Hills

[Fab Foodie]

Actually, it is still pretty traffic free & truly magnificent cycling country.

Getting back on topic, the great thing about hills and the pain in getting up there is that there is most often a magnificent view as reward: all the way to the south downs on the way out, back over central london from Epsom downs on the way back

Agreed, was based in Epsom for a few years and my bike was my fixed, great fun!

 

[automatic_jon]

Welcome to the " Darkside " Automatic Jon. Glad to hear your climbing is going well.

There are as many ways to climb as there are riders. What height and weight are you,and what cadence are you climbing at, at the moment ?

Height and weight are 5'9" and 8 and half stone as for cadence, I have no idea. And actually no idea how to calculate it.

Yeah, climbing technique is progressing, the more I practice the better I'm getting at finding my own style and rhythm. At this rate I'll be ready for the IoW randonee in time.

Whats this hill that looms over Portsmouth then??

Nowt like what we have oop north, and we ride up 'em in clogs, towing a whippet, etc, etc.

That would be Portsdown hill, part of the prehistoric cliff-line. The road I'm using to get up it goes up 400 feet in just less than a mile.

 

[SimonC]

Height and weight are 5'9" and 8 and half stone as for cadence, I have no idea. And actually no idea how to calculate it.

Yeah, climbing technique is progressing, the more I practice the better I'm getting at finding my own style and rhythm. At this rate I'll be ready for the IoW randonee in time.



That would be Portsdown hill, part of the prehistoric cliff-line. The road I'm using to get up it goes up 400 feet in just less than a mile.

I'll be down that way in the summer, getting a ferry to Jersey, will keep an eye out for it.

 

[roundisland]

Came across a hill today 17% couldnt make it up had to push the bike up the hill

I was riding my dawes galaxy a bit disappointed in myself but i wasnt even close to gettting to the top. Is 17% a challenge to or just a breeze to most cyclists?

 

[aJohnson]

17% is challenging to most I presume. I don't think it would be a breeze for many people.

 

[jimboalee]

Came across a hill today 17% couldnt make it up had to push the bike up the hill

I was riding my dawes galaxy a bit disappointed in myself but i wasnt even close to gettting to the top. Is 17% a challenge to or just a breeze to most cyclists?

It's a walk in most folk's language.

Only those with the likes of 17" gears would get up 17% grades without standing up and straining.

Speed would be 2.5 mph at 50 cadence, so I'd be walking.

 

[GrasB]

+1 on jimboalee's post. Last time I was riding with those sorts of inclines it was bottom gear, standing on the pedals, driving with the down & up-stroke. For a 15-17% incline if I'm lucky & having a good day (read a tail wind) I may just get to 4mph. Hard work but very rewarding when you ride to the top in one go.

 

[roundisland]

Thanks for the replies. That's good to know I dont feel bad about it now. I was at the bottom looking up at the hill and I new there was no way I could get up it so just walked it.

 

[jimboalee]

IS it easier to walk?

You've got to raise the combined mass of you and your bike through x vertical metres against the force of gravity.

The difference is the relationship of how far you climb with one pedalstroke or step.

On a 17% grade, your stride length might be your wheel diameter, effectively a 13 1/2" gear. [ 2 strides = 1 rev of crank ]

Less Joules per second, so 'easier'...

 

[roundisland]

IS it easier to walk?

You've got to raise the combined mass of you and your bike through x vertical metres against the force of gravity.

The difference is the relationship of how far you climb with one pedalstroke or step.

On a 17% grade, your stride length might be your wheel diameter, effectively a 13 1/2" gear. [ 2 strides = 1 rev of crank ]

Less Joules per second, so 'easier'...

There was no option either walk up or turn around and go back down....but thank for the physics lesson even though it went right over my head!!

 

[Fiona N]

Only those with the likes of 17" gears would get up 17% grades without standing up and straining.

Speed would be 2.5 mph at 50 cadence, so I'd be walking.

Well I am obviously LA in disguise
The hill out of Sedbergh towards Kendal is marked as 17% and in fact has two separate steeper sections with slightly gentler stuff, including a short descent, in between so that the complete climb extends over about 1km with about 110m of height gain - anyone who knows the climb will admit it's a beast. I do the whole thing sitting down in 33 inch gear (32 x 25, 700 wheels) - speed rarely drops under 10kmph or I would be standing out of the saddle. I guess the fact I can ride it comfortably on a 2-wheel recumbent where standing out of the saddle is not an option means I know there's no need to.

After reading all these posts about cadence of 40 or less and straining up hills out of the saddle, on yesterday's ride around the hills north of Kendal (52km, 895m of ascent, 22% max. gradient), I decided to see what my cadence is when I get out of the saddle, as 40 seemed awfully slow. On the short, steep ups around here, I often don't change right down but deliberately honk in a higher gear, partly to give my back a rest and partly laziness on slopes of less than 50-60m. I found that I rarely drop below a cadence of 50 - and that was mainly when I slightly underestimated the incline - and around 60-65 seems to be optimal in terms of comfort, speed and endurance. Maybe all those years of flogging myself up Alpine climbs have paid off in terms of technique and strength

 

[jimboalee]

Well I am obviously LA in disguise
The hill out of Sedbergh towards Kendal is marked as 17% and in fact has two separate steeper sections with slightly gentler stuff, including a short descent, in between so that the complete climb extends over about 1km with about 110m of height gain - anyone who knows the climb will admit it's a beast. I do the whole thing sitting down in 33 inch gear (32 x 25, 700 wheels) - speed rarely drops under 10kmph or I would be standing out of the saddle. I guess the fact I can ride it comfortably on a 2-wheel recumbent where standing out of the saddle is not an option means I know there's no need to.

After reading all these posts about cadence of 40 or less and straining up hills out of the saddle, on yesterday's ride around the hills north of Kendal (52km, 895m of ascent, 22% max. gradient), I decided to see what my cadence is when I get out of the saddle, as 40 seemed awfully slow. On the short, steep ups around here, I often don't change right down but deliberately honk in a higher gear, partly to give my back a rest and partly laziness on slopes of less than 50-60m. I found that I rarely drop below a cadence of 50 - and that was mainly when I slightly underestimated the incline - and around 60-65 seems to be optimal in terms of comfort, speed and endurance. Maybe all those years of flogging myself up Alpine climbs have paid off in terms of technique and strength

That's pretty impressive.

A 32" gear at 6.25 mph is 63 rpm.

I'm taking a guess here. Your vehicle weight is 70 kg ?? That's 370 Watts to climb 17% at 10 kmh.

370 Watts is also what is required to climb a 10% at 16 kmh or an 8% at 19 kmh.

You really are up there with the pros.

 

[jimboalee]

I rode up the 10% on my commute at 5.5 mph in 72".

That's 305 Watts for me at 26 rpm, standing up, pretending I was climbing a steep stairway while carrying a heavy rucksack.

I usually drop the gear to middle ( 54" ) and go up the 10% at 5 mph ( 31 rpm ) for 270 Watts.

Lowest on that bike is 41", which gets me up a 14% at 3.5 mph at 30 rpm for 270 Watts.

 

[yumpy]

Just on the efficiency angle: isn't it true that being up in the saddle is less efficient than sitting, because you're outputting extra energy in keeping your body stable ?

and if you walk you + the bike up a vertical distance it should be the same energy output as cycling you + the bike... except that when you're cycling you're losing energy in the drivetrain and bike flex.

So surely walking with the bike uses less energy ?

Unfortunatly that's as far as my dim and distant memory of physics will go !

 

[Tynan]

110m in a km is 11% average in my Maths world

jimbo, your posts are a delight