bodyweight and hill-climbing

[rob of the og]

Originally posted by Carrera

Do all the guys who compete in the tour de France have this triple range of gears do you think?

well, no, but then they are full time elite athletes. remember that the typical climb in the TdF isn't particularly steep, but can go on for 20 - 30 km, bit different from some of the 'walls' in the peak district that people have mentioned. I believe that Indurain experimented with triple rings when they 1st became available on roadbikes, I think that this was more about giving him a range of closely spaced gears at the bottom end though.

If you use a cassette on the rear wheel (as almost all road bikes will now) it might be easier to look at putting some bigger sprockets on rather than get all the parts changed and getting 3 c/rings.

People on this thread have spoken about 1st gear and 3rd gear and stuff - in cycling that's pretty meaningless, we would usually give the gear ratio, either in the distance travelled per revolution of the cranks (60inch or whatever) or the ratio itself, 53x15 (where 53 is the no of teeth on the c/ring, 15 the number of teeth on the sprocket) If your bike has come straight from the shop it may well have 42x23 as its lowest gear as this is fairly standard, but individually built-up race bikes often go for a 39 c/ring and say a 26 sprocket on the back. That's about 80% of the travel per revolution, so 80% as difficult to heave it round each time. Top Welsh pro Julian Winn explained his choice of 39x25 for one race saying that he was worried that he might be forced to stop due to a crash or puncture on a narrow climb and wanted a gear that he knew he could get turning from a standstill on even a fairly steep section.

 

[xc_gumby]

Some one mentioned earlier about Indurain & Ullrich & they're climbing abilities.

The point here is to remember what a real climber actually does... And the reason that both of these guys won TdFs is because they had great teams & could time trial.

Armstrong is similar - but he does have more of a true climbing characteristic...

A true climber attacks up the hill, opposition respond & they attack again. Just keep at it until all & sundry are shelled messes. Ullrich has never done that in this life - he just mashes gears up the hill & can't respond to armstrong's explosion.

Where I live, hills are short & sharp. Sprinters just power over them. a LOT of races end in sprints...

 

[rob of the og]

Originally posted by xc_gumby
Some one mentioned earlier about Indurain & Ullrich & they're climbing abilities.

The point here is to remember what a real climber actually does... And the reason that both of these guys won TdFs is because they had great teams & could time trial.

Armstrong is similar - but he does have more of a true climbing characteristic...

A true climber attacks up the hill, opposition respond & they attack again. Just keep at it until all & sundry are shelled messes. Ullrich has never done that in this life - he just mashes gears up the hill & can't respond to armstrong's explosion.

Where I live, hills are short & sharp. Sprinters just power over them. a LOT of races end in sprints...

eh? Jan attacked and dropped Armstrong (albeit briefly) several times in the Tour last year. Mig was also one of the best climbers that cycling has ever seen, did you see his ride to Hautacam? He also got numerous victories in the Alps and Pyrenees, and dominated riders like Chiappucci. The little guys can accelerate uphill better which looks more exciting on the telly, but it's the all-rounders like Mig, Lance, Jan that climb consistantly for 4 or 5 days in a row. A 'true climber' like Mayo say, or Virenque, might attack loads and get the odd dramatic victory (which is fantastic to watch) but they're often off the back the next day taking a rest, Jan or LA might finish a minute at most behind the brave attacker, but then they're back the next day at the same pace, and the day after that. Who does that make the better climber?

Jan's style clearly is to accelerate slowly, but he gets up the hill overall faster than almost any other rider out there. He knows that and the others know that: if they're strong enough then they can take advantage of it, as USPS tried to do on L'Alpe d'Huez last year by sprinting hard on the steep slope at the bottom. But then, most of the riders leading that charge weren't 'true climbers' either.

And yes, lots of races end in sprints around here too and we've got some pretty big climbs.

 

[Carrera]

To be honest I'd like to take my bike over there one day and see how I might cope with one of the climbs the tour de France has to offer. They must be pretty demanding as I recall one or two spectators being able to outrun Armstrong on foot, while he was climbing.
Not that they can keep it up for more than 3 minutes but it shows that the cyclists must get tired by this point.
Actually I got to thinking how crazy it is to allow spectators to push and shove cyclists or get in their way on these climbs. One idiot brought Armstrong down by getting in the way and I saw another cyclist yell at a spectator who rushed forward and started pushing his bike. I think I'd get incredibly irritated by all of this since climbing is hard enough in itself.
I've no idea how the guy who started running in front of Armstrong thought this might help him or what his motivation might have been.

Originally posted by rob of the og
well, no, but then they are full time elite athletes. remember that the typical climb in the TdF isn't particularly steep, but can go on for 20 - 30 km, bit different from some of the 'walls' in the peak district that people have mentioned. I believe that Indurain experimented with triple rings when they 1st became available on roadbikes, I think that this was more about giving him a range of closely spaced gears at the bottom end though.

If you use a cassette on the rear wheel (as almost all road bikes will now) it might be easier to look at putting some bigger sprockets on rather than get all the parts changed and getting 3 c/rings.

People on this thread have spoken about 1st gear and 3rd gear and stuff - in cycling that's pretty meaningless, we would usually give the gear ratio, either in the distance travelled per revolution of the cranks (60inch or whatever) or the ratio itself, 53x15 (where 53 is the no of teeth on the c/ring, 15 the number of teeth on the sprocket) If your bike has come straight from the shop it may well have 42x23 as its lowest gear as this is fairly standard, but individually built-up race bikes often go for a 39 c/ring and say a 26 sprocket on the back. That's about 80% of the travel per revolution, so 80% as difficult to heave it round each time. Top Welsh pro Julian Winn explained his choice of 39x25 for one race saying that he was worried that he might be forced to stop due to a crash or puncture on a narrow climb and wanted a gear that he knew he could get turning from a standstill on even a fairly steep section.

