# Why leg strength doesn't matter, that much, for road riding - a technical answer



## GrasB (4 Sep 2012)

Let's get some basics out of the way;

The average person can easily climb a set of stairs for several min without much problem. They may do this slowly but they can climb stairs. This means that people are regularly pushing down with, considerably, more force than their body weight; if you can't lift more than you weight you'd never climb stairs.
A good national level pro/sponsored rider is going to have maximal outputs of around 6.5W/kg for 5 min. A fit, slightly trained rider will be close to 6.5W/kg for 1 min maximal effort & 3W/kg for 5min.
A typical trained rider will have a nominal foot speed of 1.25-2.25m/s. On 170mm cranks this equates to approximately 70-125 rpm.
The more power you produce the higher your cadence tends to be.
Your peek pedal force is approximately 2.1x higher than your average pedal force across the entire pedal revolution. (I know this is true for me I'm not so sure about other people.)
At 6W/kg, & 70 rpm a rider will be applying enough force to lift 53% of their weight over the entire pedal stroke & applying a force to lift 120% of their weight at the point they're applying maximum force on the pedals. This sort of figure is nowhere near the muscular strength limit for a fit person, let alone a trained athlete. To put into context; For Someone who is 12 stone, such as a certain Mr B. Wiggins, 6.5W/kg equates to 495w.

If we drop to a more typical 3W/kg, 230w for someone who tips the scales at 12 stone & the sort of level that I'd expect a faster commuter to be able to produce, even peek pedal pressure is only producing enough force to lift two thirds of your body weight. Do people really think you need a large muscle mass to achieve that sort of force considering how easily most people accelerate their entire body mass up stairs?

Now all this assumes you're at the lower end of the rpm registers when climbing. Say you climb in the low 80rpm range. Even up a 6.5W/kg you're looking at your maximum pedal force being the same as your body weight, something you should easily be achieving. At 3W/kg it's less than half your body weight.

EDITED: make it a bit more readable.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Sep 2012)

9/10 people will still argue that strength = hillclimbing ease


----------



## ColinJ (4 Sep 2012)

I had a friend with enormous legs (he was a bodybuilder) and he insisted on using leg strength to climb in a massive gear, rather than spinning a lower gear. I used to warn him about it but he wouldn't listen and immediately after one such warning, his chain exploded!


----------



## GrasB (4 Sep 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> 9/10 people will still argue that strength = hillclimbing ease


Here's irony for you - my coach keeps on telling me I'm too powerful to be a really special hill climber.


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Sep 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I had a friend with enormous legs (he was a bodybuilder) and he insisted on using leg strength to climb in a massive gear, rather than spinning a lower gear. I used to warn him about it but he wouldn't listen and immediately after one such warning, his chain exploded!


 
probably more to do with his weight than his power. Anyway, must dash - I'm off to the gym...


----------



## ColinJ (4 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> probably more to do with his weight than his power. Anyway, must dash - I'm off to the gym...


He was actually quite a small man apart from his muscle bulk. He probably weighed several stone less than me!

It was the horrible way in which he mashed the pedals round. He stamped hard twice per revolution of the cranks, rather than turning them smoothly. I could tell that he was going to break something.

It was pretty comical the way it happened ...

Me : _"Please use a lower gear and spin your legs more smoothly or you will wreck your bike!"_

Bike chain, 2 seconds later: *"BANG!"*

Me: _"Er, just like that!"_


----------



## david1701 (4 Sep 2012)

Is there not an element of efficiency here?

To supply 300w you need to generate more than 300w. I don't have figures for how much more.

If your max supply is 350w then when supplying 300w then you're right at the edge and likely to be less even and less efficient, whereas is your max supply is 600w you are only running at half capacity to provide 300w so should be able to sustain the effort longer as well as not wobbling everywhere on the edge of dying


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Sep 2012)

david1701 said:


> If your max supply is 350w then when supplying 300w then you're right at the edge and likely to be less even and less efficient, whereas is your max supply is 600w you are only running at half capacity to provide 300w so should be able to sustain the effort longer as well as not wobbling everywhere on the edge of dying


 
what you have just described is called 'aerobic fitness'...


