# Help on hills needed



## nathanicola (5 Dec 2012)

What can i do to help with climbing? I ride with a group of work mates and we are all into Strava, on flat segments they can't keep up with me and i'm starting to pile up a fare few kom's. The same goes for sprinting i can leave them standing, but when we're out really pushing it and climb a hill i'm pretty much last every time and i just can't see why. As soon as we're over it i'm back in front again, is it a case of just climbing every day or is there any other sort of training i can do?


----------



## Moodyman (5 Dec 2012)

Power to weight ratio. If you're big or overweight hills are against you. Going down them though you'll be much faster down them due to gravity.

Only way to improve is to ride more hills repeatedly. Also lose weight if you can.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Dec 2012)

Keep pointing your front wheel upwards


----------



## Nearly there (5 Dec 2012)

nathanicola said:


> What can i do to help with climbing? I ride with a group of work mates and we are all into Strava, on flat segments they can't keep up with me and i'm starting to pile up a fare few kom's. The same goes for sprinting i can leave them standing, but when we're out really pushing it and climb a hill i'm pretty much last every time and i just can't see why. As soon as we're over it i'm back in front again, is it a case of just climbing every day or is there any other sort of training i can do?


This is kinda how my strava stats go too but I know its because who I compete against im heavier so I expect to be slightly off pace on hill segments but im improving


----------



## Sittingduck (5 Dec 2012)

Increase power to weight.

You obviously have a decent amount of power? This will stand you in good stead and you should still be able to get decent at climbing, even if you are not particularly light. You can also increase your fitness, which will help substantially. Of course, climbing hills regularly will help too - practice makes perfect, and all that.


----------



## Hacienda71 (5 Dec 2012)

A lot of it is down to power to weight ratio. Chris Hoy wouldn't be quick up a long hill, but equally Chris Froome wouldn't be that quick on a short track sprint. You can improve your climbing by improving your aerobic fitness as well as losing weight. If the muscles you have work efficiently you will be able to use them for longer at their optimum level.


----------



## black'n'yellow (5 Dec 2012)

nathanicola said:


> What can i do to help with climbing? I ride with a group of work mates and we are all into Strava, on flat segments they can't keep up with me and i'm starting to pile up a fare few kom's. The same goes for sprinting i can leave them standing, but when we're out really pushing it and climb a hill i'm pretty much last every time and i just can't see why. As soon as we're over it i'm back in front again, is it a case of just climbing every day or is there any other sort of training i can do?


 
what is your height/weight..?


----------



## HLaB (5 Dec 2012)

nathanicola said:


> What can i do to help with climbing?


The stock answer, 'climb more hills'  If you are leaving folk on the flat, your obviously powerful but if you are struggling on hills relatively your power to weight ratio isn't the optimum. You need to increase that ratio and the optimum way is to practice on hills.


----------



## nathanicola (5 Dec 2012)

Thanks for replies lads, I'm 5'7, 64kg and 39yrs old dont know much about cycling fitness just bought a bike 6 months ago and started riding.Just can't see how i can hold high speeds for long distances but not climb so well and yet our best climber (and he really is good) admits that on the flats he stays stuck to my back wheel because he can't keep up.
Looks like i just got to keep climbing then. I have been avoiding hills and concentrating on the flat segments until now.
Would running improve my aerobic fitness or is it better to stick to the bike?


----------



## Sittingduck (5 Dec 2012)

nathanicola said:


> I have been avoiding hills and concentrating on the flat segments until now.


 
Eureka!


----------



## black'n'yellow (5 Dec 2012)

At 5'7 & 64kg there's not a lot wrong with your weight, tbh - which means the way forward is to work on improving your aerobic capacity and your ability to tolerate sustained high effort. Without knowing what 'high' speed you can hold for 'long distances' you obviously need to work on holding them higher or longer, or both. Improvement is about over-extending yourself on a regular basis, as opposed to riding within your current capabilities. Despite what you might read above, you don't need to ride up hills to become better at climbing.



nathanicola said:


> Would running improve my aerobic fitness or is it better to stick to the bike?


 
Running would make you better at running - improvement on the bike is best done on the bike.


----------



## Manonabike (5 Dec 2012)

I'm wondering what gears has the OP got, maybe his gear range it's the wrong one for hills.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Dec 2012)

Try to cling onto the fastest mountain goat that you ride with and suffer! Suffering is the key!


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Dec 2012)

There's technique too which counts for a lot..
Relaxation is the key ... sit back in the saddle, relax your upper body, arms and shoulders and spin or drive from your lower back, buttocks and legs only. Find the right gear. Steady your breathing.
Stand on short sharp hills if that suits, but don't waaste unecessary energy throwing your body or bike around. Too many try to wrestle their steeds uphill.

Other than that, practice over and over again.


----------



## nathanicola (6 Dec 2012)

Thanks for all the help chap's, as for clinging to our fastest mountain goat that's all of 10 seconds .



Fab Foodie said:


> There's technique too which counts for a lot..
> Relaxation is the key ... sit back in the saddle, relax your upper body, arms and shoulders and spin or drive from your lower back, buttocks and legs only. Find the right gear. Steady your breathing.
> Stand on short sharp hills if that suits, but don't waaste unecessary energy throwing your body or bike around. Too many try to wrestle their steeds uphill.
> 
> Other than that, practice over and over again.


 
You might have something there, i do find that when i'm really trying my neck arms and sholders go very tight


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

nathanicola said:


> You might have something there, i do find that when i'm really trying my neck arms and sholders go very tight


 
Forget about all this bullsh1t 'technique' stuff - it won't get you up hills any quicker. Fitness will. Unfortunately, for many people, the notion of improving 'technique' is a lot more attractive than actually working harder or training more.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Forget about all this bullsh1t 'technique' stuff - it won't get you up hills any quicker. Fitness will. Unfortunately, for many people, the notion of improving 'technique' is a lot more attractive than actually working harder or training more.


 
Nonsense frankly, nay even bollocks. I'll call you wrong.
Whilst there's no substitute for fitness, technique plays a big part. It is very simple to demonstrate when you find somebody struggling half way up a hill, give them a little coaching and decent advice and you find that suddenly as if by magic the hill becomes easier and they go quicker, but their fitness level hasn't changed.
Fitness with poor technique is wasted effort.
It's not rocket science.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Nonsense frankly, nay even bollocks. I'll call you wrong.
> Whilst there's no substitute for fitness, technique plays a big part. It is very simple to demonstrate when you find somebody struggling half way up a hill, give them a little coaching and decent advice and you find that suddenly as if by magic the hill becomes easier and they go quicker, but their fitness level hasn't changed.
> It's not rocket science, just an open mind.


 
Sorry, technique _is_ bollocks - but a lot of people grasp at it because they are inherently lazy, and being told you may have poor technique is easier to accept than the possibility that your fitness may be lacking, which may involve some hard effort to put right.

Put two riders at the bottom of a long, steady climb. Which one will get to the top first - the one with the best technique but poor fitness - or the one with poor technique but the best fitness..?? Technique is bullsh1t - it's just pedalling on an incline. As you said yourself - 'there's no substitute for fitness'...

Incidentally, I've been outridden up climbs by technically-inept riders who have better fitness than me. Work that one out.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (6 Dec 2012)

I'm the total opposite; I can nail climbing KOMs but struggle to hang onto sprint segements, but I'm kinda happy with that because I can hang onto my KOMs for longer!

The tip about relaxing seems good, but other than that I'd just stick with going up hills and you'll start going up them quicker.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (6 Dec 2012)

As a caveat - when I say 'hills' it's worth noting that I live in Suffolk...


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

No Technique is NOT bollocks, not in cycling nor swimming or any other sport. Consider this experiment:

2 people of equal fitness at the bottom of the hill, one with good technique one with poor technique ... who will you put your money on to win KOM?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> No Technique is NOT bollocks, not in cycling nor swimming or any other sport. Consider this experiment:


 
You're comparing cycling (mainly legs) to swimming (mainly arms)...??



Fab Foodie said:


> 2 people of equal fitness at the bottom of the hill, one with good technique one with poor technique ... who will you put your money on to win KOM?


 
Assuming they've both mastered the 'technique' of turning the pedals, and assuming their power outputs, w/kg and threshold levels are indeed equal, then it's going to be a dead heat. What else would you expect..?


----------



## amaferanga (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> No Technique is NOT bollocks, not in cycling nor swimming or any other sport. Consider this experiment:
> 
> 2 people of equal fitness at the bottom of the hill, one with good technique one with poor technique ... who will you put your money on to win KOM?