 

[Carrera]

I'll address this to everyone.

Everyone on the forum seems to feel that racers are better than mountain bikes up hills but are we sure this is the case? I notice that I tend to suffer far less on a steep hill when I'm on a mountain bike and wonder how much easier it would be if I were climbing on a super light mountain bike.

The problem with my racer is the drop-down bars when I'm climbing. I think it's the bars that cause me to suffer so much because when I get out of the seat I tend to be leaning down far more than if my hands were gripping a non-drop-down bar.

The other day I sprinted up a steep hill on my racer on my way back from work and had to stay in the standing position for some time till I could resume the seated position. But the dynamics of being thrown forward is what burns the most. I could climb the same hill on my mountain bike (a little more slowly) but it just feels less demanding physically.

Maybe drop-down bars are more suited for speed on the flat or moderate inclines? Or maybe it's just my imagination?

Originally posted by rob of the og
well, no, but then they are full time elite athletes. remember that the typical climb in the TdF isn't particularly steep, but can go on for 20 - 30 km, bit different from some of the 'walls' in the peak district that people have mentioned. I believe that Indurain experimented with triple rings when they 1st became available on roadbikes, I think that this was more about giving him a range of closely spaced gears at the bottom end though.

If you use a cassette on the rear wheel (as almost all road bikes will now) it might be easier to look at putting some bigger sprockets on rather than get all the parts changed and getting 3 c/rings.

People on this thread have spoken about 1st gear and 3rd gear and stuff - in cycling that's pretty meaningless, we would usually give the gear ratio, either in the distance travelled per revolution of the cranks (60inch or whatever) or the ratio itself, 53x15 (where 53 is the no of teeth on the c/ring, 15 the number of teeth on the sprocket) If your bike has come straight from the shop it may well have 42x23 as its lowest gear as this is fairly standard, but individually built-up race bikes often go for a 39 c/ring and say a 26 sprocket on the back. That's about 80% of the travel per revolution, so 80% as difficult to heave it round each time. Top Welsh pro Julian Winn explained his choice of 39x25 for one race saying that he was worried that he might be forced to stop due to a crash or puncture on a narrow climb and wanted a gear that he knew he could get turning from a standstill on even a fairly steep section.

 

[Michuel]

Originally posted by Carrera
I'll address this to everyone.

Everyone on the forum seems to feel that racers are better than mountain bikes up hills but are we sure this is the case? I notice that I tend to suffer far less on a steep hill when I'm on a mountain bike and wonder how much easier it would be if I were climbing on a super light mountain bike. The problem with my racer is the drop-down bars when I'm climbing.

Hi Carrera

I think you're forming opinions too quickly and which are based on a low amount of riding and probably low fitness.

Unfortunately cycling is a sport which needs equipment. This can get very expensive - see the number of people who buy ready-to-ride Treks etc then sell them after a few miles because they feel the position is wrong or they don't go as fast as they thought.

If you get yourself in good condition over some period like 4 months by maybe riding 10hrs a week and riding with other riders as a comparison and to learn from them the views you form will have a stronger basis than currently. You need to know the basic components of a good style, how to pedal, ride on and off saddle, sustain yourself over long ride without getting bonk.

Most view drop handlebars as best for uphill cycling, racing bikes as lighter/faster than mountain bikes uphill. If you want to ride steep hills then your bike shop can fit a Shimano mountain bike cassette for about £20- £30. But why is cycling uphill so important apart from the scenery? If you want to excel at anything I'd guess you would be relatively better at cycling on flat than uphill.

 

[Carrera]

I probably cycle several miles a week but my situation is that I work shifts unfortunately. Much of my present cycling is done around 6.00 a.m. in the morning. Obviously in Summer I plan to do far more than at present. You're right, though, my fitness level has dropped a bit of late.
I kind of wish I wasn't so bogged down with my job as I often work 60 plus hours a week, often through the night. The only way I can keep my fitness level from falling too much is to sprint to work and make sure I have a few hills to climb on the way back.
As soon as the weather picks up a bit I plan to cycle down to North Wales on a regular basis. That's quite a distance from Staffordshire so, sure, I'll need to get myself a bit fitter. But cycling around the sea-side should be real fun and I can't wait to take some time off work and get some miles done.

Originally posted by Michuel
Hi Carrera

I think you're forming opinions too quickly and which are based on a low amount of riding and probably low fitness.

Unfortunately cycling is a sport which needs equipment. This can get very expensive - see the number of people who buy ready-to-ride Treks etc then sell them after a few miles because they feel the position is wrong or they don't go as fast as they thought.

If you get yourself in good condition over some period like 4 months by maybe riding 10hrs a week and riding with other riders as a comparison and to learn from them the views you form will have a stronger basis than currently. You need to know the basic components of a good style, how to pedal, ride on and off saddle, sustain yourself over long ride without getting bonk.

Most view drop handlebars as best for uphill cycling, racing bikes as lighter/faster than mountain bikes uphill. If you want to ride steep hills then your bike shop can fit a Shimano mountain bike cassette for about £20- £30. But why is cycling uphill so important apart from the scenery? If you want to excel at anything I'd guess you would be relatively better at cycling on flat than uphill.