# Hills – drive up them hard, or spin until you are fitter?



## medication25 (18 Jun 2009)

I'm a big guy (20 st) often go for a ride with my GF (slim) and as soon as we hit a hill she fly’s off ahead.. with a sly grin on her face.. but as soon as we reach the top WOooosh i come flying by with a bigger grin on my chops... my question is; which is the best way to improve on hills so that I'm not dead every time i hit one... should i just spin up them until i lose more weight.. or should i push myself into them and would that make a faster improvement...

Cheers.


----------



## Auntie Helen (18 Jun 2009)

You need to tie a tow-rope onto your girlfriend's bike, of course


----------



## Theseus (18 Jun 2009)

Ride a fixie. No choice but to go for it.


----------



## RedBike (18 Jun 2009)

He just wants to sit behind and admire the view!

My vote is to get your momentum up before you reach the hill then changing down the gears as you need to in order to keep those legs spinning.


----------



## yenrod (18 Jun 2009)

SSssssspppppppppppiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnn !


----------



## johnnyh (18 Jun 2009)

mix it up, spin and sprint!


----------



## marinyork (18 Jun 2009)

I think spinning is theoretically the way to go in terms of weight loss. But people would say spin anyway.

It also really depends on the total climb and gradient. A blast up a hill for a minute is totally different from settling down for a 20 minute climb up a hill.


----------



## Hont (18 Jun 2009)

If you want to burn fat, stick to low intensity levels. As the lighter you are the easier hills are, I think you'd be better off losing weight first. But I'm no fitness coach so I can't tell you whether that will improve you quicker than going for it. It will be easier on your heart at least, though, which could be important if you're overweight.


----------



## I am Spartacus (18 Jun 2009)

medication25 said:


> I'm a big guy (20 st) often go for a ride with my GF (slim) and as soon as we hit a hill she fly’s off ahead..



to be brutally honest, if you are going to stay a weighty guy.. I dont know you may be rock hard prop forward for all I know.. yup you'll ALWAYS struggle in the mountains carrying your weight.. there is a formal scientific law but I cant be arsed to look it up.. best stay behind then and enjoy the views


----------



## asterix (18 Jun 2009)

Compared to your spidery grimpeurs I'll always be heavy but I am fit. Long hills I spin (altho' I can grind if they are steep bastards) short hills I get off the saddle.

I never try to overtake on hills, I might pass people but I know it ain't worth the effort until we get to the top.


----------



## gbb (18 Jun 2009)

As johnnyh says, i mix it.
Although i'm lightweight at 10.5 stone, the hills are hard for everyone at first. Short hills i'll sprint up, then once topped, take it easy for 1/2 mile.
Longer, slower drags, i'll spin.
That way you hopefully increase fitness at 2 different levels.

BTW...on my normal loop i push myself quite hard. I used to spin up hills and was therefore able to get back to cruising speed quite quickly.

Then i started sprinting up hills, take it easy for a few minutes once topped, then get back to cruising speed. 

By sprinting then getting my breath back for a few minutes, i could increase my average speed noticeably.


----------



## medication25 (18 Jun 2009)

Thanks for the reply's all.. i think ill work out a 2-3 mile loop somewhere in south London (im in Peckham) that includes a hill and practice on there..


----------



## Losidan (18 Jun 2009)

If you are staying sat down would you be best spinning more so you dont do any damage to your knees? Might also make your legs less tired than grinding a big gear. I'm a "larger" gentleman and find spinning is better. 

Just a thought.


----------



## Hont (18 Jun 2009)

gbb said:


> By sprinting then getting my breath back for a few minutes, i could increase my average speed noticeably.



That's interesting. 

I did a route that took in the same 5 mile loop 3 times. The first time I went all out up the hills and recovered on the descents. The second loop I went tempo up the hills and flat out on the descents and the third tempo all the way around. No surprise that the last was slowest, but I was surprised that the second one was the quickest. 

It may be the terrain, it may be that I was warmed up more for the second loop, but it didn't tally with what I would have guessed.


----------



## eldudino (18 Jun 2009)

johnnyh said:


> mix it up, spin and sprint!



I agree, I was 19st 11, now 17st 3 and I've found that a mix of spinning and monkeying up uses a nice wide range of muscles.


----------



## peanut (18 Jun 2009)

medication25 said:


> my question is; which is the best way to improve on hills so that I'm not dead every time i hit one... should i just spin up them until i lose more weight.. or should i push myself into them and would that make a faster improvement...
> 
> Cheers.



Interesting question medi
Like you i am a big bloke recently 17st 10lbs 
I started going out on my bike again after a 4 year layoff.
I decided that as I didn't have the stamina and fitness to cycle longer distances and I wanted quick results I decided to devise 3-4 local hilly loops of about 5-10 miles.