 
What do you mean by technique? If it's basic stuff like picking the right gear and cadence then you're right. Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by 'good' and 'poor' technique?


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Forget about all this bullsh1t 'technique' stuff - it won't get you up hills any quicker. Fitness will. Unfortunately, for many people, the notion of improving 'technique' is a lot more attractive than actually working harder or training more.


Really? Although I would accept that the biggest gains are made by better fitness levels I was labouring under a misaprehension that technique was an additional variable that would benefit climbing ability. Maybe you should tell @totallyfixed that when he is training his better half for the National Hill Climb Championships that all this technique he has helped her with is rubbish and she should just mtfu


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> Really? Although I would accept that the biggest gains are made by better fitness levels I was labouring under a misaprehension that technique was an additional variable that would benefit climbing ability. Maybe you should tell @totallyfixed that when he is training his better half for the National Hill Climb Championships that all this technique he has helped her with is rubbish and she should just mtfu


 
I don't know who _'@totallyfixed'_ is, sorry - and 'mtfu' is not what I said. As mentioned above - what do *you* mean by technique?


----------



## amaferanga (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I don't know who _'@totallyfixed'_ is, sorry - and 'mtfu' is not what I said. As mentioned above - what do *you* mean by technique?


 
This is the key question that no-one seems able or willing to answer!


----------



## Phaeton (6 Dec 2012)

Children, Children, stop bittering, just accept that you are both correct, I am both unfit & have terrible technique & struggle to get up hills, I know I need to be fitter, but at the same time I'm sure if my technique was better, i.e. keeping my upper body rigid & not swinging the bike side to side etc. then I wouldn't be wasting what little energy I have.

Alan...


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Phaeton said:


> I know I need to be fitter, but at the same time I'm sure if my technique was better, i.e. keeping my upper body rigid & not swinging the bike side to side etc. then I wouldn't be wasting what little energy I have.


 
the irony is that as your fitness improves, you will find that you stop doing all those things....


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

I am not an expert, Totallyfixed is a member on the forum and trains his wife to compete in the National Hill Climbs. He has posted on here many times about the benefits of the correct technique when climbing hills. eg

"Watch someone who is an expert at anything in life and it will always look effortless and that's the point I am trying to make, technique triumphs over power. My better half dr_pink was first lady up the Shap hill climb, I know she doesn't generate the power that one or two of the other ladies have, yet she beat them, including the hill record holder and a lot of men, how? By having very good technique, she also suffers from asthma and has a very poor peak flow, which makes her 17.2mph average up a 9.1 mile hill climb even more special. [can you tell I am proud?]."​totallyfixed, 17 May 2012 Report


Maybe you could PM him and he will explain. My attempts at improving my technique have been to relax my upper body so more of my CV fitness is going to the muscles I am using to actually pedal up the hill rather than tensing my upper body. Maybe I am totally wrong and I am wasting my time.


----------



## amaferanga (6 Dec 2012)

Does anyone want to comment on the technique of Thomas Voeckler or perhaps Chris Froome? Neither look particularly good when they're climbing. Do you think they should improve their technique and would that make them quicker up the hills?


----------



## amaferanga (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> I am not an expert, Totallyfixed is a member on the forum and trains his wife to compete in the National Hill Climbs. He has posted on here many times about the benefits of the correct technique when climbing hills. eg
> 
> "Watch someone who is an expert at anything in life and it will always look effortless and that's the point I am trying to make, technique triumphs over power. My better half dr_pink was first lady up the Shap hill climb, *I know she doesn't generate the power that one or two of the other ladies have*, yet she beat them, including the hill record holder and a lot of men, how? By having very good technique, she also suffers from asthma and has a very poor peak flow, which makes her 17.2mph average up a 9.1 mile hill climb even more special. [can you tell I am proud?]."​totallyfixed, 17 May 2012 Report
> 
> ...


 
She quite clearly has better power/weight ratio though. Her 'good' technique and optimal pacing may allow her to get up the hill as quick as she can with the power available, but good technique doesn't allow you to defy the laws of physics.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> You're comparing cycling (mainly legs) to swimming (mainly arms)...??
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming they've both mastered the 'technique' of turning the pedals, and assuming their power outputs, w/kg and threshold levels are indeed equal, then it's going to be a dead heat. What else would you expect..?


 
The one with the better technique to win... comfortably.

 Blimey this is hard work ... 

Nowhere have I said that technique is any substitute for fitness, hard work/practicing hills or whatever, IT COMPLIMENTS and as such is beneficial to somebody who is poor at climbing, so I don't know why you keep banging-on about fitness because I AGREE. So let's get that one straight first.

BUT using muscles that don't need to be used such as tense shoulders arms an backs etc is not efficient nor is wrestling with the bike as many newbies do, it's wasting 02 which could be better used elsewhere, like your legs. 
Where/how you sit on the seat relative to the pedals/bars affects mechanical efficiency/leverage if you like, so more gains there. Sitting differently allows other muscle groups to come into play which can be used to generate more power. Cadence affects how well you climb and your stamina. When to stand and honk and when to sit and spin makes a big difference, and so on. 
The great things about improving technique is that they are instant and free gains which will enhance increased fitness.

Oh, and swimming? Tell you what, go and get timed doing front crawl over 2 lengths of your local pool. Then immediately have say 30 mins training on technique with a swimming coach, listen, learn, then see how mach quicker and easier 2 lengths of the pool suddenly become. Again, faster but no change in fitnes, only better technique.
QED.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> I am not an expert, Totallyfixed is a member on the forum and trains his wife to compete in the National Hill Climbs. He has posted on here many times about the benefits of the correct technique when climbing hills. eg
> 
> "Watch someone who is an expert at anything in life and it will always look effortless and that's the point I am trying to make, technique triumphs over power. My better half dr_pink was first lady up the Shap hill climb, I know she doesn't generate the power that one or two of the other ladies have, yet she beat them, including the hill record holder and a lot of men, how? By having very good technique, she also suffers from asthma and has a very poor peak flow, which makes her 17.2mph average up a 9.1 mile hill climb even more special. [can you tell I am proud?]."​totallyfixed, 17 May 2012 Report
> 
> ...


 
With respect to 'totallyfixed', he hasn't actually said what this mysterious' technique is either. Having said that, the only way that his misses would have beaten all those people up the climb is by going faster than them - which means putting out more w/kg than them.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Does anyone want to comment on the technique of Thomas Voeckler or perhaps Chris Froome? Neither look particularly good when they're climbing. Do you think they should improve their technique and would that make them quicker up the hills?


 It doesn't matter whether they look good or not, just whether they're as afficient as they could be.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

amaferanga said:


> but good technique doesn't allow you to defy the laws of physics.


 
Good technique IS PHYSICS! That's the point, it's about maximising physical abilities, and it's free, it costs nothing and brings only gains, I don't see why you're struggling with this. All atheletes work on technique as well as fitness.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> BUT using muscles that don't need to be used such as tense shoulders arms an backs etc is not efficient nor is wrestling with the bike as many newbies do, it's wasting 02 which could be better used elsewhere, like your legs.
> Where/how you sit on the seat relative to the pedals/bars affects mechanical efficiency/leverage if you like, so more gains there. Sitting differently allows other muscle groups to come into play which can be used to generate more power. Cadence affects how well you climb and your stamina. When to stand and honk and when to sit and spin makes a big difference, and so on.
> The great things about improving technique is that they are instant and free gains which will enhance increased fitness.


 
All of that is a symptom of poor fitness. All of that will fix itself as fitness improves. Like I said before, you can apply all that to an unfit newbie and it will make sod all difference to their time up the hill.



Fab Foodie said:


> Oh, and swimming? Tell you what, go and get timed doing front crawl over 2 lengths of your local pool. Then immediately have say 30 mins training on technique with a swimming coach, listen, learn, then see how mach quicker and easier 2 lengths of the pool suddenly become. Again, faster but no change in fitnes, only better technique.
> QED.


 
there you go again - comparing swimming to cycling.


----------



## MrJamie (6 Dec 2012)

I find hill practice helps not only in improving fitness, but learning to find a sustainable effort level rather than pushing too hard early and limping up the end. Also knowing what size hills you can sprint/power up. Im terrible at hills because im very heavy, but i find i can get up most stuff fine (but slowly) if i just take it in an easy gear, then if i have anything left in the tank i can speed up towards the end.

I find running is really good for pushing aerobic fitness, purely from a personal point of view that i dont tend to keep the intensity up while cycling and i like to keep up both. Im not disputing that cycling hill training would be better of course.