----------



## Hacienda71 (4 Sep 2012)

To those in the know. How does Cavendish supply so much power at the end of a 200K stage? To have an output of 1500 watts albeit for a short burst after a long ride seems incredible. I know he is not a great climber no doubt too heavy but what gives a top sprinter the ability to have that output after a gruelling ride.


----------



## GrasB (4 Sep 2012)

david1701 said:


> Is there not an element of efficiency here?
> 
> To supply 300w you need to generate more than 300w. I don't have figures for how much more.
> 
> If your max supply is 350w then when supplying 300w then you're right at the edge and likely to be less even and less efficient, whereas is your max supply is 600w you are only running at half capacity to provide 300w so should be able to sustain the effort longer as well as not wobbling everywhere on the edge of dying


At 50rpm I can produce 730-750w of power. That's about my anaerobic neuromuscular limit, that's 85kg ave pedal force & almost 173kg peak pedal force. I can do that for 5, possibly 10 seconds absolute maximum, beyond that my blood can't supply oxygen quickly enough to keep up with that power production & so it drops off very quickly. Down in the 300w range leg strength isn't an issue, it's getting oxygen to the muscles.


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (4 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> Say you climb in the low 80rpm range. *Even up a 6.5W/kg you're looking at your maximum pedal force being the same as your body weight, something you should easily be achieving.*


 
I don't think I can agree with that. Have you unconsciously equated 80rpm at the pedals with full body weight to be about the same as climbing 80 steps of stair per minute?

I have not looked into your maths/assumptions closely, and I do understand pushing at the pedals is not the same as climbing stairs biomechanically, but I often run up long flights of stairs (and occasionally long escalators in London Underground) two steps at a time (such double step would be a little more than the pedal stroke of 2x170mm crank length). My experience tells me I doubt many Joe Blogg commuters can do it at 140/160 such steps a minute (which correspond to 70/80 rpm) for any extended period. If you don't believe me try it (unless you are Wiggo of course...  ).

As in many assessments in Physics it may be clearer to evaluate in terms of power or energy and see with e.g. 500W how many steps Joe needs to go up in a minute. Since W is kg m^2/s^3, for a 70kg commuter fighting gravity (at say 10 m/s^2) he/she would have to go vertically up at a velocity of 0.71 m/s, which is 43 m/minute, or 214 steps/minute of typical 20cm stair steps. Looking at it in a different way Joe is going vertically up at 2.6kph, or 10.4kph (a very brisk walk) up a 25% (!) incline. Assuming no air/wind resistance, mechanical inefficiency etc. of course.

Actually I think ~10kph was what Berti etc. were doing over the 25% inclines during the past few days in the Vuelta. Now should I be able to "easily" achieve that (even after eating a lot of beef)?


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Sep 2012)

RecordAceFromNew said:


> My experience tells me I doubt many Joe Blogg commuters can do it at 140/160 such steps a minute (which correspond to 70/80 rpm) for any extended period.


 
they could if they trained themselves to do it...



RecordAceFromNew said:


> Actually I think ~10kph was what Berti etc. were doing over the 25% inclines during the past few days in the Vuelta. Now should I be able to "easily" achieve that (even after eating a lot of beef)?


 
Bert didn't 'easily' achieve it either. He trained for it - same as you could, within reason.


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Sep 2012)

What I have concluded from the several threads that are going over and over this circular argument is that, whatever the hell one needs to get up hills quick, I don't have it!


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (4 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Bert didn't 'easily' achieve it either.


 
I believe that was and is my point, per the OP's comment I find difficult to agree with. I also doubt everybody can sustain 500W over extended period even with training, given age, gender, condition etc. all being factors, but that is a different subject.