Going out once a week initially then twice a week my strategy was this .

2 mile fast warm up loop round the village followed immediately by a stiff climb for 4 miles interspaced by some recovery descents as fast as I could do it.

By week 12 I had some seriously strong leg muscles and my heart recovery rate had reduced from 15 minutes to just 2-3 minutes. 
When i started I had to get out of the saddle on every hill.6 miles took me 32 minutes.
Now i can sit in all the way round the loop.6 miles takes me 24 minutes.

I kept a record of each ride on a graph and can trace my improvement .

I would suggest you set yourself a 8 or 12 week program and devise a short local hilly test loop of about 5-7 mileswhich you do as fast as possible on your own once a week ( in addition to your other rides)and record the results You'll soon see some progress


----------



## Sittingduck (18 Jun 2009)

Try going from Catford to Crystal Palace, if you're S London based... a very long steady climb, as I recall. Did a CC group ride there back in Jan and it was pretty gruelling for me (heavyweight too)!

Good luck 
SD

EDIT: ...and if you're looking for a 7 mile(ish) route with good scenary, not too much traffic and some good up (and down) hills... you could do a lot worse than a lap of Richmond Park!


----------



## Plax (19 Jun 2009)

I have a lot of hills where I am. I like to sit down for the hills and spin my way up. Occasionally I will get out of the saddle and go for it, but usually this is only if I feel like trying to beat my personal best or if I'm in a bad mood (find it a good way to let of steam so to speak) otherwise I'll just take it easy.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Jun 2009)

Sittingduck said:


> Try going from Catford to Crystal Palace, if you're S London based... a very long steady climb, as I recall. Did a CC group ride there back in Jan and it was pretty gruelling for me (heavyweight too)!
> 
> Good luck
> SD
> ...



When it comes to hills, the magic number IS seven.


----------



## HJ (19 Jun 2009)

Depends on how long the hill is, on a short hill it is fine to just go for it, on a longer hill you need to be able to sit back and grind...


----------



## SimonRoberts0204 (19 Jun 2009)

I was going to ask something similar but just saw this posted. My question was:

What speed to you let yourself drop to before you stand up on the pedals? 

I've read a lot saying you should slog away in the seat, but today I hit a really steep hill (out of bradford-on-avon in wiltshire anyone?) and sitting down I was doing a meagre 7mph!

Im sure this varies person to person, but just interested to hear your preferences.

,Simon


----------



## fossyant (19 Jun 2009)

There is no hard and fast rule...........

Very individual.......

Lots depends upon what gear ratios are fitted as well....

I stand on the pedals at about 14 mph on the fixed, as that's about mid 60's RPM and I have no gears........ heh..heh..

Personally, anything less than about 65 rpm I think, I get up (out of the saddle you mucky lot), but only the fixed has a fancy computer dude......'cos I was wondering at what point my butt cooked pedalling furiously down hill....

Lots depends upon fitness, and importantly core fitness (if out the saddle)


----------



## Backache (21 Jun 2009)

As a fellow member of the chunky club I personally find that the only ways I have of getting up hills of any significance are by going slowly or getting off and walking.
Very short hills I occasionally cheat by getting up asmuch speed as possible going into the rise and hoping this carries me up.

Don't have any real hills in my area but whenever I go to places with hills this is all that works for me. However I do intend to practise the things when I can as was advised on a previous thread when I asked a similar question.


----------



## Joe24 (21 Jun 2009)

With my fixed it depends how i feel. Sometimes i will go up a hill sat down, going at a speed of about 9/10mph with my legs hardly turning. Other times i will stand up and honk up a hill. It just depends.
But, as i demonstrated today on abit of the GNBR(while sort of showing off) you have to attack the hill(basicly, there was a slight hill people were struggling up, so i stood up and powered up it)
Also, try and use some momentum from the bike. So keep your legs turning on the way down, and you should be able to keep more momentum on the up(as i demonstrated again on GNBR. There was a very very nice young lady on a Planet X with TT bars, i span fast down the hill, passing her, and left the rest of the group and her going up as she lost momentum, i did slow down and wait for my group after that though)


----------



## peanut (21 Jun 2009)

SimonRoberts0204 said:


> I was going to ask something similar but just saw this posted. My question was:
> 
> What speed to you let yourself drop to before you stand up on the pedals?
> 
> ...



this is an interesting and common question for the more unfit and heavyweigh amongst us .

As a 17 stone unfit old git I can empathise completely with this problem.

You need to find the right pace that suits you, the bike and the particular hill that you are climbing at any given time.
There is no one solution.