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

amaferanga said:


> She quite clearly has better power/weight ratio though. Her 'good' technique and optimal pacing may allow her to get up the hill as quick as she can with the power available, but good technique doesn't allow you to defy the laws of physics.


I didn't say it did, I was pointing out that good technique will help as you had already said, which is what B&Y is saying is rubbish.


----------



## amaferanga (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Good technique IS PHYSICS! That's the point, it's about maximising physical abilities, and it's free, it costs nothing and brings only gains, I don't see why you're struggling with this. All atheletes work on technique as well as fitness.


 
But you can't actually define 'good' technique other than picking the right gear and relaxing your shoulders! If good technique isn't the same as looking good on the bike then how the heck do you know if someone has 'good' technique? What you want to do on the bike for hills is maximise your power output. If that's what you're calling 'good' technique then fine, we agree. Beyond the very basic stuff like the right gear etc. then there's not really much you can work on since what works for one won't necessarily work for another. You'd be hard pushed to say that Voeckler in particular has good technique, but his style works for him. I doubt anyone coached him to ride like that, nor do I think someone making him ride differently would make him faster.

So here's a question then. As a cyclist who has never thought about technique when climbing how should I go about improving my technique? Bear in mind that I race as a 2nd Cat and had a pretty decent result in the only hillclimb I've done (top ten in the Monsall HC last year), but what can I do to make me a better climber?


----------



## Andrew_Culture (6 Dec 2012)

I know we're talking about hill climbing here, but I wanted to share a quick downhill technique that I think is really important - when going down a hill make a gleeful weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sound and life will feel much improved.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> All of that is a symptom of poor fitness. All of that will fix itself as fitness improves. Like I said before, you can apply all that to an unfit newbie and it will make sod all difference to their time up the hill.
> 
> 
> 
> there you go again - comparing swimming to cycling.


 
You really don't get this do you?

Poor technique IS NOT the same as a lack of fitness, they are not the same, they are comlimentary abilities and BOTH help you to go faster. Good fitness poorly applied is wasted effort.
An unfit newbie in any sporting endeavour WILL go faster by instantly improving his technique. I gave an example from another sport also by way of analogy to demonstrate that it's not just cycling. I could easily have said the same about athletic sprinting from the years of watching my daughter being coached. 
I know that improving technique works from the many many people I've helped over the years take-up cycling, I know also from the feedback of the many newbies on CC who used my suggestion and replied days later that it made a big difference to their climbing ability.
It's good advice and it costs nothing to try.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> You really don't get this do you?


 
Realistically, I think you're the one who is out of your depth.



Fab Foodie said:


> Good fitness poorly applied is wasted effort.


 
example..?



Fab Foodie said:


> An unfit newbie in any sporting endeavour WILL go faster by instantly improving his technique. I gave an example from another sport also by way of analogy to demonstrate that it's not just cycling. I could easily have said the same about athletic sprinting from the years of watching my daughter being coached.


 
Some cycle-related examples would be useful. I've no doubt that for pistol shooting (for instance), technique is very important. For a sport like cycling, where aerobic performance is everything, technique is a long way down the list of priorities - especially when you can't even define it.



Fab Foodie said:


> I know that improving technique works from the many many people I've helped over the years take-up cycling, I know also from the feedback of the many newbies on CC who used my suggestion and replied days later that it made a big difference to their climbing ability.


 
lots of anecdote / bugger-all evidence.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Realistically, I think you're the one who is out of your depth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So why do sports coaches (including cycle-coaches) work on technique then if it's of no consequence?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> So why do sports coaches (including cycle-coaches) work on technique then if it's of no consequence?


 
As I said before, I'm only really concerned with talking about cycling - I can't speak for other sports. I'm not aware of any specific hill climbing techniques being taught at BC Level 2 (which is the level I coach at) other than body weight and gear selection - and even those are directed more at cyclocross or MTB, which is not what this thread is about. Any half decent coach will tell you that going up hill quicker relies more on aerobic performance, not technique. But then I've said all this before....


----------



## ColinJ (6 Dec 2012)

I know that swimming isn't a great example because technique in swimming is far more important than it is in cycling but it does illustrate FF's point well ... I used to work as a factory labourer in my 20s. It got me very fit and strong. I also used to run 2 or 3 times a week and swim 3 times a week after work. I was very powerful.

I could swim all day if I had to but I couldn't swim _fast_. There was a girl aged about 8 who was often in the pool at about the same time as me and she used to swim 4,000 metres in the time it took me to do 2,000. I absolutely thrashed myself trying to keep up with her but my energy was wasted. She propelled herself forwards almost effortlessly whereas I was busting a gut to just stir water!

Yes, power-to-weight ratio is ninety-something percent important when climbing hills on a bike, but it isn't one hundred percent, which is all that FF and totallyfixed are getting at.

And _as if by_ _magic_ ... totallyfixed and dr_pink have just texted me to say they are passing through Hebden Bridge on their way back from buying a new bike so I am going out to have lunch with them. I'll mention this thread to them!

Byeeeee (puts shoes on and heads for door) ...


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I know that swimming isn't a great example because technique in swimming is far more important than it is in cycling but it does illustrate FF's point well ... I used to work as a factory labourer in my 20s. It got me very fit and strong. I also used to run 2 or 3 times a week and swim 3 times a week after work. I was very powerful.
> 
> I could swim all day if I had to but I couldn't swim _fast_. There was a girl aged about 8 who was often in the pool at about the same time as me and she used to swim 4,000 metres in the time it took me to do 2,000. I absolutely thrashed myself trying to keep up with her but my energy was wasted. She propelled herself forwards almost effortlessly whereas I was busting a gut to just stir water!


 
Can we please stop talking about swimming - it's got sod all to do with the topic. I understand that technique is also very important in football, but that doesn't validate the argument either.


----------



## montage (6 Dec 2012)

Maximizing the use of muscles in the optimum fashion is going to be more energy efficient than not. Learning to ride in the correct gear and not strangle your bars is going to save energy, and therefore allow you to reach your potential going up that climb.

Nobody is saying that technique is going to get your up the hills faster than good fitness, but not wasting energy will get you up hills faster than wasting energy, so what is wrong with a few gentle pointers on making life simpler? It isn't coached because it is something everyone learns on their first club run - as you are wheezing up a hill some old hand seems to glide past you telling you to chill out and relax a bit.

Black'n'yellow, everyone gets what you are saying, power:weight is god, and technique is hugely overrated..... but there is no need to try and jump up somebody's arse just because they gave harmless pointers. You might as well get a rant about squats in here whilst you are at it, thread has been ruined by cockslapping anyway


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

montage said:


> Black'n'yellow, everyone gets what you are saying, power:weight is god, and technique is hugely overrated..... but there is no need to try and jump up somebody's arse just because they gave harmless pointers. You might as well get a rant about squats in here whilst you are at it, thread has been ruined by cockslapping anyway


 
fella - you're the only one jumping up anyone's arse - the rest of us are trying to have a reasoned argument. We still haven't had a proper definition of what this 'technique' is anyway.


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Sorry, technique _is_ bollocks - but a lot of people grasp at it because they are inherently lazy, and being told you may have poor technique is easier to accept than the possibility that your fitness may be lacking, which may involve some hard effort to put right.
> 
> Put two riders at the bottom of a long, steady climb. Which one will get to the top first - the one with the best technique but poor fitness - or the one with poor technique but the best fitness..?? Technique is bullsh1t - it's just pedalling on an incline. As you said yourself - 'there's no substitute for fitness'...
> 
> Incidentally, I've been outridden up climbs by technically-inept riders who have better fitness than me. Work that one out.


 
This is an amusing post. It also seems slightly crosser in tone than the topic or disagreement justifies.

There is certainly a place for technique. It is of value and is as valued by top pro-peleton riders as much as it is by slightly tubby puff-alongs like me.

You seem convinced that the only comparison is between an unfit rider with good technique and a fit one with poor technique. 

An inexperienced, fit rider will climb faster by improving technique. Certainly, more fitness never hurts and repeated training climbs will also add speed. But improved technique will imrove climbing ability. It's the same for descending. 

My son is a quick climber (5'9" and 62Kg, with legs to his armpits). He blitzes me now, but we still work on his technique:

Relaxing the hands, arms and upper body, hitting a good rhythm, moving slightly on the saddle, hitting a nice, smooth, circular pedalling action.... Relaxing the hands, breathing correctly. It all helps.

Most people do not 'grasp at' technique because they are inherently lazy. I'm not sure why you would think that. Fitness is key and good technique is helpful.