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Sep 2012)

RecordAceFromNew said:


> I believe that was and is my point, per the OP's comment I find difficult to agree with. I also doubt everybody can sustain 500W over extended period even with training, given age, gender, condition etc. all being factors, but that is a different subject.


 
That's the difference between strength and power. You already have the required strength - but whether you can convert that into sustainable power over a given period of time is a different matter. That was the original point - in the original thread...


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (4 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> That's the difference between strength and power. You already have the required strength - but whether you can convert that into sustainable power over a given period of time is a different matter. That was the original point - in the original thread...


 
Ok!


----------



## Lee_M (4 Sep 2012)

so what is happening if I'm on a steep hill with my lowest gear and cant turn the pedal?

surely that is a strength question, as I havent even reached my aerobic limit, just my strenght limit

i'd love to be able to climb hills but...

at 16 stone thats an awful lot of watts to produce


----------



## Rob3rt (4 Sep 2012)

Lee_M said:


> *so what is happening if I'm on a steep hill with my lowest gear and cant turn the pedal?*
> 
> surely that is a strength question, as I havent even reached my aerobic limit, just my strenght limit
> 
> ...


 
You fall over sideways! Under no circumstance may you give up and put a foot down, this shoot is serious and you go until you fail!

Then you buy a cassette with more teeth and try again!


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (4 Sep 2012)

Why do formula one cars rev four times higher than your average family saloon?
They have x amount of torques, but made four times more often to produce four times the horsepower.

Torque x revs = power.

(Enough of the car stuff).


----------



## gavroche (4 Sep 2012)

GrasB said:


> Let's get some basics out of the way;
> 
> The average person can easily climb a set of stairs for several min without much problem. They may do this slowly but they can climb stairs. This means that people are regularly pushing down with, considerably, more force than their body weight; if you can't lift more than you weight you'd never climb stairs.
> A good national level pro/sponsored rider is going to have maximal outputs of around 6.5W/kg for 5 min. A fit, slightly trained rider will be close to 6.5W/kg for 1 min maximal effort & 3W/kg for 5min.
> ...


  all that science baffles me. All I know is that the granny gear is my favorite gear when I go uphill.It seems to do the job, slowly mind you, but it gets me there, unless the hill is reeeeeallly steep , then I resort to good old fashion walking.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Sep 2012)

Of course we are assuming we are not talking about the young, old or infirm here. To take the anology of the car for a moment. The strength of the conrod has to be such as to deal with the force applied to the piston. Not everybody's skeletal structure may be equiped to handle the forces applied even in cycling.


----------



## MrJamie (4 Sep 2012)

Gotta love the sciencey threads like these 

I thought peak torque was limited by your bodyweight, doesnt pushing down with way more than your bodyweight just lift you up? 

Im dragging round a lot of weight in myself and my bike at about 145kg combined, but never feels like I require more strength, I just suffer a lot up hills in terms of cardio/aerobic fitness but I figure its good training, low gear higher cadence crawling up a hill, so when im lighter ill be able to keep the same torque/rpm in a slightly higher gear and the hills will be over with much quicker too. 

Although isnt there something to be said for switching from a higher cadence to out of the saddle grinding possibly in utilising different muscle fibres as well as muscle groups? Does that have anything to do with Cavs finishing power?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Sep 2012)

MrJamie said:


> Gotta love the sciencey threads like these
> 
> I thought peak torque was limited by your bodyweight, doesnt pushing down with way more than your bodyweight just lift you up?
> 
> ...


 
Ah but there is Torque and then there is Torque, which are you torqueing about


----------



## black'n'yellow (4 Sep 2012)

Lee_M said:


> so what is happening if I'm on a steep hill with my lowest gear and cant turn the pedal?
> 
> surely that is a strength question, as I havent even reached my aerobic limit, just my strenght limit


 
In principle, the only thing stopping you from turning the pedals will be the inability to generate the power required to ride up the hill. Or you may have the wrong gearing, or the hill might just not be rideable, for the same reason as a vertical wall is not rideable, regardless of how much power or strength you may have....


