Help on hills needed

[black'n'yellow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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..?

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'.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.

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]

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]

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'..?

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

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

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]

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]

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

What is this technique?

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.