----------



## montage (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> fella - you're the only one jumping up anyone's arse - the rest of us are trying to have a reasoned argument. We still haven't had a proper definition of what this 'technique' is anyway.


 
Maybe your tone has been unintentional, but perhaps re-read this thread - you usually post good stuff on here but this one hasn't come over well


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> You seem convinced that the only comparison is between an unfit rider with good technique and a fit one with poor technique.


 
So you have assumed my entire ethos by extrapolating one of my comments? That's a bit daft.



Boris Bajic said:


> An inexperienced, fit rider will climb faster by improving technique. Certainly, more fitness never hurts and repeated training climbs will also add speed. But improved technique will imrove climbing ability. It's the same for descending.


 
Everyone keeps talking about technique - but nobody seems able to define it?



Boris Bajic said:


> My son is a quick climber (5'9" and 62Kg, with legs to his armpits). He blitzes me now, but we still work on his technique:


 
What is your point..?



Boris Bajic said:


> Relaxing the hands, arms and upper body, hitting a good rhythm, moving slightly on the saddle, hitting a nice, smooth, circular pedalling action.... Relaxing the hands, breathing correctly. It all helps.


 
You see, I wouldn't call that technique - I would call that simply 'riding a bike'. 



Boris Bajic said:


> Most people do not 'grasp at' technique because they are inherently lazy. I'm not sure why you would think that. Fitness is key and good technique is helpful.


 
People by nature *are* inherently lazy - and anyone who says they are not is probably lying. We all want the quick way to fitness - or in this case the 'pain-free' way to improved hill climbing. All I can do is come back to the point that _Amaferanga_ made earlier - which is that nobody seems able to define exactly what this 'magical' hill climbing technique is....


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

montage said:


> Maybe your tone has been unintentional, but perhaps re-read this thread - you usually post good stuff on here but this one hasn't come over well


 
My tone is always intentional - but that's not the same as being appropriate. We'll get there in the end though...


----------



## Manonabike (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Nonsense frankly, nay even bollocks. I'll call you wrong.
> Whilst there's no substitute for fitness, technique plays a big part. It is very simple to demonstrate when you find somebody struggling half way up a hill, give them a little coaching and decent advice and you find that suddenly as if by magic the hill becomes easier and they go quicker, but their fitness level hasn't changed.
> Fitness with poor technique is wasted effort.
> It's not rocket science.


 

There's no need to waste time with ignorant people. Brute force is the key to anything for some people.

Add them to your ignore list and continue your conversation.


----------



## amaferanga (6 Dec 2012)

And here we are, still waiting for the holy grail that is the definition of 'good' technique. So far it seems to be pick the right gear and relax your upper body. Is that really it?


----------



## amaferanga (6 Dec 2012)

Manonabike said:


> There's no need to waste time with ignorant people. Brute force is the key to anything for some people.
> 
> Add them to your ignore list and continue your conversation.


 
Funny, I just see someone with a valid point (black'n'yellow) debating with someone (Fab Foodie) who can't even explain what it is he's banging on about when he uses the term 'good' technique. So which one is ignorant?


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Everyone keeps talking about technique - but nobody seems able to define it?
> 
> You see, I wouldn't call that technique - I would call that simply 'riding a bike'.


 


Boris Bajic said:


> Relaxing the hands, arms and upper body, hitting a good rhythm, moving slightly on the saddle, hitting a nice, smooth, circular pedalling action.... Relaxing the hands, breathing correctly. It all helps.


 
When I first started riding longer climbs up in the Penines I was tense and always found it hard work. A guy I had ridden with said relax hold the top of the bars concentrate on pedalling rather than dragging the bike up the hill. I did this and I got faster quicker than my fitness was improving, I also listened to what was posted on this forum and tried to pace myself rather than going off to fast at the start of a long climb, it seems to work. All of that is technique and was taught and it has helped me to ride up hills faster than before, which is what the OP is asking with help on. No one is denying that fitness is the main factor, but to totally dismiss or ignore being able to improve climbing technique to help with climbing is a little blinkered.


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Dec 2012)

amaferanga said:


> And here we are, still waiting for the holy grail that is the definition of 'good' technique. So far it seems to be pick the right gear and relax your upper body. Is that really it?


 
I'm not sure the Internet is the place for this discussion. A spark of disagreement can make a boulder of a tiny semantic stone chip.

Much of what I picked up was (as Hacienda71 says) from more experienced riders I tagged along with.

A few other good tips came from fast club racers who were kind enough to tuck in behind my sweating bulk on training rides and offer some pointers.

Almost all that I've been taught about technique was that way or on rollers or (much later) on a Turbo. 

Interestingly (am I the only one to have felt this?) the smooth bum-on-seat pedalling required when an off-road climb gets really steep and slippery is also a good form of training in smooth climbing technique on the road. Similarly (and to my great surprise) my pedalling action has improved through riding fixed-gear.

But amaferanga and B&Y, there is nothing I can add about technique on the Internet. Much better to have this chat with a cyclist and in the proximity of a bicycle.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> When I first started riding longer climbs up in the Penines I was tense and always found it hard work. A guy I had ridden with said relax hold the top of the bars concentrate on pedalling rather than dragging the bike up the hill.


 
sorry - what do you mean by _'dragging the bike uphill'_..?



Hacienda71 said:


> I did this and I got faster quicker than my fitness was improving,


 
This is getting silly. How could you possibly know that?



Hacienda71 said:


> I also listened to what was posted on this forum and tried to pace myself rather than going off to fast at the start of a long climb, it seems to work.


 
that's called 'sensible advice' - not 'technique'. There is a difference.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> But amaferanga and B&Y, there is nothing I can add about technique on the Internet. Much better to have this chat with a cyclist and in the proximity of a bicycle.


 
There is plenty you could add, if you knew what you were talking about. Amaferanga is a 2nd cat - so is presumably a regular road/circuit racer. I am a 3rd cat and also a regular road/circuit racer. If you explained it, I'm pretty sure we would 'get it'...


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> There's technique too which counts for a lot..


What is this technique?



Fab Foodie said:


> Oh, and swimming? Tell you what, go and get timed doing front crawl over 2 lengths of your local pool. Then immediately have say 30 mins training on technique with a swimming coach, listen, learn, then see how mach quicker and easier 2 lengths of the pool suddenly become. Again, faster but no change in fitnes, only better technique.
> QED.


You realise that those comparisons scream out that you are just clutching at anything that might fly?

You haven't defined "technique" so to compare nothing to swimming is a tad absurd,before you consider how different a sport it is.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

amaferanga said:


> And here we are, still waiting for the holy grail that is the definition of 'good' technique. So far it seems to be pick the right gear and relax your upper body. Is that really it?


 
So, my advice regarding technique for improving hill-climbing ability as per the OP is as follows (expanded from my first post):

Relaxation is the key ..., relax your upper body, arms and shoulders and spin or drive from your lower back, buttocks and legs only. _IME, this has a noticeable, immediate and biggest effect on those struggling up hills. Many inexperienced approach hills with fear and tension gripping the bars for grim death, relaxing tense muscles leaves more energy/O2 for the driving muscles._

Sit back in the saddle - _effectively lengthens your leg like slightly raising the saddle, allows greater leverage and helps the large muscles of the hamstrings/glutes com into play_

Find the right gear. _In fact find the right gear for you at the right cadence, this might take some experimentation_

Steady your breathing . _Short tense shallow breaths are not the best for oxygenating the body or expelling CO2_
Stand on short sharp hills if that suits - _changing-up a gear, maybe 2 here helps_,.


Don't waste unecessary energy throwing your body or bike around. Too many try to wrestle their steeds uphill. _Again this wastes energy for little velocity gain_

*Other than that, practice over and over again.*

I never said it was a Holy Grail, but they are pieces of technique or 'advice' if you prefer (semantics) for newbies and people that find hills difficult find works .....repeatedly.

If technique is not valuable why do coaches teach it - 'pedalling technique' for example was a favourite of our club coach.....

A quick Random Google:
http://www.chainreaction.com/hills.htm

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/technique-how-to-become-a-hill-climbing-star-12092/

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/beginner-technique-hill-climbing-made-easy-22491/

I could go on, but others seem to think there is a technique to climbing hills as well ....

