Mathematical formula to assess climbing potential

Serious Cat
Serious Cat Posts: 489
edited January 2014 in Road general
Not endorsing or slating this in any way , I found it in an improving climbing potential article


How Big Is Your Anchor?

Divide weight in pounds by height in inches to find your relative potential for climbing.

Pounds per Inch Climbing Potential

<2 Great potential for climbing

2 - 2.1 Good climbing potential

2.2 - 2.3 Fair climbing potential, work on strength

2.4 - 2.5 Poor climbing potential, work on descending

>2.5 Avoid hills



How did you do, potential to become the next Federico Bahamontes, kind of in the middle or does this say you shouldn't go near a hill on your bike ?
This serious internet site..............I serious cat
«1

Comments

  • john1967
    john1967 Posts: 366
    2.1. Works for me :-)
  • bondurant
    bondurant Posts: 858
    'Work on strength'????

    Or maybe fitness?
  • Beave
    Beave Posts: 31
    Well I got a 3 so perhaps I should just ditch the bike in case I roll backwards getting up my driveway and hurt myself .
    I don't think ill ever be 8 stone so I guess ill have to deal with it and stick to riding in Norfolk where no hills exist :wink:
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    1.78 :lol:
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    2.2 here
  • 2.7 - begins to all bake sense.
  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    W/kg counts, not pounds/inch.
    More problems but still living....
  • 2.0 here, which means I must be a better climber than Miguel Indurain who is 2.37.

    This is the best news I've had all week!
  • marcusjb
    marcusjb Posts: 2,412
    Rolf F wrote:
    1.78 :lol:

    Go on, what are your numbers to hit that?

    Below 2 for me, but as amaferanga says, W/Kg is all that really matters.
  • big_p
    big_p Posts: 565
    My wife comes in as 1.69, I'm over 3, I'd better get my coat.
  • ianbar
    ianbar Posts: 1,354
    well over 3! even if i hit my target weight I'm only 2.6 lol.....just confirming what i already know lol
    enigma esprit
    cannondale caad8 tiagra 2012
  • phil485
    phil485 Posts: 364
    I'm at 2.6 but I hold my own up the hills around Windsor.
  • diamonddog
    diamonddog Posts: 3,426
    1.72 :shock: :lol:
  • smidsy
    smidsy Posts: 5,273
    2.7 - begins to all bake sense.

    Perhaps the baking (well eating) is the problem :mrgreen:

    I have THE formula for climbing

    Pedal Harder = better climbing. Sadly putting this into practice is just as difficult as achieving a <2 score.
    Yellow is the new Black.
  • borisface
    borisface Posts: 273
    Harmless fun and a reasonable indicator of lightness, but a certain Miguel Indurain comes in at 2.32. I think he might have worked on his strength!
  • ednino
    ednino Posts: 684
    1.72

    but I think functional threshold watts per kg is a better indication
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    meh - not convinced - I'm about 2.4 and not too bad a climber - I have strava KOMs ! ;-)
  • 2.4. I'm pretty slow up hills. Interesting, though, if I could find the motivation to shift the eight pounds or so that I'd like to get rid of, I'd be 2.23.

    It's obviously a crude measure, but not completely off the wall for people of average build.
    Is the gorilla tired yet?
  • Gandhi was 1.57.

    Does this mean he was wasted as a peace promoting politician and should have been mixing it up with Greg Le Mond?

    Sub 1.50 must be POW status surely?!
  • 3.0....sounds about right :lol: but I'm trying to improve.just need an extra set of legs and lungs and I'm good to go. :lol::lol:
    Lapierre Aircode 300
    Merida
  • awavey
    awavey Posts: 2,368
    2.5...well Ive never liked hills anyway. but I cant see getting it radically lower as Id need to shed about 1.5-2 stone
    I think and my weight has barely shifted for ages.
  • tomh101
    tomh101 Posts: 21
    2.013 So very nearly great! (potentially)
  • Moonbiker
    Moonbiker Posts: 1,706
    2.5

    Im a Jabba :(
  • phreak
    phreak Posts: 2,906
    Good for gauging your weight I suppose. I'm 1.9
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    I'm skinny enough anyway. Wouldn't want to do the skeletal look like wiggo and froome even if it does get me up hills quicker...
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,504
    I'm on the cusp of 2.4. Pretty sure the height is irrelevant to be honest, other than possibly some advantage due to lever length (which would relate to leg length not height) I just cannot understand how height would make an iota of difference.
  • owenlars
    owenlars Posts: 719
    Phil485 wrote:
    I'm at 2.6 but I hold my own up the hills around Windsor.

    :lol:
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Pross wrote:
    I'm on the cusp of 2.4. Pretty sure the height is irrelevant to be honest, other than possibly some advantage due to lever length (which would relate to leg length not height) I just cannot understand how height would make an iota of difference.

    One obvious reason - if you are short and light you will probably likely have a lower lung capacity than a taller person of the same weight.

    This is obviously only meant to be an indication of potential rather than a measure of actual performance.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • I personally wouldn't take it as total gospel. Take a look at riders like Laurent Fignon, Miguel Indurain, TJ Van Garderen, those guys had no climbing issues yet their physical builds don't suggest to me that the formula would say they were mountain goats like Delgado, Herrera or Quintana.
    This serious internet site..............I serious cat