Climbing Trivia - Page 3

James Scott wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
> > 7.6 miles, 12% grade. Based on the climbing rate of the best of the best cyclists, I'm going to
> > guess the best overall time is right around 50 minutes. Am I close?
>
> http://www.tinmtn.org/hillclimb/results_03/index.cfm
>
> Did you peek? :-)

No, even though it seems uncanny. I used the Pantani climb rate of 95 ft/minute to get 50.7 minutes
for the Mt. Washington climb.

$300 to enter the race? Ouch!
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

It would be interesting to come up with a climbing rate vs grade curve for the top cyclists and compare that to a similar curve for runners. That would definitely show the crossover point and my guess is somewhere around 13 - 15%.

Using your 95 feet per minute number comes up quite a bit too fast for Mt. Diablo :
3050 feet vertical, 10.8 miles 5.4% avg grade
Best time for the Diablo Challenge (no pro riders though) in the last 4 years is 46 minutes and change vs your predicted 32.

I've run up the 75 flights of the "Library Tower" in downtown LA. The folks who did really well
weigh about 135 pounds -- I weigh about 178 pounds. So I would imagine that a very small runner
would be able to outrun a biker, unless the biker were also quite small and had a very light bike.

I've also ridden up very steep hills on both a 24" and a 20" unicycle -- the 24" has 175mm cranks.
(I.e., the unicycles have 24 and 20 inch gearing, respectively.) Since riding a unicycle is already
based on decent balance, going slow is not the major problem. Since a unicycle can weigh less than a
bike, I think that it is conceivable that on a steep enough grade, a unicycle could beat both a
runner and a biker. The grade would have to be approximately constant, though, because the unicycle
quickly loses to a bike where it isn't so steep.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:27:25 -0800, Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote:

>The question came up on a ride the other day: can one climb stairs on foot faster than on a
>road bike?
>
>The answer I found, after some googling, is that the winner is too close to call. The fastest time
>to climb the Empire State Building to the 86th floor is just under 10 minutes, which is a climb
>rate of 100 feet/minute.
>
>Pantani's record climb of Mt. Ventoux was done in about 25 minutes, giving a climb rate of 95
>feet/minute. Pretty close. Ventoux is windy and has a variable grade. A road with less wind and a
>more consistent grade should produce an even higher climb rate.

hbaker1@pipeline.com wrote:

> I've also ridden up very steep hills on both a 24" and a 20" unicycle -- the 24" has 175mm cranks.
> (I.e., the unicycles have 24 and 20 inch gearing, respectively.) Since riding a unicycle is
> already based on decent balance, going slow is not the major problem. Since a unicycle can weigh
> less than a bike, I think that it is conceivable that on a steep enough grade, a unicycle could
> beat both a runner and a biker. The grade would have to be approximately constant, though, because
> the unicycle quickly loses to a bike where it isn't so steep.

When the grade gets steep enough, a bicycle _becomes_ a unicycle!

Sheldon "Never Understood Cyclists Who _Seek_Out_ Climbs" Brown +-------------------------------------------------------
+
| I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility | of anything. --T.H. Huxley |
+-------------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

<bbense+rec.bicycles.tech.Jan.22.04@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message news:<buoq6j$qko$1@news.Stanford.EDU>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <pan.2004.01.22.05.11.31.421609@lehigh.edu>, David L. Johnson
> <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> >On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:00:23 +0000, Phil Holman wrote:
> >
> >> Probably the runner improves relatively as the grade gets steeper.
> >
> >Take this to the logical limit. You can climb a ladder, even with a bike on your shoulder. No way
> >could you ride it.
> >
> >It's humiliating, but I have had the experience of runners being able to overtake me on a very
> >steep hill that I was climbing on my bike. The steeper it is, the more likely the runner/climber
> >will win.
> >
>
> _ There is a good place to test this for yourself. The Mount Washington Auto Road, there is both a
> running race and a bike race up it. It has been quite some time since I did them, but I recall
> being only slightly faster on the bike.
>
> It's 8miles with an average grade of 12%. I'm pretty sure the running and biking records are
> fairly close.
>
> _ Booker C. Bense
>

Dear Booker,

Here's a recent list of times for runners and riders on Mt. Washington:

http://www.mt-washington.com/autoroad/autorecrd.html

The bicycles are noticeably faster, but things might well change on steeper climbs or if there's a
difference in the caliber of the contestants.