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Hill+Climbing+Technique&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

As I am not a Cat 2 or 3 racer and irrespective of who told me to do what I personally did and how I felt it worked, I can not comment on this thread other than to say the advice from our forum sages to the OP is not about changing your technique, is to just ride up more hills to increase your fitness.
It doesn't matter what gear you are in, how you hold the bars/hoods, how fast you set off up a climb, if you are seated or standing whatever the gradient, if you are tensing your upper body or relaxed, your body position while standing and when to change gear when changing from seated to standing. Any advice to change your, dare I say the word technique is wholly irrelevant and will make absolutely no difference to your climbing speed.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

*tech·nique*

[tek-neek] Show IPA
noun
1.
the manner and ability with which an artist, writer, dancer, athlete, or the like employs the technical skills of a particular art or field of endeavor.
2.
the body of specialized procedures and methods used in any specific field, especially in an area of applied science.
3.
method of performance; way of accomplishing.
4.
technical skill; ability to apply procedures or methods so as to effect a desired result.
5.
Informal. method of projecting personal charm, appeal, etc.: He has the greatest technique with customers.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Relaxation is the key ..., relax your upper body, arms and shoulders and spin or drive from your lower back, buttocks and legs only. IME, this has a noticeable, immediate and biggest effect on those struggling up hills. Many inexperienced approach hills with fear and tension gripping the bars for grim death, relaxing tense muscles leaves more energy/O2 for the driving muscles.


 
The notion that gripping the bars tightly 'diverts' energy from your legs is completely laughable. This would only even be potentially valid if you were making a maximal (ie anaerobic) effort up a long climb - which is not sustainable anyway. Nor does it explain why sprinters sprint out of the saddle, usually rocking the bike from side to side - surely they would be better off keeping still, so as 'not to divert energy from their legs'..? Come on...



Fab Foodie said:


> Sit back in the saddle - effectively lengthens your leg like slightly raising the saddle, allows greater leverage and helps the large muscles of the hamstrings/glutes com into play


 
If you need to adjust your position to bring certain muscle sets into play, then your position needs looking at.



Fab Foodie said:


> Find the right gear. In fact find the right gear for you at the right cadence, this might take some experimentation


 
By your own helpful definition of 'technique' above, that's advice - not technique.



Fab Foodie said:


> Steady your breathing . Short tense shallow breaths are not the best for oxygenating the body or expelling CO2


 
I've been riding a while - I've never come across anyone doing this, unless they have some kind of respiratory problem. No need to 'control' something which your body usually takes care of automatically anyway.



Fab Foodie said:


> Stand on short sharp hills if that suits - changing-up a gear, maybe 2 here helps,.


 
Once again, that is advice, not technique. In fact, it's not even advice, it's just an option.



Fab Foodie said:


> Don't waste unecessary energy throwing your body or bike around. Too many try to wrestle their steeds uphill. Again this wastes energy for little velocity gain


 
Once again, there is little relevance here, for the reasons stated earlier.


----------



## nathanicola (6 Dec 2012)

Wow this threads moved on don't get heated chap's, any tips are appreciated. I get the idea that i need to improve my fitness levels by just slogging it up the hills every day. I have re routed my commute home so i now have a nice long 7% climb, but i'm not unfit or i wouldn't be faster than my riding group on the flats, i can quite comfortably sit at 23mph for long distances and i'm a good sprinter. That was why i was wondering if i had a bit of poor technique as well. I now understand that i need to relax my top half which is totaly opposite than i have been doing. I tence my shoulders so much they start to burn. I also find that i sit right on the front of the saddle when climbing so i need to try and move back. Also chating with our best climber today he said keep your breathing calm and steady for as long as you can as you come up to the hill and as you start it, other wise you start to use your energy before you get there. Going to concentrate on just hill work for the next few weeks and see if i can improve.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Dec 2012)

nathanicola said:


> Wow this threads moved on don't get heated chap's, any tips are appreciated. I get the idea that i need to improve my fitness levels by just slogging it up the hills every day. I have re routed my commute home so i now have a nice long 7% climb, but i'm not unfit or i wouldn't be faster than my riding group on the flats, i can* quite comfortably sit at 23mph for long distances and i'm a good sprinter*. That was why i was wondering if i had a bit of poor technique as well. I now understand that i need to relax my top half which is totaly opposite than i have been doing. I tence my shoulders so much they start to burn. I also find that i sit right on the front of the saddle when climbing so i need to try and move back. Also chating with our best climber today he said keep your breathing calm and steady for as long as you can as you come up to the hill and as you start it, other wise you start to use your energy before you get there. Going to concentrate on just hill work for the next few weeks and see if i can improve.


 
How long are these long distances?

When you say you are good at sprinting, what exactly do you mean?


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

This guy is delusional


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

nathanicola said:


> Also chating with our best climber today he said keep your breathing calm and steady for as long as you can as you come up to the hill and as you start it, other wise you start to use your energy before you get there.


 
uh..? He may be 'your best climber', but that doesn't mean he is talking sense...


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Dec 2012)

Also what type of hills are giving you problems? It may be beneficial to know what sort of climb you struggle with, because this would indicate an underlying weakness in your fitness. Eg. Long not so steep drags? Short steep climbs? Climbs with quite varying gradients?


----------



## amaferanga (6 Dec 2012)

Some _great_ advice here for anyone who has never ridden a bike before....


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> uh..? He may be 'your best climber', but that doesn't mean he is talking sense...


 ... but don't you love the irony .....


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> ... but don't you love the irony .....


 
The irony of someone offering advice with no basis in logic or fact..? Absolutely.


----------



## Grayduff (6 Dec 2012)

Well i learned something


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Dec 2012)

Take a wazz at the foot of the hill! I tried that, knocked a minute off my previous week's time, it must work!


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

Here is a retired pro talking rubbish.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> This guy is delusional



Clearly ....
I've pi55ed myself with joy watching that ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> Here is a retired pro talking rubbish.


 God there's alot of us talking nonsense out there!


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> Here is a retired pro talking rubbish.


 
Not rubbish at all, although I suspect you were trying to be ironic. Gearing, cadence and position are all useful (if somewhat elementary) considerations while climbing. None of them will get you up the hill quicker than a guy with a better threshold though...


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

Here is some other idiot championing a technique that will have no effect. Clearly tainted by the association with drugs cheats.


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Not rubbish at all, although I suspect you were trying to be ironic. Gearing, cadence and position are all useful (if somewhat elementary) considerations. None of them will get you up the hill quicker than a guy with a better threshold though...


 
I totally accept that. but what about the two riders with the same threshold. Will the better technical rider not get to the top of the climb quicker?

Gone on admit it, then we can all stop this bickering and let the op go and ride up some big hills and improve his VO2 fitness....


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> I totally accept that. but what about the two riders with the same threshold. Will the better technical rider not get to the top of the climb quicker?


 
no - can you explain to me why you think that would be the case..? Regardless of riding style, tell me why two riders on the same gearing, laying down the same w/kg would not ride up the climb side by side?


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Not rubbish at all, although I suspect you were trying to be ironic. *Gearing, cadence and position* are all useful (if somewhat elementary) considerations while climbing. None of them will get you up the hill quicker than a guy with a *better* threshold though...


 
You have just pointed it out . I don't need to explain, you have done it here. The person with the *better* threshold will go up quicker, but thresholds being equal between two riders which one will get to the top first? The one with the good technique or the one without? The good climbing technique they refer to maybe elementary to you as a seasoned racer but it may not be to the OP who by his own admission is fairly new to cycling.
Why would pro's and high level coaches as linked to peddle their snake oil to the masses about having a good climbing technique? If the irony of my previous links is so off the mark then maybe you should email the writers of the articles and the coach on Youtube and put them right.


----------



## endoman (6 Dec 2012)

Here's a bit about " technique" written by Gunnar Gronlund, ex National Hill Climb champ, second this year, when I've watched him climb it looks effortless, like he's hardly trying, but his threshold power will be huge as he TT's a lot as well. Tried his strategy in the last hill climb I did and it did keep me spinning without changing to an easier gear, never hurt so much though, but that is the point of a hill climb comp!

