Mathematical formula to assess climbing potential

Serious Cat

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 ?

john1967

2.1. Works for me :-)

bondurant

'Work on strength'????

Or maybe fitness?

Beave

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

rolf_f

1.78

Mikey23

2.2 here

mrbrightside

2.7 - begins to all bake sense.

amaferanga

W/kg counts, not pounds/inch.

bernithebiker

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

Rolf F wrote:

1.78

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

My wife comes in as 1.69, I'm over 3, I'd better get my coat.

FatTed

From this article
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2010/04/po ... eight.html

ianbar

well over 3! even if i hit my target weight I'm only 2.6 lol.....just confirming what i already know lol

phil485

I'm at 2.6 but I hold my own up the hills around Windsor.

diamonddog

1.72 :shock:

smidsy

MrBrightside wrote:

2.7 - begins to all bake sense.

Perhaps the baking (well eating) is the problem

I have THE formula for climbing

Pedal Harder = better climbing. Sadly putting this into practice is just as difficult as achieving a <2 score.

borisface

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

1.72

but I think functional threshold watts per kg is a better indication

cougie

meh - not convinced - I'm about 2.4 and not too bad a climber - I have strava KOMs ! ;-)

chrisaonabike

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.

bernithebiker

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?!

gubber12345

3.0....sounds about right but I'm trying to improve.just need an extra set of legs and lungs and I'm good to go.

awavey

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

2.013 So very nearly great! (potentially)

Moonbiker

2.5

Im a Jabba

phreak

Good for gauging your weight I suppose. I'm 1.9

Mikey23

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

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

Phil485 wrote:

I'm at 2.6 but I hold my own up the hills around Windsor.

rolf_f

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.

Serious Cat

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.