That is, the oddball race might attract the best riders (who routinely climb), but not the best
runners (who often don't climb).

I see no signs of the unbelievable Mexican runners who deflated the egos of Colorado's high-
altitude mountain-pass racers some years ago. They came from the Sierra Madre, lied about their
ages because they were afraid of being refused entry, started off on sandals made from old tires to
meet race requirements, and even took them off to run bare-foot with enormous leads in the
Leadville 100-mile race:

http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc1994/00060296.htm

" . . . last year's first-place finisher, 55-year-old Victoriano Churro, a Tarahumara Indian from
northwestern Mexico. Fearing he'd be considered too old to participate, Churro initially lied about
his age, claiming to be 38. The amazing thing is, he looked so good, no one even questioned him. He
completed the race in just over 20 hours."

"The modest, sedate Tarahumaras, two of whom finished second and fifth, made a memorable impression
with their loin cloths, tunic-style shirts, peaked caps, and sandals pieced together from discarded
tires scavenged from the Leadville landfill. The sandals qualified as distance footwear because the
tires still had some tread."

"The Tarahumaras' appearance at the Twin Lakes aid station prompted one volunteer to tell her young
son, 'Don't ever ask me for $150 running shoes again.'"

I like to imagine these guys coming up behind Lance on WalMart bikes with rusty chains.

Carl Fogel

Matt Locker <mlockerLoves2Ski@us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:<400FC772.9020209@us.ibm.com>...
> Phil:
>
> I think the fact that there is the extra weight of the bike is implicit in the question "Can one
> climb stairs on foot faster than on a road bike?"

Taken literally, one cannot ride a bicycle up the stairs. What we are comparing here is vertical
stair climbing rate with vertical climbing rate for a cyclist on the road.

>Therefore that weight doesn't matter. You could say that the race up the Empire State Building
>actually affects the runner's speed. It's not a straight run; every 50feet or so the runner needs
>to make a right angle turn. I think what does matter is the grade. Think about it. Can you run as
>fast as a bike on a flat road? No. Can you ride a bike up a 90" wall? No.

I already addressed most of this in my reply where I said I could climb a fairly steep grade on my
bicycle at a speed I could barely do running on the flat. Turning around requires a lot less energy
than lugging a 20lb bicycle up the climb.

>Yet a person can climb a 90degree wall. Somewhere between those two angles is the crossover
>point. Stairs are usually closer to a 35 degree angle which is still pretty close to unrideable.
>At that angle I tend to believe that balance comes into play more than anything else. A person
>can get a gear ratio to support the angle but can they ride a straight line for a long period at
>close to 1mph. I would expect the crossover point to be somewhere around a grade of 15-18% for
>the average person, and I'd expect it's a little higher if you were to compare an elite cyclist
>to an elite runner.

The steeper the climb, the more it favors the runner where stairclimbing for the runner is probably
the most efficient(conversion to useful work). The cyclist is somewhat handicapped by the additional
weight of the bike but this is a classic optimization problem where aero drag, handling, gearing etc
for various grades and speeds all contibute to the max climbing rate. I speculate that the most
accurate answer would be to compare the same athlete, with an equal ability in cycling and running
(triathlete), and not an elite cyclist versus an elite runner.

Phil Holman

actually someone provided a link for the guy setting a new record biking up the Effiel Tower in 19 minutes about halving the previous record (which he also owned), so it's definitely possible.

DiabloScott wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
> > James Scott wrote:
> > > Terry Morse wrote:
> > >
> > > > 7.6 miles, 12% grade. Based on the climbing rate of the best of the best cyclists, I'm
> > > > going to guess the best overall time is right around 50 minutes. Am I close?
> > >
> > > http://www.tinmtn.org/hillclimb/resu...://www.tinmtn-
> > > .org/hillclimb/results_03/index.cfm
> > >
> > > Did you peek? :-)
> > No, even though it seems uncanny. I used the Pantani climb rate of 95 ft/minute to get 50.7
> > minutes for the Mt. Washington climb. $300 to enter the race? Ouch!
> > --
> > terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/http:...orse.com/bike/
>
>
>
> It would be interesting to come up with a climbing rate vs grade curve for the top cyclists and
> compare that to a similar curve for runners. That would definitely show the crossover point and my
> guess is somewhere around 13 - 15%.
>
> Using your 95 feet per minute number comes up quite a bit too fast for
> Mt. Diablo : 3050 feet vertical, 10.8 miles 5.4% avg grade Best time for the Diablo Challenge (no
> pro riders though) in the last 4 years is 46 minutes and change vs your predicted 32.