The most important thing is to find a suitable pace that allows you to stay aerobic and that doesn't burn your legs and lungs out before you reach the top of the hill and recover.

if the hill is short (100 feet or so ) you might find it easier to power up either in the saddle or out of it . You will be at the top before 20 seconds are out and can then recover on the other side by coasting or easy riding.This will help build leg strength.

If the hill is longer (300 feet or more) then you are going to have to quickly find a pace that allows you to stay aerobic and get to the top without blowing up and falling off.

If you do not have a good out of the saddle technique then I would advise you to select the lowest but one sprocket (keep last sprocket in reserve for emergency only) and find a cadence that you know you can carry to the top . Its finding your own rythum. Depending on the steepness of the hill and your fitness this might be as low as 6-7mph.

When you become fitter and stronger you will know how to use your gears more effectively to vary your speed and the amount of energy you are expending in order to get to the top without blowing up.

I would recommend you find a local 5-7 mile local loop which includes 1 or 2 steep hills. Do the loop at least once once or twice a week and record your time ,av speed etc . it will soon improve your climbing ability and strengthen your legs . Your recovery rate will come right down and you should should see significant improvement within 6-8 weeks


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2009)

Doesn't anyone want to know about the number *7 ??*


----------



## Bman (22 Jun 2009)

Nah. 

42 on the other hand.........


----------



## dan_bo (22 Jun 2009)

yeah go on jim, 7.......?


FWIW, i'm a big lad and I mix it up, depending on my level of confidence in my feggin' 10 speed chain.....


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2009)

The 'Magic' number 7 in cycling is 7 Watts / kg.

This is the power requirement to ride up a 25% gradient.

I don't care what the on-line calculators might say, ask any experienced cyclist how difficult it is to get up a 25%. 
It is also the attainment level to be a reasonable pro in sustained level cycling.

As some of you will already be aware, the gear ratio to climb a 10% is (1/weight of bike)x1000.
For every 1% increase in gradient, reduce the gear length by 1".
Thus, a 15lb bike will have a 66" gear for a 10%, and a 52" gear for a 25% hill.

A pro rider of 68 kg on his 7kg bike will need *7W *x 75kg to get up the 25%, or 525 Watts. This power is OK for 29 to 30 mph sustained riding.

I ride a bike that is 24lb, so it MUST have a gear of 42" to get up a 10%. The total vehicle weight is 100kg, give or take a couple; so to get the Dawes Giro 500 up a 25%, I need to find 700 Watts from somewhere, and the gear to do that is 42 minus 15 = 27 ,,, lo and behold that's a 1:1 ratio, 30 ring to 30 sprocket.

I haven't got this gear, so getting up a 25% is a no-no for me. In San Fran', the bike did have a 1:1 and I got up the hill.


----------



## SimonRoberts0204 (22 Jun 2009)

good stuff - thanks! Im sure you will redirect me to many previous topics for this question, but '66" gear' << I imagine this is about gear ratios, but how is it calculated?


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2009)

SimonRoberts0204 said:


> good stuff - thanks! Im sure you will redirect me to many previous topics for this question, but '66" gear' << I imagine this is about gear ratios, but how is it calculated?



A 66" gear is a 39 to 16 ( 39/16 x 27 ). The 52" gear will be a 50" in reality, 39 to 21.

But don't expect to get up a 25% gradient on 50" on your 15lb racebike unless you are a trained elite rider who can output 500odd Watts for half an hour.
Bike manufacturers put 23 and 25 sprockets on for the wannabes. This sells more bikes.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (22 Jun 2009)

SimonRoberts0204 said:


> good stuff - thanks! Im sure you will redirect me to many previous topics for this question, but '66" gear' << I imagine this is about gear ratios, but how is it calculated?


It's "gear inches", which is kind of a bit like ratios, sort of .. it's the diameter of the drive wheel multiplied by the ratio, or somesuch. As ever, Sheldon said it best.

Edit: although jimbo says it pretty good as well.


----------



## Joe24 (22 Jun 2009)

Ive been up some very steep hills on my 72" fixed, how does this magic number 7 with all your calculations work out with that then?


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The 'Magic' number 7 in cycling is 7 Watts / kg.
> 
> This is the power requirement to ride up a 25% gradient.
> 
> ...



I used 750W just reading this post. Time for another bun .

At the w/e on my road bike I did 4 laps of a 14 mile route which takes in two hills one longish and not so steep say 1 in 10 about 2 mile long which I maintain 20-22mph and the other a short killer about half a mile long with about 1 in 3 for about 100m on one part. I breeze up the steeper on 39x19 at 11mph getting out of the saddle with 3 larger sprockets to spare. I weigh a lardy 76kg/12st approx and am 5ft 9". I would like to get my weight down to 70kg/11st to improve my power to weight ratio. Marco Pantani weighed 59kg/9.5st . But alas he is now dead.