----------



## marzjennings (4 Sep 2012)

I love the title of this thread.


----------



## Lee_M (4 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> In principle, the only thing stopping you from turning the pedals will be the inability to generate the power required to ride up the hill. Or you may have the wrong gearing, or the hill might just not be rideable, for the same reason as a vertical wall is not rideable, regardless of how much power or strength you may have....


 

thats it, the hill is unrideable... thats my excuse from now on thanks!


----------



## GrasB (4 Sep 2012)

RecordAceFromNew said:


> I believe that was and is my point, per the OP's comment I find difficult to agree with. I also doubt everybody can sustain 500W over extended period even with training, given age, gender, condition etc. all being factors, but that is a different subject.


The point of using 6.5W/kg was it's serious power. As I said in the opening of the thread over 5min it's lower level pro outputs, it's big power. However if you can actually get a cat 3/4 racer who has done proper interval training to warm up & then do a single all out one shot maximal effort run you'd be surprised at how much power they can produce & over what duration. The main issue is actually motivating them enough to do a true one off maximal effort run. Also I'd be surprised if there were that many racers who are near that weight in the lower cats, certainly in Italy I only see the heavy guys once you're into deep into cat 2 territory.



gavroche said:


> all that science baffles me. All I know is that the granny gear is my favorite gear when I go uphill.It seems to do the job, slowly mind you, but it gets me there, unless the hill is reeeeeallly steep , then I resort to good old fashion walking.


Hey hey hey the thread title is "_Why leg strength doesn't matter, that much, for road riding -* a technical answer*_" what did you expect? 




MrJamie said:


> Gotta love the sciencey threads like these
> 
> I thought peak torque was limited by your bodyweight, doesnt pushing down with way more than your bodyweight just lift you up?


Think about this, Cav is 69kg & can push out 1.6kW. At 140rpm (2.5m/s on 170mm cranks) that's an ave pedal force of 69kg.

Put hiking sticks in someones hands & they'll naturally transfer 30-40% of their weight onto their arms without them even feeling it. So now think about how much you're utilising your arms if you actually feel it in your arms? Also add in that any self respecting roadie will be using some kind of foot retention & suddenly you've got an awful lot of resistance to upwards motion.


----------



## poynedexter (4 Sep 2012)

up till last week i was determined to lift weights this winter. now i'm definately not gonna bother. having spent the last 2 outings thinking about the pain in my legs and lungs, and with the progress i've made recently by riding harder, i reckon its all about conditioning and body weight. i'm kinda convinced by all this aerobic talk.

so i've seen my weight go down from 11.5 stone to 11 and now 10st 11lbs. i'm gonna target 10.5 stone as a base weight and cycle more!

i do remember when i raced mx for 20 yrs, lifting weights to increase strength made it impossible to hold on after 5 mins. arm pump city! i wonder was it the same thing. was mx aerobic too


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (5 Sep 2012)

MrJamie said:


> Gotta love the sciencey threads like these
> I thought peak torque was limited by your bodyweight, doesnt pushing down with way more than your bodyweight just lift you up?


 
You push down with one foot, while pulling up with the other *never leaving the seat*.
Simples ... i do it all the time wearing my work shoes and fairly tight toe-clips.

So in effect i'm exceeding the torque that others create just "standing on their pedals".

One day i'll invest in cleat pedals and shoes, but for now all three of my rides have add-on toeclips.


----------



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

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> You push down with one foot, while pulling up with the other *never leaving the seat*.
> Simples ... i do it all the time wearing my work shoes and fairly tight toe-clips.
> 
> So in effect i'm exceeding the torque that others create just "standing on their pedals".
> ...





