Help on hills needed

[User6179]

Knew it wouldnt belong before you got personal B nY!

Good nite

 

[Fab Foodie]

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

 

[endoman]

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.

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]

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]

Aero is not much of an issue when climbing.

 

[aces_up1504]

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

 

[Sittingduck]

Fair do's

 

[lukesdad]

Aero is not much of an issue when climbing.

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

 

[Crackle]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.



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.



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.

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.