Would second using Sheldon Brown's gear calculator.

You should spin but not like a windmill but also don't push heavy gears as you'll knacker your knees and back. Cadence should be about 80-95 revs or what ever is comfortable to move you forward. Thinking of gently flowing water helps me.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I used 750W just reading this post. Time for another bun .
> 
> At the w/e on my road bike I did 4 laps of a 14 mile route which takes in two hills one longish and not so steep say 1 in 10 about 2 mile long which I maintain 20-22mph and the other a short killer about half a mile long with about 1 in 3 for about 100m on one part. I breeze up the steeper on 39x19 at 11mph getting out of the saddle with 3 larger sprockets to spare. I weigh a lardy 76kg/12st approx and am 5ft 9". I would like to get my weight down to 70kg/11st to improve my power to weight ratio. Marco Pantani weighed 59kg/9.5st . But alas he is now dead.
> 
> ...



I'm finding it difficult to find the stretch of road you describe. I didn't know you had hills like that near Cambridge.

1 in 10 for two miles goes from sea level to 1050 ft 

Can you tell us a grid reference.

A 1 in 3 will have two chevrons on the OS Landranger. Can you give a grid reference for that?


----------



## PK99 (22 Jun 2009)

I am Spartacus said:


> .. yup you'll ALWAYS struggle in the mountains carrying your weight.. there is a formal scientific law but I cant be arsed to look it up




errm, gravity?


----------



## Crankarm (23 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I'm finding it difficult to find the stretch of road you describe. I didn't know you had hills like that near Cambridge.
> 
> 1 in 10 for two miles goes from sea level to 1050 ft
> 
> ...



I didn't say the route was in Cambs .


----------



## threebikesmcginty (23 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> In San Fran', the bike did have a 1:1 and I got up the hill.




I think I know the one - I had trouble walking up it.

Seen the Youtube film of the fixed gear boys in SF?....gasp!


----------



## jimboalee (23 Jun 2009)

Another short story about hills. This one involves two Frenchmen and an eight horsepower motorcar.

Two Frenchmen went on a roadtrip to evaluate the hills which would be part of a bicycle race around their homeland. The car weighed about 850 kg and was 8 hp, or 6 kWatts. The thinking was, - it is ten times the weight of a cyclist and his bike, and ten times more powerful, so logic says the cyclist will climb the hills at the same speed - due to similar power to weight ratios.
Depending upon the climbing speed and how the motor was labouring, they graded the hills from 4 to 1 with a Haute category for the really bad ones.

One tenth of 6kWatt is 600 Watts, and one tenth of 850 kg is 85 kg. 600 / 85 = close as dammit to 7 Watts / kg. 

This was then taken as an unwritten benchmark for a racing cyclist. It still is.

If one was not aware of this, consider yourself "Not yet a serious cyclist".

And also, listen to Eddy Merckx "Don't buy upgrades, ride up grades".


----------



## buddha (23 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> ... Thinking of gently flowing water helps me.


You're lucky. Thinking of "gently flowing water" makes me want to pee


----------



## Crankarm (24 Jun 2009)

Gently flowing water as it is moves calmly effortless smoothly down river like your riding style lite on the pedals smooth and easy mimicking the real power of flowing water .


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2009)

Joe24 said:


> Ive been up some very steep hills on my 72" fixed, how does this magic number 7 with all your calculations work out with that then?



Here's a little test you might like to try.

1/ Find your MAX heart rate ( that's if you've got a HRM ). Mine is 185, which is OK for a fifty year old.
2/ After warming up, cruise at the speed which is appropriate to 50% MHR. Mine is 14 mph.
3/ Double it.
4/ Look up on your curve ( that's if you are a serious enough cyclist to have evaluated your Cd and roadload velocity/power curve ) to see the power requirement for the ' 2 x cruise' speed.
Mine would be 28 mph at 550 Watts.
5/ Weigh the vehicle ( you and your bike, everything ) in kg.
6/ Calc your W/kg factor. Mine is 5.5W/kg - no where near pro racer's ( but then I'm a fifty year old oncewozza  )


----------



## rich p (24 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Here's a little test you might like to try.
> 
> 1/ Find your MAX heart rate ( that's if you've got a HRM ). Mine is 185, which is OK for a fifty year old.
> 2/ After warming up, cruise at the speed which is appropriate to 50% MHR. Mine is 14 mph.
> ...




Gordon Bennett!


----------



## SimonC (24 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Here's a little test you might like to try.
> 
> 1/ Find your MAX heart rate ( that's if you've got a HRM ). Mine is 185, which is OK for a fifty year old.
> 2/ After warming up, cruise at the speed which is appropriate to 50% MHR. Mine is 14 mph.
> ...



