good on hills, not on flat
class5700
Posts: 65
bit of a weird question but something I've been wondering.
I am relatively new to cycling and went out on my first Sportive ride today (the South Downs 100, although in my case 70), and basically confirmed something I had been wondering about.
on hills I seem to perform far above the average rider, but on the flat (or anything that is not up a hill) I perform worse.
I have no problem turning over a light gear going up a hill, seemingly better than most other people, but on the flat I can't seem to turn over the larger gears as well and get overtaken by everyone I have just beaten to the top of the climb. not only that, I work a fairly high cadence at all times, but get overtaken by people who often seem to be barely peddling!
why would this be? is it a fitness issue? a power-to-weight laws-of-physics issue? am I using the wrong gears? do people in general just take it easy on the hills and then power along on the flat?
I weigh about 60 kilos, with about another 10 for the bike.
maybe it's impossible to answer, but just throwing it out there as I'm sure other people must have similar experiences.
I am relatively new to cycling and went out on my first Sportive ride today (the South Downs 100, although in my case 70), and basically confirmed something I had been wondering about.
on hills I seem to perform far above the average rider, but on the flat (or anything that is not up a hill) I perform worse.
I have no problem turning over a light gear going up a hill, seemingly better than most other people, but on the flat I can't seem to turn over the larger gears as well and get overtaken by everyone I have just beaten to the top of the climb. not only that, I work a fairly high cadence at all times, but get overtaken by people who often seem to be barely peddling!
why would this be? is it a fitness issue? a power-to-weight laws-of-physics issue? am I using the wrong gears? do people in general just take it easy on the hills and then power along on the flat?
I weigh about 60 kilos, with about another 10 for the bike.
maybe it's impossible to answer, but just throwing it out there as I'm sure other people must have similar experiences.
0
Comments
-
Put some meat on yer bones.0
-
Could just be mind over matter. When I first started out road biking if anyone overtook me I used to go after them to see how long I could keep up. To start with not for very long but once my fitness and technique improved I soon found my average speed increasing and started going up hills and on the flat a lot faster.0
-
'Power to weight' matters on hills, and you probably have a good ratio at 60kg, regardless of fitness. On the flat, the only thing that really matters is power - and if you are a new rider, you probably lack it (power, that is) in sufficient quantity.0
-
aha, that makes sense then. I'm certainly not a powerful rider.
I suppose this is because you are powering against the relative wind, and weight has no bearing on the flat.
so that also explains why I fall behind on descents. apart from descent technique, weight will help when going downhill.
never really thought about it this way. I just assumed good on hills must mean good overall, but no! actually an interesting physics lesson.
more hours in the saddle then!
0 -
Windy day as well. Whilst the wind matters going up hill, it doesn't matter as much as when you're on the flat at higher speeds.
Light riders like yourself (and me - 59Kg) will usually excel on the hills without too much training, we're hauling so much less weight up the hills than the bigger lads. So, as imposter said, power to weight is the most important thing - even if you're fairly untrained, you are likely to have a power to weight ratio that is better than many larger, stronger riders.
However, we come undone on the flat stuff and especially in the wind. Now the big lads win! Weight is less important, you're not lifting that weight up a hill - so pure power becomes the more important factor. And, in general, the big lads have big power.
Choose your rides if you're worried about comparing yourself to others. Or don't worry about it, enjoy the riding. And if it's windy and flat, find a big lad and hang on for dear life!0 -
Yup - I was talking to some racers at my LBS here in Amsterdam and they were saying N Holland riding favours the big guys who can punch out the power - especially into the relentless wind here. The roads are generally pretty straight and, of course, incredibly flat - power is everything.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
marcusjb wrote:Windy day as well. Whilst the wind matters going up hill, it doesn't matter as much as when you're on the flat at higher speeds.
Light riders like yourself (and me - 59Kg) will usually excel on the hills without too much training, we're hauling so much less weight up the hills than the bigger lads. So, as imposter said, power to weight is the most important thing - even if you're fairly untrained, you are likely to have a power to weight ratio that is better than many larger, stronger riders.
However, we come undone on the flat stuff and especially in the wind. Now the big lads win! Weight is less important, you're not lifting that weight up a hill - so pure power becomes the more important factor. And, in general, the big lads have big power.
Choose your rides if you're worried about comparing yourself to others. Or don't worry about it, enjoy the riding. And if it's windy and flat, find a big lad and hang on for dear life!
yes it was a good ride. however, I normally ride 25-30 miles or so and getting towards the end today I was questioning how much I was actually enjoying it, with a lot of aches in my neck and back. I was wondering when, or if, I would sign up for another one of these. but then I got into the final 10 miles and the finish line pulled me in. I was dead tired, still wondering if it was something I want to repeat in the future.
now that I've been home for a few hours I've just been looking what Sportives are still available this year ha ha ha!
no matter how hard I find a ride, or how low I feel during it, as soon as I get off the bike I start getting excited about planning my next one.
0 -
You don't mention your height - but at 60kg you are going to be approx 10kg lighter than most other riders and in some cases more like 20. gives you a huge advantage on the hills. Probably also affects your ability at endurance cycling as you don't have much to draw on (not that I can tell that from 60kg). But its a reasonable guess unless you are short.
