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.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bkie/

"Terry Morse" <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:tmorse-1D2557.15272521012004@news.covad.net...
> 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.
> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bkie/

A couple of other things that don't make for a straightforward comparison. The added weight of the
bike and the difference in the length of the events, 10min versus 25min. However, my money is on the
bicycle being faster. There are some steepish hills I can go up at 10mph on the bike yet I can now
barely run that pace on the flat never mind up hill. Probably the runner improves relatively as the
grade gets steeper.

Phil Holman

Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<tmorse-1D2557.15272521012004@news.covad.net>...
> 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.

But what if Pantani only had to climb for 10 minutes at maximum effort? On the other hand could he
ride his bike up a hill with the same grade as the stairs in the Empire State Building?

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? Richard

Terry Morse wrote:
> The question came up on a ride the other day: can one climb stairs on foot faster than on a
> road bike?

I find it difficult to get enough traction on stairs with my road bike.

Mark Janeba

Richard wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
> > 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.
>
> But what if Pantani only had to climb for 10 minutes at maximum effort?

He undoubtedly could go faster over 10 minutes than over 25. Not a whole lot faster, I suspect.

> On the other hand could he ride his bike up a hill with the same grade as the stairs in the Empire
> State Building?

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.

> 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.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Up in New Hampshire, they have a hill climb event up Mt. Washington.

The first time this race was run, it was won by local hero John Allis, but his time was slower than
the record for a runner on the same course!

He was using a regular steel racing bike, with his normal gearing. Subsequently, folks have been
setting bikes up more specifically for this event, and the pedestrians are no longer in the running.

Sheldon "Those Were The Days" Brown +----------------------------------------+
| I never did a day's work in my life; | it was all fun. --Thomas Edison |
+----------------------------------------+ 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

David L. Johnson wrote:

> 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.

I this this is the case of a strong runner passing a less strong cyclist. On steep grades (and thus
low speeds), an equally fit runner and cyclist should be close. After all, excluding the weight of
the bike (which is pretty small as a percentage of the total mass), the runner and cyclist are doing
the same amount of work to get up the hill.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

"David L. Johnson" wrote:

> 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.
>
> No way. Yes, between about 7% and 15%, your speed won't vary all that much. At 7% the grade is
> serious enough to put you in your low gears. But you could probably sit and grind. As you get
> closer to 15% you have to turn the cranks over at about the same speed, just to keep from stalling
> out. So you would not go all that much slower. But it would hurt a lot more. And you could not
> keep it up very long. It's fortunate that most 15% grades can't last that long.

The strategy is to continue to climb at the same rate, regardless of the grade. As long as you don't
tip over, and you have low enough gearing, 15% can be climbed at the same rate as a 7% grade. Say
you can go a fast-but-still-aerobic 10 mph on a 7% grade (~60 ft/min). To climb at the same rate on
a 15% grade, you must ride at 4.7 mph, well above the "tip over" speed.

> But once the grade gets higher, it rapidly gets worse. I've climbed 20% plus grades. One is about
> 100 feet of climbing on something less than 500 feet of horizontal distance. It was nearly the end
> of me. There is another hill, Fiddler's Elbow in NJ, that has a grade over 20% for considerably
> longer than this. A true killer.

20% at the same climbing rate (60 ft/min) is only ~3.4 mph, which is getting pretty close to the
"tip over" speed. There are a few 20% hills locally, and I find the best strategy is to take them
slowly. Or just sprint up them if they're short enough (100 yards or less).

But you're right: climbing the equivalent grade of a stairway on a normal bike would be impossible.
It might be possible, if a special bike were designed that fixed the low speed stability problem
(and it had very low gears).
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Terry Morse wrote:

> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> I this this is the case of a strong runner passing a less strong cyclist. On steep grades (and
> thus low speeds), an equally fit runner and cyclist should be close. After all, excluding the
> weight of the bike (which is pretty small as a percentage of the total mass)

But it is generally 10% or more which is a pretty significant amount in a race between individuals
who are at all evenly matched.

, the runner and cyclist are doing the same amount of work to
> get up the hill.

Another factor is the gearing available. Usually this is an advantage for a cyclist compared to a
runner at higher speeds where the cyclist can keep his cadence at an efficient rate by using higher
gears. But at slow speeds the cyclist on a bike without special gearing may not have low enough
gears to maintain an efficient cadence while the runner can shorten his stride as needed. David was
probably already in his lowest gear when passed by the runners.

Sheldon Brown wrote:

> Up in New Hampshire, they have a hill climb event up Mt. Washington.

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?
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<tmorse-1D2557.15272521012004@news.covad.net>...
> 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.

Dear Terry,

The posts on this have been quite interesting.

Whichever way it works out, however, I cheer myself up by remembering that we win hands-down on the
descent without even pedalling.

Carl Fogel

> But you're right: climbing the equivalent grade of a stairway on a normal bike would be
> impossible. It might be possible, if a special bike were designed that fixed the low speed
> stability problem (and it had very low gears).
I knew I kept those training wheels for some reason Now if Sheldon will just lend me his 63 speed
with 17 tooth granny fitted that should be just about right the right gearing for 3.4mph

Terry Morse wrote:
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
>> Up in New Hampshire, they have a hill climb event up Mt. Washington.
>
> 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.mt-washington.com/autoroad/autorecrd.html

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?" 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. 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.

MOO, of course! Matt

Phil Holman wrote:

>"Terry Morse" <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:tmorse-
>1D2557.15272521012004@news.covad.net...
>
>
>>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.
>>--
>>terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bkie/
>>
>>
>
>A couple of other things that don't make for a straightforward comparison. The added weight of the
>bike and the difference in the length of the events, 10min versus 25min. However, my money is on
>the bicycle being faster. There are some steepish hills I can go up at 10mph on the bike yet I can
>now barely run that pace on the flat never mind up hill. Probably the runner improves relatively as
>the grade gets steeper.
>
>Phil Holman
>
>

Terry Morse <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<tmorse-748C06.22520221012004@news.covad.net>...

> 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? :-)

JLS