Comes from longer article here, http://roadcyclinguk.com/riding/tra...-champion-gunnar-gronlunds-top-tips-1642.html

*Climbing technique*
It’s more efficient to climb in the saddle and that’s my preferred technique – but obviously if it’s really steep then you have to get out of the saddle! Rather than change down a gear, I prefer to get out of the saddle, get the gear back up to speed and then sit back down.
I never ride a fixed gear bike. I like to have the option to change gear, although only ever once or twice. Changing down is something I try to avoid at all costs when I’m racing. Mentally you want to put it into an easier gear but by that time you’ll already be at your limit so you’ll suffer just as much even if you go down a gear.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> You have just pointed it out . I don't need to explain, you have done it here. The person with the *better* threshold will go up quicker, but thresholds being equal between two riders which one will get to the top first? The one with the good technique or the one without? The good climbing technique they refer to maybe elementary to you as a seasoned racer but it may not be to the OP who by his own admission is fairly new to cycling.
> Why would pro's and high level coaches as linked to peddle their snake oil to the masses about having a good climbing technique? If the irony of my previous links is so off the mark then maybe you should email the writers of the articles and the coach on Youtube and put them right.


 
mate - you are at risk of disappearing up your own arse if you keep linking to pseudo-science and conveniently anecdotal youtube clips. I bet that none of those 'high level' (?) coaches (if that is what they are) would favour technique over aerobic performance, and I know what they would tell you to work on as a priority to get the best results. Technique will not get you up hills quicker. It doesn't get experienced cyclists up hills and it certainly won't get beginners up them either.

Anyway, you missed my question, below...



black'n'yellow said:


> no - can you explain to me why you think that would be the case..? Regardless of riding style, tell me why two riders on the same gearing, laying down the same w/kg would not ride up the climb side by side?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

endoman said:


> *Climbing technique*
> It’s more efficient to climb in the saddle and that’s my preferred technique – but obviously if it’s really steep then you have to get out of the saddle! Rather than change down a gear, I prefer to get out of the saddle, get the gear back up to speed and then sit back down.


 
All of which will only become possible when you have the fitness to apply it. Also bear in mind why the article was written and who the article is written for. Strangely, the article also omits details of the many hundreds of hours of base conditioning, interval training and racing that Mr Gronlund had been knocking out in the months before the hill-climb. Unfortunately, that's not the sort of thing that interests the readers...ironically, that is where the real work is done.


----------



## nathanicola (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> uh..? He may be 'your best climber', but that doesn't mean he is talking sense...


He might not be talking sence but he does have 12 hill koms and countless ones that he is just a couple of seconds off


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

B n Y
Watch my lips:

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT TECHNIQUE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FITNESS ... 
BUT IF 2 PEOPLE HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME FITNESS THE ONE WHO CAN APPLY IT BETTER i.e HAS THE BETTER TECHNIQUE WILL BE THE BETTER CLIMBER. 

I'd use an analogy, but you don't understand them.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> The notion that gripping the bars tightly 'diverts' energy from your legs is completely laughable. This would only even be potentially valid if you were making a maximal (ie anaerobic) effort up a long climb - which is not sustainable anyway. Nor does it explain why sprinters sprint out of the saddle, usually rocking the bike from side to side - surely they would be better off keeping still, so as 'not to divert energy from their legs'..? Come on...
> 
> It's pretty simple human physiology, if you're tensing muscles they're doing work which needs more fuel and O2 than when relaxed. A newbie climber might not have the best CV system in the world and so every bit of energy wasted is energy not available for driving the bike forward. It's simple stuff. I could suggest an experiment or an analogy for you by way of demonstration.
> Sprinters sprint out of the saddle for a very short period of time and can afford to run-up anaerobic debt as they'll soon stop to recover, sustained climbing is different. The 'technique' is not the same and the max power sprinters deliver is probably much greater than good climbers.
> ...


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

nathanicola said:


> He might not be talking sence but he does have 12 hill koms and countless ones that he is just a couple of seconds off


 
he sounds awesome..


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> B n Y
> Watch my lips:
> 
> NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT TECHNIQUE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FITNESS ...
> ...


 
eh? so two people with the same gearing, same w/kg - but one is quicker..?? Tell me how the 'better technique' will make them quicker please..??

I'm fine with analogies - but I am having trouble making sense out of your random waffle.


----------



## User6179 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> eh? so two people with the same gearing, same w/kg - but one is quicker..?? Tell me how the 'better technique' will make them quicker please..??
> 
> I'm fine with analogies - but I am having trouble making sense out of your random waffle.


 

Obviously the one not wasting energy due to poor technic !


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Eddy said:


> Obviously the one not wasting energy due to poor technic !


 
yeah, that really moves things on....


----------



## User6179 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> yeah, that really moves things on....


 
Thanks am here to help!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (6 Dec 2012)




----------



## User6179 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> eh? so two people with the same gearing, same w/kg - but one is quicker..?? Tell me how the 'better technique' will make them quicker please..??
> 
> I'm fine with analogies - but I am having trouble making sense out of your random waffle.


 
Just noticed you said same gearing , lets say one rider grinding up a 15% climb out the saddle in a 39-20 as opposed to another rider sitting with a higher cadence in a 34-25 , would you not call this technic?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Eddy said:


> Just noticed you said same gearing , lets say one rider grinding up a 15% climb out the saddle in a 39-20 as opposed to another rider sitting with a higher cadence in a 34-25 , would you not call this technic?


 
I wouldn't call it 'technic' (don't they make hi-fi equipment?). But I wouldn't call it technique either. The assumption is that they are both riding up hill at the same speed/power, with the same final drive, regardless of cadence and actual gear choice, because such things are largely down to individual preference.


----------



## User6179 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I wouldn't call it 'technic' (don't they make hi-fi equipment?). But I wouldn't call it technique either. The assumption is that they are both riding up hill at the same speed/power, regardless of cadence and gear choice, because such things are largely down to individual preference.


 
Ok so someone answers your question so you change the question


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Eddy said:


> Ok so someone answers your question so you change the question


 
Er, no. Two riders with the same gearing - same w/kg - exactly what I said at the top of the page, so what's changed..? Cadence and gear selection have to be individual choices, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> mate - you are at risk of disappearing up your own arse


 
What a pleasant post.............


----------



## User6179 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Er, no. Two riders with the same gearing - same w/kg - exactly what I said at the top of the page, so what's changed..? Cadence and gear selection have to be individual choices, for obvious reasons.


 
So you lose the argument so change the argument to something else, are you female by any chance?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Eddy said:


> So you lose the argument so change the argument to something else, are you female by any chance?


 
fella - it's not changed. Which bit do you think has changed?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> What a pleasant post.............


 
The truth rarely is, unfortunately. This thread is a good example of that.


----------



## User6179 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> fella - it's not changed. Which bit do you think has changed?


 

Why do you think its not changed?


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Eddy said:


> Why do you think its not changed?


 
come on, that's not even good trolling....seriously, the thread is bad enough already without monkeys posting on it.


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> The truth rarely is, unfortunately. This thread is a good example of that.


 
No one is disputing that fitness is the biggest influencing factor by a long long way, but as posting links to more experienced riders comments extolling the virtues of good hill climbing technique makes me "disappear up my own arse" Can you explain why you referred to "sensible advice" in relation to hill climbing then argued that it wasn't "technique" which is semantics. Why was this "sensible advice" implying you should do it, and yet you argue that it will make no difference to your climbing speed. To quote you "*Gearing, cadence and position* are all useful (if somewhat elementary) considerations while climbing" Surely two identical riders who have exactly the same fitness levels will end up at the top of the climb at different times if one applies their power in a more efficient manner on the road possibly by using a better chosen gear, a more appropriate cadence for their physiology and a good position. If not why do people tell you to do it?

This is a genuine non ironic question.

Oh and as you are so keen on this maybe you could show us some scientific data as to identical energy transfer while climbing in different standing positions and when seated.

One last thing if you could avoid refering to my arse and try not to answer in a Clarksonesque its all about the POWER type of response I would appreciate it.


----------



## User6179 (6 Dec 2012)

Knew it wouldnt belong before you got personal B nY!

Good nite


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

Lots of good advice here:
http://www.cptips.com/climb.htm


----------



## endoman (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> No one is disputing that fitness is the biggest influencing factor by a long long way, but as posting links to more experienced riders comments extolling the virtues of good hill climbing technique makes me "disappear up my own arse" Can you explain why you referred to "sensible advice" in relation to hill climbing then argued that it wasn't "technique" which is semantics. Why was this "sensible advice" implying you should do it, and yet you argue that it will make no difference to your climbing speed. To quote you "*Gearing, cadence and position* are all useful (if somewhat elementary) considerations while climbing" Surely two identical riders who have exactly the same fitness levels will end up at the top of the climb at different times if one applies their power in a more efficient manner on the road possibly by using a better chosen gear, a more appropriate cadence for their physiology and a good position. If not why do people tell you to do it?
> 
> This is a genuine non ironic question.
> 
> ...


 
Think about where the power is measured. Both riders producing 300W at the cranks, but one may produce another 20 that he wastes in upper body motion etc. If he changed his " technique" to better harness that power at the cranks then the riders now have different power outputs.


