Upgrading bike to pedal up hills easier?
Comments
-
briantrumpet wrote:
I like to think about watts more as a metaphor, less an exact measure, as I only get an inferiority complex if I think about them in scientific terms.Imposter wrote:
To the OP - I've falied on three hills: a couple of 25%ers in the Lake District (including Wrynose from the west), and one near Awliscombe in Devon, despite being one of the better climbers in my club. All times it's been because I'd sapped reserves earlier in the rides, so don't despair. Lose weight, get fitter, possibly change to a compact. I wouldn't want to be riding a standard chainset in Devon, as I prefer to keep a highish cadence. But equally, there are some great climbers in the club who ride standard chainsets - they show it is possible if you've got the engine to push whatever weight you are up a hill.
Still, decreasing to a compact(say 34-28) will not let you go up that hill using any less watts than say a 39-21. A bigger engine can push a bigger gear but in the end it's all about how much weight and how high the hill and if those two things remain the same then wattage required is the same. No matter what the gearing, or the riders power, or the hills slope or the distance traveled or the time it takes.0 -
Indeed. I like to spin my skinny legs fast so I can turn out the same wattage as those scary bodybuilders who I feel threatened by. It's all about the engine, innit.dennisn wrote:Still, decreasing to a compact(say 34-28) will not let you go up that hill using any less watts than say a 39-21.0 -
If we want to get that scientific, power involves the speed at which work is done. You are right in that it takes the same power to haul a weight up a hill, but missed the important bit of "at the same speed". Lower power can still do the same work, it just takes longer.
The availability of a lower gear gives two primary options.
1. It allows the work to be done at a lower speed overall
2. It allows the same work to be done at the same forward speed, but at a higher cadence, which may just make it possible.
All of this advice and discussion of weights, power, compacts, triples, BMI and fitness is moot without knowing what hills he is struggling on. If he has a problem on 200 yards of 2% he has a problem that can only be addressed by fitness. If he struggles after three miles of 25% he's a riding god!
Paul.Giant Defy 2
Large bloke getting smaller :-)0 -
cattytown wrote:If we want to get that scientific, power involves the speed at which work is done. You are right in that it takes the same power to haul a weight up a hill, but missed the important bit of "at the same speed". Lower power can still do the same work, it just takes longer.
You are absolutely right, of course - Dennis is only 'pretending' to understand science, so his contributions should not be taken too seriously.0 -
Imposter wrote:cattytown wrote:If we want to get that scientific, power involves the speed at which work is done. You are right in that it takes the same power to haul a weight up a hill, but missed the important bit of "at the same speed". Lower power can still do the same work, it just takes longer.
You are absolutely right, of course - Dennis is only 'pretending' to understand science, so his contributions should not be taken too seriously.
"cattytown" is correct. You can do it quicker with more power BUT this does not result in a lowering of the total watts required. Take 10 minutes or take an hour to get yourself "up there" but you will use the same wattage. Moving a weight a certain height take a certain wattage no matter how long it takes.0 -
Wrong. Wattage is dependent on time. The total amount of energy expended will, simplistically, be the same. I think your understanding of the terminology might be flawed, Dennis.dennisn wrote:"cattytown" is correct. You can do it quicker with more power BUT this does not result in a lowering of the total watts required. Take 10 minutes or take an hour to get yourself "up there" but you will use the same wattage.0 -
dennisn wrote:"cattytown" is correct. You can do it quicker with more power BUT this does not result in a lowering of the total watts required. Take 10 minutes or take an hour to get yourself "up there" but you will use the same wattage. Moving a weight a certain height take a certain wattage no matter how long it takes.
No. Power is the rate at which work is done. If the work is done at a faster rate, it will require more power. Don't talk about this stuff if you don't understand it.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Wrong. Wattage is dependent on time. The total amount of energy expended will, simplistically, be the same. I think your understanding of the terminology might be flawed, Dennis.dennisn wrote:"cattytown" is correct. You can do it quicker with more power BUT this does not result in a lowering of the total watts required. Take 10 minutes or take an hour to get yourself "up there" but you will use the same wattage.
You've got me thinking. :oops: Back later.0 -
I find the weight facism from some on this website a bit disturbing. The OP has asked how to upgrade his bike to get up hills. If he didn't know at the beginning that losing body weight would help, he did after the first post about it.
A simple cassette change doesn't cost that much and can help considerably.
For those who want to be "scientific" a cassette with lower gearing will allow you to climb seated without having to waste energy stabilising your core.
There, my tuppence worth.0 -
Though this spill-over from another thread is quite fun, perhaps we ought to save the sparring in the Beginners' Forum. Though I'll admit it's hard not to respond when someone starts quoting science and then gets basic terminology confused. Dennis, please get your facts straight, if you're trying to educate beginners.0
-
dennisn wrote:You've got me thinking. :oops: Back later
That would be a first. Seriously, if all you are going to do is drag the thread down to your level, please don't come back later.marylogic wrote:For those who want to be "scientific" a cassette with lower gearing will allow you to climb seated without having to waste energy stabilising your core.
if you want to be 'scientific' - the energy used stabilising your core while going up hill is miniscule.0 -
Though in fairness the OP did quote his BMI, and though BMI might be a flawed calculation, he'll be aware of the implications of the figure he's quoted - and weight is obviously a significant factor in climbing hills, rather more so than specific gearing. I don't think it's fascism to point out weight loss as part of the picture, when someone's asked for advice on climbing hills.marylogic wrote:I find the weight facism from some on this website a bit disturbing. The OP has asked how to upgrade his bike to get up hills. If he didn't know at the beginning that losing body weight would help, he did after the first post about it.0 -
@Marylogic - my point was that I have been trying to make is that there may not be a problem. Yes, a cassette may make a difference, but the ones that will make a difference may make a rear mech change necessary. Similarly if he has a standard double, he may need a new front mech. Either may need new levers - it may not be tremendously simple.
