Struggling with hills

[asterix]

This is an old chestnut that has been argued about since bicycles were invented.

As I have already mentioned, a heavy rider on a light bike can be the same 'whole vehicle' weight as a light bloke on a heavy bike.

The heavy rider has the advantage.

Anyway.
The bottom line here is :- Minimise body tissue that doesn't contribute (fat), Maximise lower body muscle mass.

My bike is 11kg, I am 85kg with no scope for weight loss. I climb hills quite happily but at no great speed.

Given the same levels of fitness, are you saying that if I get an 8kg bike I will be able to beat a 70kg rider on an 11kg bike?

 

[jimboalee]

I'm logged in to this forum, but I've also got the 'live update' on the tour running as well.

http://www.letour.fr/indexus.html

I'm keeping one eye on the tour and the other eye on my manager across the walkway.


As for your question. I have an 11 kg bike ( Dawes Giro 500 ) and a 7.6 kg bike ( SWorks ).
All I know is if I'm on the Spesh and I wear a backpack and load up my pockets so the vehicle weight is the same, I can climb better on the Spesh.

This experiment was done years ago when I got the Spesh.

I stand up and dump all my weight on the pedal with every pedalstroke.

When I drop the added weight, the Spesh climbs MUCH better.

 

[gbb]

There's one important bit no-ones thought of mentioning...breathing.

Its central to your ability to be able to exert yourself for longer. On the approach to the incline / hill, prepare yourself and start taking deep regular breaths. If you wait until you've started climbing...it's too late.
Concentrate on your breathing...try to keep it deep and regular...keep feeding those lungs.
Without a plentiful supply of oxygen...your legs are going nowhere very fast.

 

[HJ]

Triples are ugly.

No more than doubles, I didn't notice you offering to swap places with Touché outside Freuchie

 

[Randochap]

There's 2 different discussions going on here (well, 3 if you count Jim's, but I lost the manual); one is about improving fitness and the other is appropriate gearing.

My contention is simply this: most off-the-peg "racing" bikes don't have gearing with wide enough range for recreational cyclists. It's always been this way.

I remember, back in '78, when I was working in a bike shop that would actually cater to real cyclists and we'd modify stock cranks for customers (we did this for the first Canadians to enter PBP, in '79).

Then, one day, an old chap from Herefordshire (I think it was) stopped by. He was on a tour up into northern British Columbia and his bike sported a T.A. Cyclotouriste chainset, with a tiny inner ring -- 26 I think it was.

This was a novelty to me, who, by style-conscious default, insisted on keeping my 42-52 Campagnolo Neovo Record cranks, in spite of the fact that this necessitated a ridiculous, badly shifting 13-32 cluster, whenever I went touring.

I remember this wise old touriste saying something along the lines of "I'm no hero; I just like to get over the hills without undue pain, or walking."

It took me another few years to get over my hero complex and learn how to apply the correct technology to the conditions and my abilities.

The other thing that springs to mind reading this thread is the fact that -- besides age, average fitness level and tolerance for suffering -- most normal cyclists' fitness waxes and wanes with the season.

I don't know about you, but -- though I have several to choose from -- I like to be able to ride all my bikes knowing that I have gearing options for most eventualities.

Even so, in the winter, when I need to plow through fresh snow, the only option is my Blizzard, with a low of 22".

 

[Bigtwin]

Why should cycle jerseys have evolved and developed over the years with rear pockets? Its so you can carry your stuff without it adding to the 'dead weight' burden.

Yet more utter rot.

As anyone knows, it's so fat fookers can shove a load of tubes and crap in there to hide their muffin tops.

 

[postman]

Just today coming back from Bolton Abbey to Leeds via Ilkley and Otley.
My older mate riding a Dawes Giro 300.Complained about the same problem.He has a double 52-39.And is struggling uphill,and he has been cycling for years.I on the other hand realized 5 yeras ago that around here a Dawes Galaxy was best for me with 48-36-26.

Our past three rides i have left him standing and have to wait for him.
He is a better cyclist than me.We have decided that he needs more.So the bike is going in for alteration.
Maybe the 1.9 is not the ideal bike for the conditions.

 

[Randochap]

Maybe the 1.9 is not the ideal bike for the conditions.

Bingo! In one sentence too.

Here's the bike I have that fits the widest rage of conditions.

 

[Bigtwin]

Leave the poor man alone. This is Surrey, not the Alps. His bike is fine.

 

[Randochap]

Leave the poor man alone. This is Surrey, not the Alps. His bike is fine.

I resent the implication that we're worrying the OP. He came asking for advice and I personally have spent considerable time attempting in the best way I know to point to what i believe is the source of his problem -- insuficiently low gearing for his level and conditions.

Of course it's not the Alps, but he is, as he said, struggling on the hills he has in his area. No doubt the Alps would be right out of the question ... unless perhaps he replaced his whole drivetrain for MTB-style mech.

 

[Bigtwin]

I resent the implication that we're worrying the OP. He came asking for advice and I personally have spent considerable time attempting in the best way I know to point to what i believe is the source of his problem -- insuficiently low gearing for his level and conditions.

Of course it's not the Alps, but he is, as he said, struggling on the hills he has in his area. No doubt the Alps would be right out of the question ... unless perhaps he replaced his whole drivetrain for MTB-style mech.

You're telling the poor man that his £1,500 quid bike is the wrong one for the job. I rather think that's not going to cheer him up much.

I've live in the middle of the Surrey Hills and have ridden here for 15 years. There are very few hills around here that he's going to struggle on with that bike once he's got a bit of training and improvement in.

You may or may not be right, but junking the bike/spending a load of cash re-drive training it at this stage is way premature.

 

[Rider Rich]

Maybe the 1.9 is not the ideal bike for the conditions.

Thanks for the continuing replies.

I think its more like "maybe the 1.9 with a double compact, with an overweight, unfit, newbie on top of it is not the ideal bike for the conditions".

But if I keep at it like everyone has been saying, then maybe I can make it ideal for the conditions.

Its nice to be able to get good advice from people with experience.

 

[MacB]

we should set up a poll to see how many cyclists have been sold, or still ride, gear setups that mean they have to get off and push at times. We could have a second poll to see how many cyclists ever run out of gears at the other end of the scale, how often and with how much impact to their ride enjoyment.

Unless you get a bike specifically for racing I just don't get why you wouldn't want low enough gearing to cope with most/all eventualities. Of course we can all work at improving but I don't see where pushing a bike up a hill helps in this respect? I may not need some of my low gears now but I still like having them, and can envisage times when I'll be glad of them again.

 

[Bigtwin]

Unless you get a bike specifically for racing I just don't get why you wouldn't want low enough gearing to cope with most/all eventualities.

Because you have to sacrifice smooth steps in the gearing, especially if you are riding 7/8 speeds. For some, the 95% of the time that a lower gear is not needed means that closer gearing gives better cadence control, which is more important to them.

 

[Randochap]

You may or may not be right, but junking the bike/spending a load of cash re-drive training it at this stage is way premature.

Again, I resent your misinterpretation of my posts.