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Dec 2012)

interesting debate,
My question is:

The same rider rides the same flat piece of road with the same gear and same pedal rate. On the first day he sit up high on the top bars and on the second bar he used the drops.

Which day is he quicker ? The day he sitting high on the bike causing a larger drag due wind resitance or when he is low down making himself more areodynamic.

Its common sense but its still a techique.


----------



## Sittingduck (6 Dec 2012)

Aero is not much of an issue when climbing.


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Dec 2012)

That maybe true, it was just an example of where by the same rider can be quicker with an improvement of technique.


----------



## Sittingduck (6 Dec 2012)

Fair do's


----------



## lukesdad (6 Dec 2012)

Sittingduck said:


> Aero is not much of an issue when climbing.


 That would not be about aero but more about body position.


----------



## Crackle (6 Dec 2012)

Sittingduck said:


> Aero is not much of an issue when climbing.


No aero's are quite light. A Mars would be more of a penalty.


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

Crackle said:


> No aero's are quite light. A Mars would be more of a penalty.


 Aero Bars are the things for going faster ...


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> Why was this "sensible advice" implying you should do it, and yet you argue that it will make no difference to your climbing speed.


 
It may well be good practice to do all of those things - but expecting it to actually make a difference to your speed (ie your power output) is fanciful.



Hacienda71 said:


> To quote you "*Gearing, cadence and position* are all useful (if somewhat elementary) considerations while climbing" Surely two identical riders who have exactly the same fitness levels will end up at the top of the climb at different times if one applies their power in a more efficient manner on the road possibly by using a better chosen gear, a more appropriate cadence for their physiology and a good position. If not why do people tell you to do it?


 
You haven't understood what I mean by 'gearing' - a combination of your chosen gear and the cadence you ride at. It is possible for two riders with the same gearing (ie the same road speed) to have differing gear selection and cadence. Road speed is the only constant. Assuming that is the case, I can't see how technique will play a part.



Hacienda71 said:


> Oh and as you are so keen on this maybe you could show us some scientific data as to identical energy transfer while climbing in different standing positions and when seated.


 
No idea where to look for that. If you find some, post them up. Meanwhile, we'll all have to rely on anectodes - just like everyone else in this thread.



Hacienda71 said:


> One last thing if you could avoid refering to my arse and try not to answer in a Clarksonesque its all about the POWER type of response I would appreciate it.


 
Unfortunately for you (and your arse), climbing* is* all about power - sustainable power, that is - as are most aspects of performance cycling. Technique is largely irrelevant, to the point where agonising over whether to get out of the saddle, or breathe more deeply, or relax your shoulders (FFS!) will probably have the effect of making you slower - because it will actually divert you from what you should be concentrating on, which is pushing the sodding pedals round in a circle.

That is not to say I don't employ any of those 'techniques' myself - of course I do. Everyone probably does. But I don't regard them as techniques, I regard them as tools, or options, which I apply whenever I feel the need. All I can do is come back to my original point - which is that to claim that there is a 'hill cliimbing technique' is just bollox. There isn't. Every hill is different - and every day will bring you different conditions on every hill. To say that there is a 'technique' which could be applied in all cases simply confuses what really should be a very straightforward process.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

endoman said:


> Think about where the power is measured. Both riders producing 300W at the cranks, but one may produce another 20 that he wastes in upper body motion etc. If he changed his " technique" to better harness that power at the cranks then the riders now have different power outputs.


 
Hang on, you think the human body works like the National Grid..? You think we can just divert 'power' from the upper body to the legs whenever we need to..?


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Hang on, you think the human body works like the National Grid..? You think we can just divert 'power' from the upper body to the legs whenever we need to..?


 Yes, the body kind of works that way ....


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Yes, the body kind of works that way ....


 
cool, so if I rode up a hill no handed and kept my arms folded, I would go even quicker..??


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> It may well be good practice to do all of those things - but expecting it to actually make a difference to your speed (ie your power output) is fanciful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I am rather disappointed with that answer, I was expecting something with a little bit more clarity as to why respected people tell you to ride hills in a particular way and a bit of scientific evidence dispelling any benefit attributable to position on the bike while climbing. Maybe even a graph showing identical power output curves while standing, seated and with the riders centre of gravity further back or forward in the saddle.

At least I asked.


----------



## Scoosh (6 Dec 2012)

<Mod hat on>

Please keep the personal insults/ comments out of this thread - actually, keep them out of CC - or you WILL be thread-banned or CC-banned for a while.

This applies to ALL threads (yes I am also watching the "Absorbing energy in your body" one ...)


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> cool, so if I rode up a hill no handed and kept my arms folded, I would go even quicker..??


 depends how you did it ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Dec 2012)

Scoosh said:


> <Mod hat on>
> 
> This applies to ALL threads (*yes I am also watching the "Absorbing energy in your body" one* ...)


 
Blimey, you're leading an exciting life


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> I am rather disappointed with that answer, I was expecting something with a little bit more clarity as to why respected people tell you to ride hills in a particular way and a bit of scientific evidence dispelling any benefit attributable to position on the bike while climbing. Maybe even a graph showing identical power output curves while standing, seated and with the riders centre of gravity further back or forward in the saddle.
> 
> At least I asked.


 
Like I say - if you're that interested, go look for it. Meanwhile, I have my own set of respected people whose opinions I value and whose advice I trust (and no, I'm not talking about 'Fab Foodie') - they're the ones telling me to forget about technique and focus on stuff that actually matters. Guess what - it works.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Like I say - if you're that interested, go look for it. Meanwhile, I have my own set of respected people whose opinions I value and whose advice I trust (and no, I'm not talking about 'Fab Foodie') - they're the ones telling me to forget about technique and focus on stuff that actually matters. Guess what - it works.


Blimey, I 'm dissapointed .... Good luck though ....


----------



## Hacienda71 (7 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Like I say - if you're that interested, go look for it. Meanwhile, I have my own set of respected people whose opinions I value and whose advice I trust (and no, I'm not talking about 'Fab Foodie') - they're the ones telling me to forget about technique and focus on stuff that actually matters. Guess what - it works.


 
How do you know it works though?


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> How do you know it works though?


 Oh don't start him off again ....


----------



## Hacienda71 (7 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Oh don't start him off again ....


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Dec 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> How do you know it works though?


 
Because my results have improved and I have been climbing better this season than at any other time in the last 10 years or so. You know, tangible stuff...


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Because my results have improved and I have been climbing better this season than at any other time in the last 10 years or so. You know, tangible stuff...


You really couldn't make this stuff up, so if we know peoples performance has improved through technique, that's not valid, only your improvements within your paradigms are tangible. LOL.
I'm gonna chuckle myself to sleep. Good night B n Y.


----------



## ColinJ (7 Dec 2012)

Scoosh said:


> <Mod hat on>
> 
> Please keep the personal insults/ comments out of this thread - actually, keep them out of CC - or you WILL be thread-banned or CC-banned for a while.
> 
> This applies to ALL threads (yes I am also watching the *"Absorbing energy in your body"* one ...)


I've somehow missed that one - is it worth a look?


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Dec 2012)

aces_up1504 said:


> interesting debate,
> My question is:
> 
> The same rider rides the same flat piece of road with the same gear and same pedal rate. On the first day he sit up high on the top bars and on the second bar he used the drops.
> ...


 
Erm......... same gear and same cadence = same speed, regardless of aero. The difference would be that the rider in the drops would need to output less power to achieve this speed.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> You really couldn't make this stuff up, so if we know peoples performance has improved through technique, that's not valid, only your improvements within your paradigms are tangible. LOL.
> I'm gonna chuckle myself to sleep. Good night B n Y.


 
There is a difference between someone feeling more comfortable going up a hill and someone actually going faster. What you have never been able to articulate is precisely how someone's sustainable power output has increased through the application of a few elementary riding tips. I've now given you a specific, tangible example (ie me - it's the best I can do) of how improved fitness has improved climbing ability (not that it should be needed). Perhaps you could now reciprocate by giving me a specific example where someone's real world, real time performance up hills has improved through technique. You perhaps? Presumably you use these wonderful techniques yourself..?? I'm still keen to improve myself, so I want to make sure I'm not missing anything obvious here...I am, after all, inherently lazy...


----------



## endoman (7 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Hang on, you think the human body works like the National Grid..? You think we can just divert 'power' from the upper body to the legs whenever we need to..?


 
if there is movement in the upper body it takes energy to produce that movement. The less movement the less energy needed. Of course keeping still requires energy to some degree. The less muscular contractions elsewhere the less "wasted" effort.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Dec 2012)

endoman said:


> if there is movement in the upper body it takes energy to produce that movement. The less movement the less energy needed. Of course keeping still requires energy to some degree. The less muscular contractions elsewhere the less "wasted" effort.


