Best Rate of Climb
Comments
-
But... It's not just about gearing.... Even if you have infinite gears your inertia will drop. Some people just get get out the power with low inertia and so will get a better power output and VAM on shallower gradients.
But yes, probably a lot of people are fundamentally over geared too. But just increasing gears and cadence isn't always the answer.
Edit to insert link http://cyclingtips.com/2013/09/climbing-and-time-trialling-how-power-outputs-are-affected/
I couldn't decide whether I thought this article great or rubbish. There's a lot of truth in the observations (I can hit much higher peak power outputs uphill than downhill - I expect we all can) but also I'm comparitively a faster rider on the flat and descents because I'm big. And he also spoke about the speed of pedal strokes - but that ultimately comes down to gearing. If you have fast pedal strokes - stick it in a spinning gear. Where it did make sense was in the inertia and the recruitment of muscles at different points of the pedal stroke. There's no doubt that chasing pedals (even at the same cadence) downhill feels very different than the same power & cadence uphill because, I guess, of how that power is being absorbed by the system: downhill potential energy is working with you and uphill it's working against you.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Your cynicism knows no bounds!
Is it so hard for you to consider a control situation where fatigue and wind are not factors?
Thanks for the compliment. No, it's not hard to consider - just pointless, that's all.
Fine, move along then.
Some people on here are just ignorant twats, on here solely to provocative - 'Imposter' is a good example
0 -
Your cynicism knows no bounds!
Is it so hard for you to consider a control situation where fatigue and wind are not factors?
Thanks for the compliment. No, it's not hard to consider - just pointless, that's all.
Fine, move along then.
Some people on here are just ignorant twats, on here solely to provocative - 'Imposter' is a good example
Bit of an over-reaction there. At least I contributed to the debate - whereas you've only come along to insult, and you couldn't even get that right. Keep trying though, eventually I expect you will disappear up your own ar5e...0 -
The number on the right is my VAM. I think Strava has it wrong.0
-
The number on the right is my VAM. I think Strava has it wrong.
Welcome to the forum. Grate first post.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
This.
In terms of energy the best slope is the steepest, as more of your watts are going in to overcoming gravity, and less in to wind resistance.
However, in practice a few interesting things happen as you go steeper;
1) You run out of gears and have to ride a cadence which is too low.
2) If you put on easier gears you can go steeper, but at some point balance becomes an issue (no going fast enough to balance side to side).
3) If your balance is very good, you may keep the bike upright but loose grip.
4) If the surface is grippy enough eventually the front wheel will lift the steeper you go.
Somewhere in the above the lack of inertia start effecting your pedal stroke and muscle recruitment. The slower you go, the less inertia you have to carry you through dead spots (no matter how fast your cadence). This requires using less efficient muscles. (A similar effect can be seen on low inertia trainers where people report lower power outputs). It seems to vary person to person though.
The above means that you'll climb quicker the steeper it is, given you can balance, have a smooth pedal stroke and low enough gearing. Obviously w/kg is a big factor in how well cyclists climb, however the above skills go some way to differentiate which cyclist prefer which gradients.
In practice most people find 7-10%.0 -
Not so great 5537th post.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19780850#p19780850]SloppySchleckonds[/url] wrote:The number on the right is my VAM. I think Strava has it wrong.
Welcome to the forum. Grate first post.
It grated with me.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
As has been said, I think gearing is key. I do very nicely on 7-8% climbs of anything up to 2 hours, but put me on the Fedaia or Mortirolo and it's a different matter entirely because cadence drops considerably.
It's an issue on continental sportives as it's easy to believe that as you can power up short, steep climbs in the UK that you'll be fine on those kind of gradients for an hour or so. Throw in the inevitable fatigue and it's likely that you'll be over-geared and suffering as a result.0 -
Big difference between powering up a short 1-2,000m lengthed climb versus riding up a mountain of 10 times the distance.
A very powerful rider (eg a sprinter or your typical UK TT'er) who can sustain their max of say 600-800 watts over a couple of minutes will climb a short very steep hill fastest, but they will probably be crap up a mountain as their watts/kg will not be great when compared to the 70 kg rider who can sustain 250 w for the hour.
So the best VAM will in part depend on the physique of the rider and also the length of hill / mountain.0 -
Big difference between powering up a short 1-2,000m lengthed climb versus riding up a mountain of 10 times the distance.
A very powerful rider (eg a sprinter or your typical UK TT'er) who can sustain their max of say 600-800 watts over a couple of minutes will climb a short very steep hill fastest, but they will probably be crap up a mountain as their watts/kg will not be great when compared to the 70 kg rider who can sustain 250 w for the hour.
So the best VAM will in part depend on the physique of the rider and also the length of hill / mountain.
don't forget, it's (bugger) all about the bike.0 -
Big difference between powering up a short 1-2,000m lengthed climb
Where are these short 2000 metre climbs?I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19782106#p19782106]SloppySchleckonds[/url] wrote:Big difference between powering up a short 1-2,000m lengthed climb
Where are these short 2000 metre climbs?
Length not altitude gain.
Plenty of 2km climbs around.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19782106#p19782106]SloppySchleckonds[/url] wrote:Big difference between powering up a short 1-2,000m lengthed climb
Where are these short 2000 metre climbs?
Length not altitude gain.
Plenty of 2km climbs around.
Of course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
> For long climbs (over 20 minutes) I always got my best VAM on climbs that were 7% average
about the same less than 8%
>... that said, most alpine climbs are around that figure, so that might be a coincidence.
gawd I wish, virtually everything round here is in the 9% plus range with long sections in the 10-12%, about 12% and it really gets hard for me. Friggin Col du Coq which is the closest climb starts with a b'astart 12% drag straight up the mountain, no bends, nothing. It then settles down to 9%, which is a relief before ramping up on the final couple of kms with bits close to 15%. 1100 meters of that.BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
> For long climbs (over 20 minutes) I always got my best VAM on climbs that were 7% average
about the same less than 8%
>... that said, most alpine climbs are around that figure, so that might be a coincidence.
gawd I wish, virtually everything round here is in the 9% plus range with long sections in the 10-12%, about 12% and it really gets hard for me. Friggin Col du Coq which is the closest climb starts with a b'astart 12% drag straight up the mountain, no bends, nothing. It then settles down to 9%, which is a relief before ramping up on the final couple of kms with bits close to 15%. 1100 meters of that.
What gearing do you have for that?0