Then there is technique at higher speed (and in the wind) can make a big difference to your efficiency.0 -
diy wrote:Probably also affects your ability at endurance cycling as you don't have much to draw on (not that I can tell that from 60kg).
Quintana is 58kg - he does ok at 'endurance cycling'...0 -
Imposter wrote:diy wrote:Probably also affects your ability at endurance cycling as you don't have much to draw on (not that I can tell that from 60kg).
Quintana is 58kg - he does ok at 'endurance cycling'...
Whilst I can't claim to be as fast as him, I have also been known to ride quite a long way as well. 0 -
I have the opposite problem to you (good on flat, rubbish on hills). I live 15 miles from the nearest hills so spend a lot of time riding on windy, exposed,flat roads. When I do sportives I see a lot of folk gradually pulling away from me up hills but I find myself catching them up again on faster sections.
I notice that I tend to tuck more than most especially on seemingly gentle terrain. As a rule - the more you feel wind resistance the more you tuck.0 -
As some have said, the resistance forces in steady state cycling are a balance between the major forces of air resistance and gravity (and some rolling resistance).class5700 wrote:why would this be? is it a fitness issue? a power-to-weight laws-of-physics issue?
The overall relationship between speed and power is a cubic equation, but the various component resistance forces do not all share this cubic relationship. The relationship between power required to overcome air resistance is cubic with speed, however the relationship between power required to overcome gravity (and rolling resistance) is linear with speed.
So the overall power-speed equation will vary from being dominated by the cubic air resistance relationship on flatter terrain, and progress towards being dominated by the linear gravity relationship as the hill gets steeper. See this chart as an example of how, for one rider, the proportional energy demand by resistance force varies with gradient while riding at the same power.
On flatter roads, then the vast bulk of the resistance is the air. Your speed is then primarily a function of the ratio of your power (units watts) to coefficient of aerodynamic drag (CdA - units m^2). i.e. W/m^2.
Since the relationship between speed and power to overcome air resistance is cubic, it means small increases in speed required much larger increases in the W/m^2. e.g. a 10% increase in speed with no change to your aerodynamics requires a nearly 30% increase in power. Conversely a 10% increase in power only provides a ~3.5% increase in speed.
When climbing, then your speed is primarily a function of your power to weight ratio. And on steep hills the relationship between power and speed is almost linear. e.g. a 10% increase in speed requires a little over a 10% increase in power. Conversely a 10% increase in power provides for just under a 10% increase in speed.
Now when a rider is 10% heavier, they do not add 10% to their aero drag coefficient, but rather less than that. So in general, heavier riders with similar power to body mass ratios as lighter riders gain an advantage on flat terrain, since their W/m^2 is typically better than the lighter rider.
However when two riders of similar W/m^2 (hence similar speed ability on flat terrain) head up a hill, the lighter rider generally has a better W/kg ratio and hence goes faster uphill.
However the cubic vs linear dominance interplay means that a rider gains more speed advantage from a 10% better W/kg ratio on a steep climb (nearly 10% faster on steep climb) than they do from a 10% better W/m^2 ratio on flat roads (only a 3.5% increase in speed).
Now of course there are very aero light riders who excel at both, so I am talking in general, typical scenarios.0 -
Yup, I was behind one in one of this years Gentlemans 2Ups... he was quick, not a lot to him and it was an hour of pain keeping on his back wheel.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Now of course there are very aero light riders who excel at both, so I am talking in general, typical scenarios.0 -
JGSI wrote:
Yup, I was behind one in one of this years Gentlemans 2Ups... he was quick, not a lot to him and it was an hour of pain keeping on his back wheel.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Now of course there are very aero light riders who excel at both, so I am talking in general, typical scenarios.
Powerful riders are powerful ridersROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
blackpoolkev wrote:I have the opposite problem to you (good on flat, rubbish on hills). I live 15 miles from the nearest hills so spend a lot of time riding on windy, exposed,flat roads. When I do sportives I see a lot of folk gradually pulling away from me up hills but I find myself catching them up again on faster sections.
I notice that I tend to tuck more than most especially on seemingly gentle terrain. As a rule - the more you feel wind resistance the more you tuck.
I do work on tucking in and riding in the drops when I'm out on my normal rides, but I found that yesterday I didn't have the neck/back stamina to keep it up for five hours. despite the last fifth to a quarter of the Sportive being virtually all flat/downhill, I found my average speed actually dropping as I had to continuously sit up to stretch. this was probably in no small part due to riding low down so much in the earlier stages, when I found I kept up with others much better.
something that will improve with experience I know.
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
As some have said, the resistance forces in steady state cycling are a balance between the major forces of air resistance and gravity (and some rolling resistance).class5700 wrote:why would this be? is it a fitness issue? a power-to-weight laws-of-physics issue?
The overall relationship between speed and power is a cubic equation, but the various component resistance forces do not all share this cubic relationship. The relationship between power required to overcome air resistance is cubic with speed, however the relationship between power required to overcome gravity (and rolling resistance) is linear with speed.