> *As power level increases, cyclists don't pedal in circles.*
> 
> Martin cited 1991 research by *Ed Coyle*, _et al_, involving regional level competitors and elite racers -- pros and U.S. national team members. Coyle found that elite cyclists pushed down harder and pulled up less than the less-accomplished riders.
> Surprisingly, the elite riders were more efficient even though they were pedaling less smoothly. They had a higher percentage of endurance-loving slow-twitch muscle fibers than the regional riders and Coyle theorized that may have skewed the data regarding efficiency.
> ...


----------



## GrasB (5 Sep 2012)

When you start to look at video of you in various states of power production & riding position you see all kinds of interesting things. If you were to just look at the pedal force plots you'd think that I was pulling up on the back pedal when sprinting hard but actually I'm not I'm just bracing against the pedal & all the force is coming from the front leg. You get a very similar plot when I'm up at 350-400w, however if you look at video you can see that I'm actually pulling up with some force on the pedal. If only when you combine pedal force plots & video footage you can actually see what's going on.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Sep 2012)

What level do you race at GrasB? Just curious, since you seem to do a lot of analysis etc and have coaches and go training in spain or italy or wherever etc.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (5 Sep 2012)

Thanks for the interesting read black'n'yellow.

So if mountain bikers have the smoothest pedal action, maybe i'm already there as i do
lots of offroad stuff?


----------



## GrasB (5 Sep 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> What level do you race at GrasB? Just curious, since you seem to do a lot of analysis etc and have coaches and go training in spain or italy or wherever etc.


Nominally cat 3 ... but only because I don't do enough races to get any higher. If I look at my TT/hill climbing results I'm a very good cat 2 racer or better.


----------



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

GrasB said:


> Nominally cat 3 ... but only because I don't do enough races to get any higher.


 
out of interest, what's been your best placing on the road this season? And what points total did you finish on? I only ask because a 'very good' 2nd cat would, in theory, only need to ride (and win, obviously) four regional C+ events (or less if national B/regional A) to move out of 3rd category.


----------



## GrasB (5 Sep 2012)

My only race this season was 7th in a Cat 2/3 race. I don't race in the UK & as such I don't pay any attention to points.


----------



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

I'm just not clear on where the 'very good 2nd cat' bit came from, when you don't hold a 2nd cat licence and have only scored three ranking points as a 3rd. Where do you race, incidentally..?


----------



## Drago (5 Sep 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Why do formula one cars rev four times higher than your average family saloon?
> They have x amount of torques, but made four times more often to produce four times the horsepower.
> 
> Torque x revs = power.
> ...


 because (at the moment) they aren't permitted variable valve timing or turbos, so there's a limit to the volumetric efficiency they can achieve. Therefore, increasing revs and chucking in more power cycles is the way forward.

Increase the strength of your F1 muscle by bolting on a turbo and peak power and torque will both be better for less revs. The current formula is limited by regulations rather than any force of physics.

As for cycling, it's not the force with which a rider can depress the pedals that is the only consideration. The Maths are a bit more complex because most fast riders will be clipped in and applying force in different directions at different points of the pedal stroke. And then there's Newtons laws of motion that coming into play when a rider is honking.

Because of my other sporting hobbie I can probably apply more force than most, but to maximise that I'd need to bolt my arriss to the seat.

One thing is for sure - big hills are a damn sight easier with big muscles than with girly ones, but what is the prime, optimum point in the middle?


----------



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

Drago said:


> One thing is for sure - big hills are a damn sight easier with big muscles than with girly ones,


 
No - the point is the exact opposite of that. Seriously - have you not read the thread..?


----------



## Drago (5 Sep 2012)

I have read the thread. I find it much easier now I'm manly and meaty than I did when I was a weakling. Simple as. 

As per my earlier post, the mathematics are too simplistic, and don't take into account other variables in power transmission and are badly flawed as a consequence.

You may also recall the final part of the closing sentence of my last post, where I suggest the truth is perhaps somewhere in between the poor mathematics and my bulging quads - I mean, c'mon, have you not read the thread?