'kin hell! I thought I was a serious cyclist, racing and sportives etc for last 25 years, but dont do any of this stuff, who does?

Each to their own jimbo, but not for me im afraid, its not going to make me any faster


----------



## swee'pea99 (24 Jun 2009)

rich p said:


> Gordon Bennett!


+1


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2009)

SimonC said:


> 'kin hell! I thought I was a serious cyclist, racing and sportives etc for last 25 years, but dont do any of this stuff, who does?
> 
> Each to their own jimbo, but not for me im afraid, its not going to make me any faster



In the nineties, I was working at the Motor Industry Reseach Assocciation. While I was there, Chris Boardman was doing work in the wind tunnel with Mike Burrows. I was not allowed to watch.

The company I was working for had a motorcycle chassis dynamometer which could simulate inertias down to 80kg and as my inertia was 96kg, why not get some lab training on Friday afternoons.

To make the thing simulate effectively, eleven points on a curve are required, and the machine's maths does the rest.

Boardman was doing Cd and streamlining work to measure how much power was required to get him to break the hour record. 

Engineers at MIRA were comparing Chris' figures, my figures and prior art from the Uni California Santa Cruz ( Chester Kyle ) for a research project on an electric bike ( which I was asked to test, but declined ).

To say this field of discovery "Won't make me any faster" is a very narrow minded statement.
I'm sure Chris Boardman would agree that 'knowledge is power' and knowing the present situation is inspiration to be better.

You can make up your own mind.

The other benefit of knowing the present situation is that one 'side effect' of this research is kCals requirement.

Whether it be a 1 hour record attempt or a 17 hour Audax, it is worthwhile to know when and how much to eat.

Another 'side effect' is being aware of your own limitations. This helps gear choice for those steep hills on that 300 km Rando.


----------



## dodgy (24 Jun 2009)

Jimbo, you do sometimes seem to get lost in the figures! Or at least, you might not get lost, but we do  You should change your username to Mr Logic 

Seriously though, it is interesting, but I doubt if I'll put any of it into practice.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Jun 2009)

In one of those mid-nineties years, a work colleague and I did the LEJOG.
He bought a second hand bike and I rebuilt it.
After some training, I assessed his capabilities and tricked-up the bike as a tourer to suit his level of strength and fitness.

When we were riding up Glen Coe, we were singing 'Bonny, bonny banks of Loch Lomond'. On the last day we were singing 'Its a long way to Tiparrary" to annoy the locals.

Cycling IS fun, if you know what you're doing.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Here's a little test you might like to try.
> 
> 1/ Find your MAX heart rate ( that's if you've got a HRM ). Mine is 185, which is OK for a fifty year old.
> 2/ After warming up, cruise at the speed which is appropriate to 50% MHR. Mine is 14 mph.
> ...



You should get out more .


----------



## peanut (24 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Here's a little test you might like to try.
> 
> 1/ Find your MAX heart rate ( that's if you've got a HRM ). Mine is 185, which is OK for a fifty year old.
> 2/ After warming up, cruise at the speed which is appropriate to 50% MHR. Mine is 14 mph.
> ...


strewth maite get a life


----------



## dodgy (24 Jun 2009)

Jim, do you have a proven scientific formula for deciding when you're happy, or for if you're enjoying a good meal with a pint? 

Surely you don't just trust your taste buds or the smile on your face?


----------



## rich p (24 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Cycling IS fun, if you know what you're doing.



A bit patronising, isn't it. I have a great time touring, racing, popping to the shops but it doesn't mean I have to do particle physics first.


----------



## SimonRoberts0204 (24 Jun 2009)

On reading through the post, in fairness, the method he suggests isn't that confusing or difficult to do, - However I do think (by everyone's response) you have to be a very serious cyclist indeed to have a roadload/power curve set up!

But then, Theres plenty of fun to be had from taking things seriously is there not?


----------



## peanut (24 Jun 2009)

Absolutely I take my gear ratios very seriously  

I have to admit I'm a bit of a techy at heart but ..Cd ? blimey when you are as big as an aircraft hanger the last thing on my mind is getting aerodynamic


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> In the nineties, I was working at the Motor Industry Reseach Assocciation. While I was there, Chris Boardman was doing work in the wind tunnel with Mike Burrows. I was not allowed to watch.
> 
> *The company I was working for had a motorcycle chassis dynamometer* which could simulate inertias down to 80kg and as my inertia was 96kg, why not get some lab training on Friday afternoons.
> 
> ...



As I said, when there is £120,000 worth of testing kit available for personal use, why not make use of it.

The Engineers at the Motor Industry Research Assocciation were keen cyclists and techies, so "When in Rome".