So the overall power-speed equation will vary from being dominated by the cubic air resistance relationship on flatter terrain, and progress towards being dominated by the linear gravity relationship as the hill gets steeper. See this chart as an example of how, for one rider, the proportional energy demand by resistance force varies with gradient while riding at the same power.
[img]http://i220.<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">photobucket.com/albums/dd226/ASimmons/ResistanceforcesbyGradient.jpg</span>[/img]
On flatter roads, then the vast bulk of the resistance is the air. Your speed is then primarily a function of the ratio of your power (units watts) to coefficient of aerodynamic drag (CdA - units m^2). i.e. W/m^2.
Since the relationship between speed and power to overcome air resistance is cubic, it means small increases in speed required much larger increases in the W/m^2. e.g. a 10% increase in speed with no change to your aerodynamics requires a nearly 30% increase in power. Conversely a 10% increase in power only provides a ~3.5% increase in speed.
When climbing, then your speed is primarily a function of your power to weight ratio. And on steep hills the relationship between power and speed is almost linear. e.g. a 10% increase in speed requires a little over a 10% increase in power. Conversely a 10% increase in power provides for just under a 10% increase in speed.
Now when a rider is 10% heavier, they do not add 10% to their aero drag coefficient, but rather less than that. So in general, heavier riders with similar power to body mass ratios as lighter riders gain an advantage on flat terrain, since their W/m^2 is typically better than the lighter rider.
However when two riders of similar W/m^2 (hence similar speed ability on flat terrain) head up a hill, the lighter rider generally has a better W/kg ratio and hence goes faster uphill.
However the cubic vs linear dominance interplay means that a rider gains more speed advantage from a 10% better W/kg ratio on a steep climb (nearly 10% faster on steep climb) than they do from a 10% better W/m^2 ratio on flat roads (only a 3.5% increase in speed).
Now of course there are very aero light riders who excel at both, so I am talking in general, typical scenarios.
great graph and explanation, thanks.0 -
class5700 wrote:blackpoolkev wrote:I have the opposite problem to you (good on flat, rubbish on hills). I live 15 miles from the nearest hills so spend a lot of time riding on windy, exposed,flat roads. When I do sportives I see a lot of folk gradually pulling away from me up hills but I find myself catching them up again on faster sections.
I notice that I tend to tuck more than most especially on seemingly gentle terrain. As a rule - the more you feel wind resistance the more you tuck.
I do work on tucking in and riding in the drops when I'm out on my normal rides, but I found that yesterday I didn't have the neck/back stamina to keep it up for five hours. despite the last fifth to a quarter of the Sportive being virtually all flat/downhill, I found my average speed actually dropping as I had to continuously sit up to stretch. this was probably in no small part due to riding low down so much in the earlier stages, when I found I kept up with others much better.
something that will improve with experience I know.
Sometimes I'm faced with a two hour ride home against a headwind and staying tucked all the way is just not comfortable. Take every available opportunity to adjust your posture to stay relaxed - little thing like the shelter from a hedgerow or a deviation in the road that turns you away from a direct headwind should be seen as the chance to sit up a bit.
Also your weight is a disadvantage when descending (heavy riders descend faster than light riders). Push hard over the crest of the top of hills to get up to speed and then use your efficient tuck to hold your speed whilst staying relaxed.0 -
This seems to make sense...
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/climbing-and-time-trialling-how-power-outputs-are-affected/0 -
Not to me it doesn't.Duncanandthemachine wrote:This seems to make sense...
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/climbing-and-time-trialling-how-power-outputs-are-affected/
I think the author probably misinterpreted what Raoul (a smart guy) was saying.0 -
what is your take Alex?0
-
Duncanandthemachine wrote:what is your take Alex?
The way i see it is, if your cadence and power is the same all that kinetic energy is a loud of rubbish? The reason some people climb better than on flat and visa versa is being able to get the power out when in an aero position compared to a more upright climbing position? More than likely wrong here though?0 -
It's multi-factoral, complex and individual.Duncanandthemachine wrote:what is your take Alex?
The kinetic energy argument has some merit, but it can't be divorced from considering the nature of the resistance forces in play. e.g. both riding an indoor trainer and climbing are relatively low kinetic energy scenarios, but the nature of the resistance forces involved can be quite different in each and may have different impacts on an individual's ability to sustain power as the neuromuscular and muscle group demands are subtly different.
In any case, there are those that can sustain higher power on hills, those that can sustain higher power on the flats, and those that can sustain higher power on an indoor trainer or rollers. And there are those (like me) whose power output is the pretty much the same in all scenarios. In general, sustaining power on flat terrain takes more concentration.0
![http://i220.<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">photobucket.com/albums/dd226/ASimmons/ResistanceforcesbyGradient.jpg</span>[/img]](/home/leaving?allowTrusted=1&target=http%3A%2F%2Fi220.%3Cspan%2520class%3D%22skimlinks-unlinked%22%3Ephotobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd226%2FASimmons%2FResistanceforcesbyGradient.jpg%3C%2Fspan%3E%5B%2Fimg%5D){kind=link}