5 x5) for 2 hours so the guy at 10mph experiences, in total, twice the resistive force of the guy at 5mph.
Seems a good reason to cycle more slowly up hills if you ask me
Re the efficiency of the cardio system (inasmuch as we are talking about the body's ability to convert energy into movement) froomy has already said that this seems to be somewhat independent of training. Your % is what your % is it seems. Mine feels particularly low climbing Holme Moss for example, damn genetics0 -
YIMan wrote:But air resistance is the same for both of them, so over the same distance they expend the same energy pushing the air out of the way.
Nope, its not linearYIMan wrote:The answer is not exactly the same for the energy expended unless they have identical cardiovascular systems. It is reasonable to believe that the fitter rider is more efficient, hence needs less energy input for the same output?
It does seem plausible, but like I say the stuff I have read indicates that efficiency isn't trainable. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.0 -
YIMan wrote:bernithebiker wrote:Hilarious stuff!
But to drag this kicking and screaming back onto topic, lets compare again the average 70kg biker versus a 70kg pro up a hill;
15km/h up a 6%, 10km hill (assume wind effects negligible). Temp 20'C.
Av.biker working fairly hard, HR 160bpm, breathing quite hard, sweating freely. Cadence 80.
Pro finding it very easy, HR 130bpm or less, breathing normally, hardly sweating. Cadence 80.
At the summit, both have had to deliver the exact same energy (call it 500kJ) to get to the top. (Identical bikes). BUT, given the extra cardiovascular effort by the av.biker, heart, lungs, sweat, surely he has consumed more energy making those 500kJ. No?
Yes, this is how I see it. Output energy is the same, "internal" energy expended to achieve the output is higher in the average biker.
Heat produced is the missing % from your efficiency. Assuming the pro has same efficiency converting energy into movement, he will produce as much heat as the average guy and thus sweat as much (subject to surface area etc etc) I think someone earlier mentioned that the heart having to work harder in itself is a consumer of watts (as are the muscles controlling the diaphragm I presume) so some of the work generated by the average rider goes on non-forward movement muscles that the pro doesn't have to do.
But that is only a little bit I think of total watts output, so the effect is there, but minimal. You can still assume, subject to a few % that the pro and the average rider require and expend the same energy0 -
nickyboy zz wrote:YIMan wrote:Froomes Edgar wrote:YIMan wrote:Ultimately, if there are two people weighing 80kg, of exactly the same size and shape to climb 1000 vertical metres on exactly the same bikes, the energy required to move their 80kg mass 1000m vertically is exactly the same i.e. they both have to expend energy to gain the potential energy of being 1000m higher. So the energy output (which equals the potential energy gained) is exactly the same.....even if one does it in 1 hour and the other in 3 hours.
No, because air resistance isn't zeroYIMan wrote:I guess the question is then, how much energy input does each person have to put in to secure the same energy output. I presume the fitter one will be much more efficient at turning stored "food" energy via the cardiovascular and muscular/skeletal system....into the force on the bike pedals that secures the potential energy gain?
No, the answer is exactly the same, unless you dispute the principle of the conservation of energy.
That said, the fitter rider will generally burn a greater proportion of fat compared to the chipper and thus save glycogen because he's riding at a lower proportion of his FTP. Since glycogen is a limiting factor for cycling but fat is not, if you made these two hypothetical riders ride up this hill repeatedly without any food, the chipper would collapse first.
But air resistance is the same for both of them, so over the same distance they expend the same energy pushing the air out of the way.
The answer is not exactly the same for the energy expended unless they have identical cardiovascular systems. It is reasonable to believe that the fitter rider is more efficient, hence needs less energy input for the same output?
Unfortunately not, air resistance is proportionate to the square of the speed. So if you have a 10 mile hill and you cycle up at 10mph you experience 100 units of air resistance (10 x 10) for 1 hour. If you cycle up at 5mph you experience 25 units of air resistance (5 x5) for 2 hours so the guy at 10mph experiences, in total, twice the resistive force of the guy at 5mph.