And as for "patronising". The message there was - My colleague at work was going to ride the LEJOG on a race bike with a 42 x 13 lowest. By using some math and physics, suitable gearing was fitted which resulted in an enjoyable trip, not a tortueous slog.

You are probably correct. I don't have a life. Cycling theory takes up so much of my time, I don't have time to socialise. 
Then again, every pub around where I live has moving pictures of 22 idiots kicking an inflated pig's bladder around a field. That or two blokes with thin sticks and some coloured balls on a dining table. What's that all about?


----------



## rich p (25 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Cycling IS fun, if you know what you're doing.




I'm not having a pop at your social life or, indeed, the way you approach cycling but the implication that for you cycling IS fun while the rest of us, know-nothings, who just get on the bike and ride, it I'SNT


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2009)

As I remember from the mid nineties, MachineHead was writing his stuff. The CTC didn't have much and Audax UK were still basing their calorific theory on the experience of older members and one member who was a Doctor.
Pro teams were doing evaluation work on ergonometers and computing power was just coming on-stream to capture 'real time' logging at 100 hz.
There was in instant boom in lab testing when reports of Chris Boardman were published after his world record triumph.
Everything was measured. One parameter was cadence. It was found pro riders and Chris had quite a high cadence – from revs vs kW curves (Powercurve), so the press jumped on this and told us all this is the way to ride a bike – spin.
Just because the pros had spent years training to pedal fast – because their salary depended upon it, didn't mean all the social and recreational cyclists had to do likewise. Following testing, several Engineers at MIRA and I found our most efficient cadence to be lower than a trained professional. So why change the habit of a lifetime to conform to the 'trendy' spoutings of the cycling press.

This was twelve years ago. I have not re-trained to Spin and have found my Audax distances have appeared to be easier this century than last. On occasion, I have 'spun a 100' and returned to HQ totally wrecked.

What I am saying is – a bit of testing and self evaluation is certainly more beneficial than simply following the crowd down a blind alley. On discovering one's own efficiencies and limitations, gearing and cadence can be chosen to better effect than using what someone else suggests. That 'someone else' is not you.


----------



## Cubist (25 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> In the nineties, I was working at the Motor Industry Reseach Assocciation. While I was there, *Chris Boardman* was doing work in the wind tunnel with Mike Burrows. I was not allowed to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bloody hell, all that work and he ends up working at Halfords.........


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2009)

Cubist said:


> Bloody hell, all that work and he ends up working at Halfords.........



We've already discussed the monetary rewards of a cycling career ( for CyclingSam's benefit ) and agreed its crap.

I could have junked the motor industry and taken a full time job at a framebuilders, who subsequently went bust.
"Good call" Jimbo.


----------



## SimonC (25 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> In the nineties, I was working at the Motor Industry Reseach Assocciation. While I was there, Chris Boardman was doing work in the wind tunnel with Mike Burrows. I was not allowed to watch.
> 
> The company I was working for had a motorcycle chassis dynamometer which could simulate inertias down to 80kg and as my inertia was 96kg, why not get some lab training on Friday afternoons.
> 
> ...



I guess if I had access to all this kit, I could improve my position and gain some speed, but to be honest, like I said its not my thing.

Just enjoy my racing and training etc.

On the magic 7W required to get up a 25% hill, and I'm probably opening myself up here to a long and complicated explanation, if I'm putting out less than 7W I'm still gonna get up that hill but just at a slower speed. At these speeds Im guessing wind resistance is not so significant, compared to working against gravity i.e gaining potential energy?

Jeez, who do I sound like??!!


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2009)

Yes you can get up a 25% hill at a slower speed without having a 7W/kg power to weight ratio. You will need a 28T ring and a 36T sprocket to keep up a high enough cadence – about 40 – to keep momentum to climb at 2.5 mph.

Road race pros ( and most amateur sportive types ) don't pack a 21" gear for the occasional 25% gradient.
Unfortunately for the pros on the tour, some switchbacks in the mountains have 25% grades on the corners, and to get up them without stopping dead, they resort to their 7W/kg ability on a 46" gear.

Stopping dead half way up L'Alpe means losing the stage, and worse, losing valuable time because getting going again on a 7% grade is pretty hard. 
If you ARE going to do this, you can't afford it to be broadcast on international television and "What happened next" on Friday night when Cav is on QOS. Especially if you ARE Cav…


----------



## MacB (25 Jun 2009)

rich p said:


> I'm not having a pop at your social life or, indeed, the way you approach cycling but the implication that for you cycling IS fun while the rest of us, know-nothings, who just get on the bike and ride, it I'SNT



Rich, that isn't the way I read Jim, my take is he offers a spread of advice based on your needs. He could just say do this, eat that, ride this bike and we'd all be saying prove it, or back it up. He actually gives some detailed backup, it's up to us how much or little we take on board. As a newbie I found his advice useful and liked the fact that he always promotes that cycling should be fun. 