If I deploy (keeping the maths simple) 100NM of torque in the same time you apply only 80, I will go faster. If I apply 80 like you do, I'm potentially activating less muscle fibres, so it certainly won't feel so hard as my muscles are using less of their structure. Now, the energy expenditure will be the same, so someone with a better diet that mine may have an edge. Similarly, that muscle mass is just that - mass to be carried about, which requires more power. Then there is the mechanics of the power application in the pedal stroke, mechanical inefficiencies, the length of the riders bones compared to their muscle mass, even wind resistance between riders if differing sizes, so the variables to considerate very varied. Comparing just a muscle is far, far too simplistic, and leaving aside all the variables mentioned above the simple fact is a big muscle can do more 'work' in the same period of time. Come up the gym with me one evening (if you're I've 16 it'd be my pleasure to have you as a guest) and we can actually the measur of your muskets output, and do some experiments on endurance to boot.

As a slightly tongue in cheek aside, it always seems to be the week and weedy who have such a strong opinion about what muscles can't do. Those of us that have some don't seem to have these problems.


----------



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

Drago said:


> I have read the thread. I find it much easier now I'm manly and meaty than I did when I was a weakling. Simple as.


Nothing to do with erm,cycling then? And getting better at it by doing it perhaps?



> As per my earlier post, the mathematics are too simplistic, and don't take into account other variables in power transmission and are badly flawed as a consequence.


Yet people still can't understand the simplest of concepts.



> As a slightly tongue in cheek aside, it always seems to be the week and weedy who have such a strong opinion about what muscles can't do. Those of us that have some don't seem to have these problems.


You'll probably find that the "weak and weedy" will show you their heels on pretty much any terrain.


----------



## Drago (5 Sep 2012)

Ps, apologies for Mr Apples preditivadef terse.


----------



## Drago (5 Sep 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You'll probably find that the "weak and weedy" will show you their heels on pretty much any terrain.


I've not found that person yet sonny


----------



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

Drago said:


> As a slightly tongue in cheek aside, it always seems to be the week and weedy who have such a strong opinion about what muscles can't do. Those of us that have some don't seem to have these problems.


 
how is it that the weak and weedy Contador can go up mountains so quickly if he doesn't have your awesome physique, Drago..??


----------



## Drago (5 Sep 2012)

Ah, and that's the whole point you've hit most admirably on the head Sir!

The original post was too simplistic - in terms of physics it's like trying to calculate a cars performance from its power output alone. Power is an important variable, but not the decider...

The cars weight - a heavy car will go slower for a given power output than a light one. Riders are the same.

A car with tall gearing will be slower to accelerate, slower to bring that power to bear - a rider with long bones compared to their muscle mass, such as an ectomorp, suffers the same problem.

A large slab like car will be slower all round than a smaller one with the same power due to aero properties - this is also true of cyclists.

And the list goes on.

As for my riding skills, it's pointless getting into that willy wagging arena. Ive never competed in a sporting event, so we'll never know that one. Certainly the WWWs around these parts will attest that I'm a bugger to catch up with, never mind scalp, even on my laden commuter. I've never ever done any cycle-specific fitness training in 38 years of riding, and that capacity has come from somewhere.

If anything will kneecap me, it'll be yet another variable - diet. I'm a moderately careful eater and put away a lot of proteins for the obvious reasons, but I've never paid any attention to slow-release carbs etc for cycling.

Oh, and pubs - I can't seem to do more than 30 miles without being in desperate need of a Guinness


----------



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

Drago said:


> Power is an important variable, but not the decider...


 
Nobody ever said it was. But the deciding factors, as have already been mentioned ad nauseam, are power to weight and sustainable power for a given weight. Your weightlifting awesomeness will be slowing you down, not making you quicker, regardless of what you may think...


----------



## Drago (5 Sep 2012)

Nobody ever said it was? You may wish to re acquaint yourself with the opening post, whereby the author enters into a mathematical explanation as to why they think a power output of X is required to climb a hill, and how most riders can achieve that magic figure. And... no mention of other factors involved. After a promising title it was a bit disappointing.