Seems a good reason to cycle more slowly up hills if you ask me
Re the efficiency of the cardio system (inasmuch as we are talking about the body's ability to convert energy into movement) froomy has already said that this seems to be somewhat independent of training. Your % is what your % is it seems. Mine feels particularly low climbing Holme Moss for example, damn genetics
Sorry, I think your air resistance calculations are flawed. All you are doing is pushing the same air out of the way over the same distance - the faster cyclist just has to have a higher power output to overcome more air resistance....but over a shorter time so the total energy output to overcome the air resistance (and the slope for that matter) is the same, if you ignore the very minor effects of turbulent air.0 -
0
-
Froomes Edgar wrote:How much higher? Where does this extra energy go?
No idea how much higher. The extra energy must go into inefficiencies (things that do not contribute towards pushing the pedals) within the less fitter rider's body - inefficient movement, friction, heat etc.
I visualise it like a "miles per gallon" due to "more efficient engine" for cyclists. Two cars of identical shape and weight will both be able to go at 70mph up a hill, but the one with a more efficient engine will use less fuel up than the other.0 -
But you're wrong about something as simple as air resistance - what else might you be wrong about?0
-
Totally agree - its exponential as speed increases.
just take typical cars - doubling the power doesn't double the top speed. to increase the top speed by 50% you typically have to more than double the power. e.g. rough numbers..
60 hp car can do about 80mph
120 hp car can do about 120mph
240 hp car can do about 160mph
480hp car can do about 200mph0 -
Maths pet peeve - its not exponential. Power vs speed is cubic.
I'm glad I have made this valuable and absolutely necessary correction.0 -
It is not linear but for cyclists the relative power difference is negligible compared to the energy required to get up the hill - assuming one rider isn't doing 6 times the speed of the other. And assuming there isn't a huge headwind....or if there's a tailwind the minimal effect is reduced further.
Please keep out of the discussion if you can't add anything constructive.0 -
0
-
diy wrote:Totally agree - its exponential as speed increases.
just take typical cars - doubling the power doesn't double the top speed. to increase the top speed by 50% you typically have to more than double the power. e.g. rough numbers..
60 hp car can do about 80mph
120 hp car can do about 120mph
240 hp car can do about 160mph
480hp car can do about 200mph
This is down to aerodynamics (or rather the inability to have sufficient of them) so you need lots of power to ovecome the fact that you are pushing a big lump of metal through the air.
Not sure how this is useful in the energy required to go up a hill debate.
What I do now know is that the energy required is a damn site less than you need to get through this bloomin post :roll:Yellow is the new Black.0 -
Froomes Edgar wrote:
red linear, blue cubic green exponential
this what you were after?
but getting back on topic
there are two parts to the question.
1. two riders of same weight, speed etc. will require the same energy to get to the top irrelevant of fitness.
2. two riders of different fitness (but same weight speed etc) will have different requirements to output that energy.0 -
smidsy wrote:diy wrote:Totally agree - its exponential as speed increases.
just take typical cars - doubling the power doesn't double the top speed. to increase the top speed by 50% you typically have to more than double the power. e.g. rough numbers..
60 hp car can do about 80mph
120 hp car can do about 120mph
240 hp car can do about 160mph
480hp car can do about 200mph
This is down to aerodynamics (or rather the inability to have sufficient of them) so you need lots of power to ovecome the fact that you are pushing a big lump of metal through the air.
Not sure how this is useful in the energy required to go up a hill debate.
What I do now know is that the energy required is a damn site less than you need to get through this bloomin post :roll:
It's not useful because at the speeds cyclists go up a hill, the effect of aerodynamic drag is minimal compared to the power output required to overcome the increase in altitude AND the speed delta is not likely to be great.
You will find the thread becomes much more readable with use of the "ignore" button.0