There is some subtle mockery in his posts, especially when he gives power formula and gear selection advice. But I think that's intended to get people to have a little look at themselves when they're maybe losing sight of the fun and getting a bit serious. Sort of, if you want to do it then do it right, type response. Faced with this we can then choose to get right into it or just cherry pick the relevant bits suitable to our abilities/desires.

Though Rich, you and I could both be totally wrong in our take on Jim and he could actually be the drooling maniac that he comes across as


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2009)

Thanks McB.

I spent my teenage years learning everything I could off the Bike shop people near where I lived. My LBS was Tom Crowther's, who was one of the co-founders of Mercian Cycles. Some of the more valuable stuff was a bit incredible and difficult to take in without some proof. Nevertheless, the info was taken in and remembered and now proved it WAS worth remembering.

I remember David Duffield dropped a couple of gems on Eurosport in the late nineties; and Sean Kelly promptly stopped responding to force Duffers to shut up.

Every year viewers e-mail asking about gearing and physical strength, and every year there is no clear answer. The only explanation is "Hard training".

That £3000 Trek you are riding was designed using CAD and CAE, and has been in a wind tunnel to hone the tube shaping and componentry streamlining. It was tested by pros on a dynamometer to evaluate the efficiency of the drivetrain, as well as motoring rigs. There are probably more tests I am not aware of - it has been ten years since I co-operated with MIRA on bike design, albeit an electric bike.

You don't have to believe anything I say on here, but be assured, I won't bullshit anyone ( except maybe the story about Alien abduction ).

Oh, if you want to see 'drooling maniacs' wait for the photos from this years Etape.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2009)

Nuns, no sense of humour.

A convent takes in an evacuee girl from the city. She is with them for two weeks and in that time, cuts all the hair off the convent's cat and mutilates the leg of the groundsman's prize rooster.

In a letter to the girl's parents, the Mother Superior writes "She's shaved my pussy and chopped a foot off the gardener's cock".


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (25 Jun 2009)

*I Like Jimboalee's Posts*

Can I just weigh in on Jimbo's side as well? I kind of half understand (or think I do) the physics / maths behind what he's saying, but don't worry too much about the intricacies of it all. I just find his posts interesting, informative and fun .. in a weird kind of way.


----------



## rich p (25 Jun 2009)

I don't want to take this further but as I pointed out I don't have a problem with Jim's approach - in fact good luck to him. My point was that he implies that without adopting his scientific smoke and mirrors one can't enjoy cycling. That's my last word as my intention wasn't really to be controversial or personal.


----------



## SimonRoberts0204 (25 Jun 2009)

So what sort of actual speed will a pro climb say, 200m of 25%?


----------



## jimboalee (25 Jun 2009)

SimonRoberts0204 said:


> So what sort of actual speed will a pro climb say, 200m of 25%?



Work it out.

39 x 23. 50 cadence. 6.5 mph  On 39 x 25 it would be higher cadence and probably slightly faster due to this.
[Power is a function of available torque and crankshaft speed. I will refrain from quoting the formula]

In reality, the only place I know where that demand was made was up Constitution Hill in Swansea on the Tour of Britain ( or was it the Milk race ? ).
Would you be surprised to hear some of GB's best riders got off and ran with their bikes? After ONLY  100m covered 

No-one criticised. Phil Liggett said "I don't blame them".

On more sensible roadraces, 25% inclines last only a few meters between 7, 8 or 9% slopes. Or over the occassional canal bridge in Holland  where they have to concentrate on keeping the front wheel straight when landing.

For us, a good plan to cope with this kind of thing is to find a multi-storey car park and ride up and down it for a couple of hours.

Many an unofficial 'race' was held in Solihull's Mell Square Multi-storey.
It was customary to release the contents of your stomach off the roof.


----------



## TW85 (26 Jun 2009)

I always ride in the hardest gear possible to be still moving in, it hurts sometimes but it's the best way to increase your legs' capabilities in my opinion.

GO FOR THE BURN


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jun 2009)

TW85 said:


> I always ride in the hardest gear possible to be still moving in, it hurts sometimes but it's the best way to increase your legs' capabilities in my opinion.
> 
> GO FOR THE BURN



The trouble with this approach is you have to be very proficient at getting your foot from pedal to ground and holding yourself upright on a steep gradient.


----------



## MacB (26 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The trouble with this approach is you have to be very proficient at getting your foot from pedal to ground and holding yourself upright on a steep gradient.



alternatively you can just keel over


----------



## yello (26 Jun 2009)

TW85 said:


> I always ride in the hardest gear possible to be still moving in



I hope your knees can handle that!