More miles may be his actual simplest option, but without knowing what hills he has a problem with, we cannot tell is a caseete will do, or if miles are needed.
@Dennisn you are confusing power and energy. Energy is the overall amount of work needed to do the job. To lift a certain weight a certain distance takes the same amount of energy. You can use that energy to do the job slowly, which is lower power or do it quickly that needs higher power.
Basic GCSE physics.
Paul.Giant Defy 2
Large bloke getting smaller :-)0 -
cattytown wrote:@Dennisn you are confusing power and energy. Energy is the overall amount of work needed to do the job. To lift a certain weight a certain distance takes the same amount of energy. You can use that energy to do the job slowly, which is lower power or do it quickly that needs higher power.
Paul.
OK, my choice of words may not be up to snuff. Still, to lift a certain weight a certain distance / height takes the same overall amount of "work" no matter who does it or the time it takes??? That's my understanding depending, of course, on definitions of words. Maybe "power" is a bit broad of a term in this context? Work being defined as "causing of motion against a resisting body" or "weight lifted through a height". I'm not convinced that the time spent doing this has any effect on the amount of work done in this lifting. Anyone with a Physics background care to enlighten either myself or possibly others or both?0 -
Wikipedia is your frienddennisn wrote:Anyone with a Physics background care to enlighten either myself or possibly others or both?0 -
embarrassing.0
-
Time spent has no effect upon the work done. Power and time are related though. For constant work done, shorter time = higher power. Longer time = lower power.
The unit of work is the joule, the unit of power is the watt. A watt is one Joule per second.
Back to cycling. I can ride up a hill following a fitter cyclist and we both happen to be the same weight. He puts out a consistent 400W. I put out 200W. We'll both get up the hill, but he'll have eaten all the cake by the time I get to the top.
Paul.Giant Defy 2
Large bloke getting smaller :-)0 -
cattytown wrote:Time spent has no effect upon the work done. Power and time are related though. For constant work done, shorter time = higher power. Longer time = lower power.
The unit of work is the joule, the unit of power is the watt. A watt is one Joule per second.
Back to cycling. I can ride up a hill following a fitter cyclist and we both happen to be the same weight. He puts out a consistent 400W. I put out 200W. We'll both get up the hill, but he'll have eaten all the cake by the time I get to the top.
Paul.
Yet the two of you did the same amount of work???? Same weight - same hill = same amount of work??? Less cake for one though.0 -
cattytown wrote:Back to cycling. I can ride up a hill following a fitter cyclist and we both happen to be the same weight. He puts out a consistent 400W. I put out 200W. We'll both get up the hill, but he'll have eaten all the cake by the time I get to the top.
But you wouldn't've done the same work by the top (since he would've got less speed out of his watts due to air resistance so would not have gone up twice as fast which would be required to do the same work.)Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
jibberjim wrote:cattytown wrote:Back to cycling. I can ride up a hill following a fitter cyclist and we both happen to be the same weight. He puts out a consistent 400W. I put out 200W. We'll both get up the hill, but he'll have eaten all the cake by the time I get to the top.
But you wouldn't've done the same work by the top (since he would've got less speed out of his watts due to air resistance so would not have gone up twice as fast which would be required to do the same work.)
Is it even possible to calculate this air resistance effect? If there is one?0 -
There are lots of other variables involved in the real world of cycling - friction in the gears/chain/hubs, rolling resistance of tyres, affect of inflation of tyres, wind resistance etc, so there will be minor variations in the amount of work done. I was more trying to illustrate the difference between power and work/energy.
Paul.Giant Defy 2
Large bloke getting smaller :-)0 -
But if you're producing 200w compared to the 400w then won't you be cycling longer to go the same distance? As long as neither of you are going fast enough for wind resistance to make much difference. I thought it was the same for running, sprint a mile in 4 minutes or jog it in 15 minutes, you will of used the same amount of energy.http://app.strava.com/athletes/686217
Come on! You call this a storm? Blow, you son of a bitch! Blow! It's time for a showdown! You and me! I'm right here! Come and get me!0 -
Yup - cycling longer - more time. Same basic energy to do the work, just takes longer. That's the difference between power and energy.
This is the last I'll comment on this part of the discussion, as none of this is much help to the OP.
We still need to know what sort of hills he is struggling on.
PAul.Giant Defy 2
Large bloke getting smaller :-)0 -
In terms of options, there is also the question of is it worth it?
I hate to be disparaging, but a look around suggests the bike is a budget bike. The gears appear to be 14-speed Shimano, and according to Amazon the chainset is a double 39/53.
http://www.amazon.com/Schwinn-Katana-Ro ... ql_qh_dp_t
Being a 14 speed, it is almost certainly going to be a challenge to change sections of the drive train - I am not going to say impossible, but if a number of components need upgrading it may be better to just go to Decathlon and get a Triban 3. OK it's a triple, but the small ring is a 30.
Paul.Giant Defy 2
Large bloke getting smaller :-)0