 
But you know it doesn't actually work in the way you described though, don't you..?


----------



## Rob3rt (7 Dec 2012)

As for this now ridiculous debate.......... I really do not understand why it is still going on!

Power output rules, if 2 riders are outputting the same power (constant), all other things being equal, they are going the same speed, therefore they will both get to the top at the same time, regardless of technique. In this respect B'n'Y is correct. This is the physics and it holds true.

However, where I disagree and where I believe the technique aspect comes into it is in allowing you to maintain that power output. If you are very tense, hunched up, weak core, wasting energy, then your requirement's for oxygen will be increased through this additional muscular activity, thus you will either cause an increase your HR which will send you towards the red (especially if your chest is closed up affecting your ability to breath, same as sticking your aero bars too close together or using drops that are too narrow) possibly oxygen debt and cause a drop in power output as the climb goes on, or if already at your limit, will thus end up sharing the precious oxygen your legs need with other parts of your body where is is not necessarily needed during this activity. To some degree the technique comes with fitness (agree with B'n'Y here, I have my own experience to go on and this is my experience), for some people though, they do odd things on the bike even as fitness goes up!

The arms folded thing, well if you want to use this example, the problem is that there is a requirement for some bracing of the bike in order to engage the core, to output the power, leave loose of the bars and power will drop. There will be a point of optimum bracing vs excess clenching. If it were somehow possible to sit upright with your arms relaxed hanging by your sides, yet still have the bike braced in order to engage the core, chances are, you probably could go up the hill faster (as long as the aerodynamic effect's do not cancel out the gain), but that's not how a bike works.

Basically, power rules, you can gain power by being fitter (this will give the largest gains, even if you fatigue and power drop's of, you will still likely be at or above the power output at that point of the climb than you had when you were less fit), or you can maximise the use of your current power producing abilities by adjusting your "technique" to reduce the power drop-of and delay fatigue. The smartest rides will do both to the best of their ability.

As for pacing a hill etc. I wouldn't call that technique, I would call it tactics.




If you want to see big gain's (minutes), suffering is the key, if you want to save a few seconds, by all means look at your technique.


----------



## endoman (7 Dec 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> But you know it doesn't actually work in the way you described though, don't you..?


expand please, genuinely interested, basics of physiology well understood. 

Totally agree there is no substitute for fitness. My coach had me do a FTP test last week, other riders in same room, he pointed out their movements in the upper body and advised it better if you could remain relaxed. I do try and keep relaxed, as a relative newbie I haven't got much to unlearn which I think helps.


----------



## black'n'yellow (7 Dec 2012)

endoman said:


> expand please, genuinely interested, basics of physiology well understood.
> 
> Totally agree there is no substitute for fitness. My coach had me do a FTP test last week, other riders in same room, he pointed out their movements in the upper body and advised it better if you could remain relaxed. I do try and keep relaxed, as a relative newbie I haven't got much to unlearn which I think helps.


 
Well, I'm no doctor, but let's have a go anyway. BTW, being relaxed is sound advice, that's true - certainly better than being tensed, although I'm not sure how much difference it actually makes. Anyway, the point of yours that I originally challenged was the notion that power could be 'diverted' to your legs in a similar way that the National Grid diverts power to urban areas during times of peak demand. It's already starting to sound silly, so let's get sillier....

Let's say you did an FTP test on the turbo, while also playing the violin (a ridiculous example perhaps, but frankly no more ridiculous than some of the other comments in this thread). How much power would playing the violin detract from your FTP score? Answer = it wouldn't. FTP is sub-maximal and so, I presume, is the effort required in playing the violin - although I don't actually play one myself, so am happy to be corrected on that.

Your leg muscles (or indeed any muscles) in conjunction with your CV system, can only process a finite amount of oxygen, as conditioned by the training that you do. Therefore, their performance is limited by your existing aerobic fitness, not by whatever your arms happen to be doing. Your arm muscles may indeed be less well-conditioned and you might actually tire of playing the violin long before your legs feel fatigued. But, one is not related to the other. Obviously these other muscles (arms, etc) are using energy regardless, but they are not taxing your CV system in anything like the way that your leg muscles are, so will not be hindering the supply of oxygen to your legs. So, unless playing the violin actually makes you breathless, then you can be confident that no power is being 'diverted' in a 'National Grid' stylee. So, you can carry on playing the violin while knocking out huge FTP numbers, safe in the knowledge that one is not doing any harm to the other.


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Dec 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> As for this now ridiculous debate.......... I really do not understand why it is still going on!
> 
> Power output rules, if 2 riders are outputting the same power (constant), all other things being equal, they are going the same speed, therefore they will both get to the top at the same time, regardless of technique. In this respect B'n'Y is correct. This is the physics and it holds true.
> 
> .


 
Been sleeping on this and iI think the crux of the argument is: *If* the 2 riders are putting the same power through the cranks all other things being equal then the above is true and I agree with you and B n Y too.
However, earlier we were discussing people with equal fitness/power and in that case what they put out of the cranks is dependent on their mechanical efficiency with the bike which means they won't necessarily put out the same power at the cranks even if capable (which was my starting point) or be able to sustain it because they are not using their bodies or the machinery they're interfaced with optimally. IMO this is the 'technique' part, optimising what you have and in our case in relation to the bike. This is why bike 'fot/set-up' is important as B n Y alludes to earlier, it's not just about comfort it's about getting the maximum power available from your body through the cranks.

Whether you believe it or not, what I see when I ride alongside a newcomer struggling up a hill and proffer the 'advice' earlier is, I see them go faster, smoother and with less effort I don't have a stopwatch but I know I have to work harder to keep up and I see the reward at the top of the hill.
Having a compromised CV system, riding technique, style call it what you will (and tactics) are crucial to me to extract every ounce of speed to keep up!
I agree (again) they're not as big gains as overall fitness but as others vouch for and numerous random articles seem to agree there is technique employed in climbing which can help even fit people, it's simple to do and it has a value,

Back to the decorating  .


----------



## lulubel (7 Dec 2012)

I agree with b'n'y on this, up to a point.

From my personal experience ONLY, most of my speed improvements when climbing have come from increased fitness, combined with weight loss. I've improved my power to weight ratio, and this means I can get up hills faster.

However, there are a couple of things I've noticed about the way I climb hills that do make a difference. I stay in the saddle. (I think everyone agrees that this is more efficient because you're not having to support your body weight as well as turn the pedals.) I was bored on one of my regular rides the other week, and decided I was going to really ride hard and do every climb out of the saddle for a change. I wasn't any faster than if I really ride hard in the saddle, but by the time I got to the last climb, I was so exhausteded that I was veering all over the road. My power output was clearly the same, but I'd wasted a lot of energy somewhere to be that tired.

The other thing that's benefitted me is learning to breathe properly. Some people (like my other half) instinctively know how to breathe well, others tend to snatch at the air when their bodies are getting short on oxygen, which means they never empty their lungs, so only a small amount of oxygen can get in. If you find yourself doing this, the technique - and I do think it's the right word in this case - is to focus on the out breath, not the in breath. Make sure you empty your lungs, and your reflexes will fill them again for you. Once you have mastered this, you can focus on breathing fast and hard (but still keeping your breathing controlled when climbing), and you will get the maximum amount of oxygen into your lungs as quickly as possible. "Good" breathing is still not natural to me, and I sometimes find my legs are tiring on a climb, and then realise that I'm breathing shallowly or gasping for air. If I start to focus on my breathing, my legs recover, and I can continue climbing at the same intensity.

I think a lot of the argument in this post has come about because some of us just instinctively know how to ride to get the best performance for the minimum effort, maybe because it comes naturally, or maybe because they've cycled for so long that they learned these things without realising it. For others (and I include myself in this) riding well doesn't come naturally, so we have to learn to make little changes to make it easier, so we can go faster. We might call it technique.


----------



## ianjmcd (7 Dec 2012)

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/technique-how-to-become-a-hill-climbing-star-12092/


----------



## C7KEN (7 Dec 2012)

Well said lulubel, you are absolutely correct and have given a good example of using more energy than is necessary. If hills are short and very steep like one I do regular (its 18deg) I complete the second half of it standing as I find it easier but on all the long steady inclines sitting seems to work best. Something else I find helps is to count the crank revs to 100 then start again as it takes my mind of the pain.


----------