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jun 2009)

yello said:


> I hope your knees can handle that!



You'll be surprised how much your knees can handle.

Riding a bicycle up a 15% hill is equivalent to carrying a 25lb backpack up a flight of stairs.
If you get the gear sorted to give you the appropriate cadence, it's possible.

Climbing the stairs is at a 45% incline, but the strain of pedalling the bike is multiplied by pi ( 3 1/7 ) so a 15% slope feels like a 45% stairway.

Am I correct? Discuss...


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jun 2009)

Or is it in relation to the angle of the slope?

15% is 27 Degrees, so the equivalent would be 85 degrees, ie a wall ladder.

Is that correct?

Friday. My brain hurts.


----------



## peanut (26 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Friday. My brain hurts.



your brain hurts Jimbo  how do you think ours are ?  this is all way over my head. 

Ok I'll fall for it . I used to be able to climb a 20% hill (Red hill) 95 mts high on a 38x 23t and I weighed 210 lbs the bike weighed 19lbs 
Q... what output was I expending then and what output would I need to expend now weighing 234lbs and what ratio 38x? 
I'm going to go take a valium but I'll be back in a mo


----------



## peanut (26 Jun 2009)

ok so if 10% =(1/23lbs)x 1000 
10% hill requires 43" 
20% hill requires 43-10 = 33"
ie 34x27 right thats what i have .
Now power as Jeremy C would say 
7Watts X (106Kgs +11Kgs ) = 819 Watts ..strewth 

so how does this relate to the 20% hill ? can I get up it and if so what gear will I need ?


----------



## yello (26 Jun 2009)

peanut said:


> 7Watts X (106Kgs +11Kgs ) = 819 Watts ..strewth



Strewth indeed. An article I read a few days back said that the peak output recorded for the Huez during TdFs was 460w by Pantani in 1995. Ulrich recorded 474 watts on the Arcalis in 97. 

819 watts will require more 'assistance' than either Pantani or Ulrich had!


----------



## TW85 (26 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The trouble with this approach is you have to be very proficient at getting your foot from pedal to ground and holding yourself upright on a steep gradient.



I just make sure I get a good run up, I don't start on a hill in a high gear


I do the old 'stand up while pedalling' if it gets hardcore


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jun 2009)

peanut said:


> ok so if 10% =(1/23lbs)x 1000
> 10% hill requires 43"
> 20% hill requires 43-10 = 33"
> ie 34x27 right thats what i have .
> ...



I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. 7 W/kg is the aspiration of a race wannabe. It is the level at which pros NEED to be to be competative.

You and I, because of our excess mass and limited time in the saddle will have a figure much less than 7.

If I put your figures into PowerCalc on the CTC website, to get up a 20%, you need to find 450 Watts to crawl up at 4 mph.
This will be 40 rpm on a 34 x 27. 
You will need to be standing up and pulling up on the upstroke.

Your W/kg ( based on a 25% ) is 3.8. Yeh, HALF of a pro.


----------



## peanut (26 Jun 2009)

Thanks Jimbo next time I'm at Red Hill I'll put your figures to the test although i fear i am unlikely to manage even 225 watts not 450


----------



## jimboalee (26 Jun 2009)

peanut said:


> Thanks Jimbo next time I'm at Red Hill I'll put your figures to the test although i fear i am unlikely to manage 225 watts not 450



Strange how that 450 was just below Pantani's 460. Marco will be riding faster on a longer gear.

Is that indicative of the muscle mass you both possess?


----------



## TW85 (29 Jun 2009)

SimonRoberts0204 said:


> ...What speed to you let yourself drop to before you stand up on the pedals?...



When it's too difficult to carry on sitting down, but not so difficult that you might have to change gear, trying to keep as much momentum as possible


----------



## jimboalee (29 Jun 2009)

TW85 said:


> When it's too difficult to carry on sitting down, but not so difficult that you might have to change gear, trying to keep as much momentum as possible



Around 30 rpm.


----------



## Alex (29 Jun 2009)

Am I the only one who has to ease off cos of the extreme pain? I practice up the road hill in greenwich park, and after three quarters of the way i really struggle and slow to about 5mph 
It happens regardless of whether i sprint up the first 3/4 or go slowly


----------



## jimboalee (29 Jun 2009)

Alex said:


> Am I the only one who has to ease off cos of the extreme pain? I practice up the road hill in greenwich park, and after three quarters of the way i really struggle and slow to about 5mph
> It happens regardless of whether i sprint up the first 3/4 or go slowly



How many repeats in an hour are you doing?


----------



## Alex (29 Jun 2009)

The hill takes about 3-4 mins, then i usually roll straight back down and begin again, i do this about four times, have a rest and then start again so i'd say about ten in an hour


----------