As I hinted at in my original post, there's a compromise position that's optimum. Sure, my meaty thighs and chick pleasing glutes has me whizzing a laden commuter up the steepest of hills, but a TdF rider may then have to face another 120km where that muscle mass is a liability to drag around.


----------



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

Drago said:


> Nobody ever said it was? You may wish to re acquaint yourself with the opening post, whereby the author enters into a mathematical explanation as to why they think a power output of X is required to climb a hill, and how most riders can achieve that magic figure. And... no mention of other factors involved. After a promising title it was a bit disappointing.


 
6.5 watts per kilo is what it says - together with an indication of how long it might be sustained for. Are you reading a different thread?


----------



## GrasB (6 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I'm just not clear on where the 'very good 2nd cat' bit came from, when you don't hold a 2nd cat licence and have only scored three ranking points as a 3rd. Where do you race, incidentally..?


I admit I should have put riding level there. It comes from maximal effort W/kg between 5 seconds & 3 hours, performances in TTs against cat1/2 riders.




Drago said:


> I have read the thread. I find it much easier now I'm manly and meaty than I did when I was a weakling. Simple as.
> 
> ...
> 
> As a slightly tongue in cheek aside, it always seems to be the week and weedy who have such a strong opinion about what muscles can't do. Those of us that have some don't seem to have these problems.


Er, I'm 175lbs & 5' 6"... I don't do week & weedy . However as my W/kg goes up my ability to climb faster &/or further also increases. Ultimately the fastest elite climbers are, almost, always featherweight riders, the reason being that lighter riders naturally have a higher W/kg for a given state of fitness.


----------



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

GrasB said:


> I admit I should have put riding level there. It comes from maximal effort W/kg between 5 seconds & 3 hours, performances in TTs against cat1/2 riders.


 
Fair enough. There's a reason you don't see Dr Hutch in many road races though....


----------



## GrasB (6 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Fair enough. There's a reason you don't see Dr Hutch in many road races though....


In all honesty my 7th this year was very impressive considering I got taken off the bike about 15km from the finish. I got onto the wheel of riders in 8th to 3rd place when they started sprinting. I passed 2 riders & was making some impression on the riders ahead of me but I fundamentally was out of power in the tank. Thing would have been different had the finish line been 1 or 2 km down the road as I was by far the strongest sprinter in that group but I'd not had any recuperation from chasing the group.


----------



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

what kind of race was this..?


----------



## GrasB (6 Sep 2012)

Rolling/slightly hilly road race on a looped course.


----------



## GrasB (6 Sep 2012)

Drago said:


> Nobody ever said it was? You may wish to re acquaint yourself with the opening post, whereby the author enters into a mathematical explanation as to why they think a power output of X is required to climb a hill, and how most riders can achieve that magic figure. And... no mention of other factors involved. After a promising title it was a bit disappointing.


Did you actually read the post properly or did you make up most of it in your mind? I never actually refer to how applicable these wattages are to climbing a particular gradient. I go through the sort of pedal forces will be generated at give specific W/kg & cadence.

You also seem to fail to understand the difference between force & weight. I can apply a force that's *equal* to my body mass in a horizontal plane. The forces I'm talking about aren't necessarily applied as a vertical force, in fact most of the time they will be applied in a non-vertical plane.


----------



## montage (7 Sep 2012)

Drago, luckily for you the hill climbing season has started in some places.... get yourself down to a clubs hill climb session, pay a couple of quid to enter and then you have the right to brag about hill climbing abilities - can't claim you're fast without having results to back it up!

You also say that you haven't done cycle specific fitness in 38 years ..... does commuting not count?

I'm not convinced that there is no place in cycling for weights (though cycling specific weight training will always come out on top...e.g. 40rpm on the spin bike), but I do not for a second believe that weights make you go up hill faster - the argument you are putting forward is just awkwardly painful to read, meaty thighs and chick pleasing glutes or not


----------