Not a fair comparison since the Diablo Challenge from the south side includes the Rock City area
with no significant elevation gain (even a short descent). Application of the 95'/min. estimate
assumes that the whole course is sufficiently steep that almost all of the cyclist's energy is
working against gravity rather than wind resistance and other losses. It'd be interesting to see how
well it works on the Diablo course if only the portion from shortly before the junction to the
summit were included.

True there are a few rolling sections in there but that would tend to make the Diablo course FASTER than predicted using the 95'/min estimate, no? In fact Diablo is quite a bit slower than you would predict from the "thumb rule of Ventoux" because it's less steep and therefore there's more distance to cover for an equivalent vertical climb. In est, even though it's a faster average speed it's a much slower vertical gain rate.

"Vertical feet per minute" is an interesting but rather misleading statistic and it's pure folly to pretend it's some kind of constant across various grades. It would seem much more meaningful to compare average speed vs grade because you could compare the whole range of speeds and gradients for different cyclists and different modes of transportation (bicycle, unicycle, tandem, runner, coyote, etc).

From:
http://www.bikediablo.com/question42001.html
4) What is the course record for road, mountain bike, tandem, & unicycle ?
The course record for a road bike was set by professional bicycle racer Mike Engleman in 1990 with a winning time of 45 minutes and 20 seconds. The second fastest time was set in 1991 by Mauricio Prado with a time of 46 minutes and 28 seconds. This is the fastest known time for a non-professional rider. The course records for mountain bikers and tandem bicyclists are not positive. We think that a mountain biker has finished in about 50 minutes and a tandem couple in about 53 minutes.
The course record for a unicyclist is 1 hour and 21 minutes. This record was set by Gary Kanuch in 2000. It is unlikely much time will be taken off this record without a larger wheel or a "gearing up" of the unicycle.

Terry Morse wrote:

> Tricky, certainly, since stairs are very steep. I've noticed, however, that my climbing rate (in
> vertical feet/minute) is pretty constant on grades between 7% and 15%. Steeper grades probably
> wouldn't change the result much.

In my mountaineering days, we always estimated our progress in terms of vertical feet, not miles.
From walking moderately steep trails to the beginnings of technical climbing, the climbing rate
always seemed about the same, the mileage not an issue.

>> Does this have to do with the fact that someone can fail to make it up a hill and still get off
>> the bike and push it the rest of the way to the top?

> Um, I don't think so. Walking a bike up a hill can be done very slowly, 1 mph or even less. Trying
> to ride that slowly would result in tipping over. Walking is a last ditch way to reduce the
> climbing rate to a manageable level.

I once had a conversation with a Shimano engineer about MTB gearing. He said the original XTR group
had been given a 24/32 low because that was the lowest gear a racer would need. Lower than that was
nonproductive -- testing had shown it was faster to get off and walk/run, cyclocross style.

I too have been passed by runners on the steepest slopes -- those that are barely rideable. But
after reaching the summit, I quickly pass them and leave them far behind.

Matt O.

DiabloScott wrote:

> Peter wrote:
> > Not a fair comparison since the Diablo Challenge from the south side includes the Rock City
> > area with no significant elevation gain (even a short descent). Application of the 95'/min.
> > estimate assumes that the whole course is sufficiently steep that almost all of the cyclist's
> > energy is working against gravity rather than wind resistance and other losses. It'd be
> > interesting to see how well it works on the Diablo course if only the portion from shortly
> > before the junction to the summit were included.
>
>
>
> True there are a few rolling sections in there but that would tend to make the Diablo course
> FASTER than predicted using the 95'/min estimate, no?

No. It's hard to gain 95'/min if the road isn't continuing to climb. So any minutes spent in the
rolling section are wasted from the standpoint of gaining altitude but they still add to your total
time. Therefore the total time will be greater than expected by just applying the 95'/min. estimate,
and that's exactly what we see in the actual results.

> In fact Diablo is quite a bit slower than you would predict from the "thumb rule of Ventoux"
> because it's less steep and therefore there's more distance to cover for an equivalent vertical
> climb. In est, even though it's a faster average speed it's a much slower vertical gain rate.

Which is why I wrote above that applying the rule assumes a sufficiently steep grade throughout
the course that work against gravity is the dominant effect. Mt. Diablo from the base on the
south side doesn't satisfy this assumption so it's no surprise that the times aren't consistent
with the 'rule.'.
>
> "Vertical feet per minute" is an interesting but rather misleading statistic and it's pure folly
> to pretend it's some kind of constant across various grades.

Actually I'd expect it to be reasonably constant for the range of grades which are steep enough that
gravity dominates over losses due to air resistance but not so steep that the cyclist has trouble
maintaining control (too slow to balance, fear of flipping over backwards, traction problems, etc.).
With proper choice of gearing that's probably somewhere in the range of 7% - 30% grades. For runners
the grade can be much steeper and it's interesting that the feet/minute figure is so similar for a
cyclist on an 8% grade and a runner on stairs (typically about 70% grade).

It would seem much more meaningful to compare
> average speed vs grade because you could compare the whole range of speeds and gradients for
> different cyclists and different modes of transportation (bicycle, unicycle, tandem, runner,
> coyote, etc).

DiabloScott wrote:

> Using your 95 feet per minute number comes up quite a bit too fast for
> Mt. Diablo : 3050 feet vertical, 10.8 miles 5.4% avg grade Best time for the Diablo Challenge (no
> pro riders though) in the last 4 years is 46 minutes and change vs your predicted 32.

Interesting. Maybe the climb rate starts to drop off below about 7%, where the aerodynamic losses
start to grow because of the higher bike speeds.

The fastest recorded time up nearby Old La Honda (3.3 miles, 1300',
7.5%) is about 15 minutes, for a climb rate of 87 ft/min.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> A recumbent trike is stable at any speed, and tends to have quite low gears; one designed for
> towing really heavy trailers will have enormously low gears. I've seen a 3x7 rear hub/derailleur
> combination hooked into a Mountain Drive; that gives a pretty low low gear.
>
> Obviously with heavy cargo, walking is no longer an option uphill.

I understand the point you are making, but it is not really true that a recumbent trike is always
stable, in the same way that cars are not always stable. My trike gets a little squirrely at speeds
over 50 mph.

The flip side of the gearing you mention is that such gearing can also give very high gears,
depending on the sprockets fitted. Trikes need both high and low gears because they go both fast and
slow; sorta like bikes but moreso.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

Peter <prathman@attbi.com> wrote in
news:JNZPb.105350$nt4.342716@attbi_s51:

>
>> In fact Diablo is quite a bit slower than you would predict from the "thumb rule of Ventoux"
>> because it's less steep and therefore there's more distance to cover for an equivalent vertical
>> climb. In est, even though it's a faster average speed it's a much slower vertical gain rate.
>
There are 3 ways up Ventoux, from Sault roughly 24k, from Bedoin 21k which joins the Sault road
about 6k from the top and from Malaucene 22k up the north side (mostly). I rode all 3 last summer
and although I didn't really time myself Bedoin probably did feel longer at 1h40 some minutes even
though it is the shortest distance. What were we trying to prove again?

Mike Latondresse wrote:

> Peter <prathman@attbi.com> wrote in news:JNZPb.105350$nt4.342716@attbi_s51:
>
>
>
>>>In fact Diablo is quite a bit slower than you would predict from the "thumb rule of Ventoux"
>>>because it's less steep and therefore there's more distance to cover for an equivalent vertical
>>>climb. In est, even though it's a faster average speed it's a much slower vertical gain rate.
>>
> There are 3 ways up Ventoux, from Sault roughly 24k, from Bedoin 21k which joins the Sault road
> about 6k from the top and from Malaucene 22k up the north side (mostly). I rode all 3 last summer
> and although I didn't really time myself Bedoin probably did feel longer at 1h40 some minutes even
> though it is the shortest distance. What were we trying to prove again?

Please watch the attributions. If you clip all of my words then you should also remove the lines
indicating that I wrote the paragraph that follows.