Question for Damon Rinard about importance of component weights

[Terry Morse]

Dave Wyman wrote:

> To be honest, I was thinking of >starting< from the Schulman Grove.

Much more sensible than what I tried. Another option is starting at
the Highway 168/White Mountain Road junction. That cuts off about
3000' and 11 miles (one way). And the return direction is all
downhill.

> While aethetically correct, riding from Big Pine to the top of White Mt.
> would probably not be possible for me in one day, with 45 non-stop and
> steep uphill miles and what, 10,000+ feet of gain to a 14,000+ summit
> White Mt. Good luck next time!

I think I'll wait until they pave the road. Or maybe I could leave a
car at the locked gate, so I wouldn't have to descend on that
*awfully* rough road again. It took about 2 weeks for my hip to feel
better.

The Mt. Evans climb looks more my speed.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:50:16 -0700, Terry Morse
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Carl Fogel wrote:
>
>> Terry Morse wrote:
>> >Since we were maintaining the same effort, we expected to maintain
>> >that speed most of the way. We didn't account for how much slower it
>> >is to ride on rough dirt roads with loose rocks.
>>
>> Dear Terry,
>>
>> The thinner air--
>>
>> --gasp--
>>
>> --at that altitude--
>>
>> --wheeze--
>>
>> --also slows--
>>
>> --puff--
>>
>> --you down.
>
>I guess altitude hits some folks hard, but I don't feel effects
>until about 13,500. Blame it on oversized lungs, I guess.

Dear Terry,

You may not feel it, but I suspect that your speed on a
five-mile long thousand-foot climb starting from sea level
in Palo Alto [1] will be noticeably faster than your speed
on a similar five-mile long thousand-foot climb that starts
ten thousand feet higher.

Perceived steepness and roughness tend to increase with
altitude.

Carl Fogel

[1] Well, 23 feet or so above sea level:

http://www.topozone.com/viewmaps.asp?method=place&placename=palo+alto&statefips=6

 

[G.T.]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:50:16 -0700, Terry Morse
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Carl Fogel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Terry Morse wrote:
>>>
>>>>Since we were maintaining the same effort, we expected to maintain
>>>>that speed most of the way. We didn't account for how much slower it
>>>>is to ride on rough dirt roads with loose rocks.
>>>
>>>Dear Terry,
>>>
>>>The thinner air--
>>>
>>> --gasp--
>>>
>>>--at that altitude--
>>>
>>> --wheeze--
>>>
>>>--also slows--
>>>
>>> --puff--
>>>
>>>--you down.
>>
>>I guess altitude hits some folks hard, but I don't feel effects
>>until about 13,500. Blame it on oversized lungs, I guess.
>
>
> Dear Terry,
>
> You may not feel it, but I suspect that your speed on a
> five-mile long thousand-foot climb starting from sea level
> in Palo Alto [1] will be noticeably faster than your speed
> on a similar five-mile long thousand-foot climb that starts
> ten thousand feet higher.
>
> Perceived steepness and roughness tend to increase with
> altitude.
>

Yep, which means my legs aren't working as hard, which means I can ride
longer. I have trouble pacing myself at low altitude.

Greg

--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

 

[Terry Morse]

Carl Fogle wrote:

> You may not feel it, but I suspect that your speed on a
> five-mile long thousand-foot climb starting from sea level
> in Palo Alto [1] will be noticeably faster than your speed
> on a similar five-mile long thousand-foot climb that starts
> ten thousand feet higher.

I would think that would be the case, but I have noticed very little
difference in climbing rate/heart rate ratio at sea level and at
altitude. For example, I climbed to Rock Creek (Near Bishop, CA) at
10,400' at the beginning of this month. The climb is 10.3 miles at
5.4%. My climbing rate/heart rate ratio was 28. Today, I climbed
Highway 9 up to 2550'. The climb is 6.7 miles at 5.7%. My ratio was
31. Last month, I climbed Kingsbury Grade in Tahoe (7210' summit,
7.9 mi., 5.8%). Ratio was 30. All pretty close.

> Perceived steepness and roughness tend to increase with
> altitude.

Perceived difficulty increases, for sure, simply because you have to
breath more at altitude. This I have noticed, as it's hard to chug a
bottle while holding my breath.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[meb]

Damon, I addressed this to you since I think you would be one of the
best people worldwide to be able to answer this.

Can you explain two things to me?

One is about saving weight on a bike for climbing. If I weigh 150
pounds and my bike weighs 16.5 pounds and I drop 100 grams off it (say
with lighter cranks) will the difference uphill be based on 100 grams
off the weight of the bicycle alone, or off the combo of me and my
bike? It's hard to find this info without a bunch of commercial bs
attached to it. What I am asking is if the difference is like
subtracting 100 grams from my 7500 gram bike (which would be a 1.3%
difference) or do I need to add in my body wieght as well making the
difference only saving me .001%?

And what would be the difference between a 16 pound bike and a 24
pound bike? Would it be the same as two people who are 150 pounds
climbing a hill with a 16 pound backpack and a 24 pound backpack? Is
the difference just the bike, or is it the bike and rider? I would
think you have to add the rider weight too. Is there a 33% difference
(just the bike) or is it more like a 4% difference of the bike +
rider? If two people put the same power to the pedals in the same
gear, but one was on a 24 lbs bike and the other on a 16 lbs bike,
going up a climb like Alpe d'Huez, would you expect the guy on the
lighter bike to be 33% faster? That just doesn't seem possible to me.
Am I wrong?

Also, do you happen to know where I can find some good info regarding
crank stiffness tests? I am looking for data on crank arm deflection
tests like the one Velonews did, or the one from Tour Magazine (which
I can not find)

Thanks for your help.

The 100g difference is generally going to come from the combo.
However, rider weight is generally a sprung weight, even more sprung when the rider is standing than sitting, and if the cranks aren't on an unsuspended bike-they;re unsprung weight. The energy difference on 100 g on the cranks would be more than the rider-might be trivial if the climbing surface is smooth, might be substantial if this is a bumpy surface and the bike is an unsuspended bike.

Even if the bike has suspension, a rider is more sprung than the bike, and the live rider weight can be an active suspension compensating intelligently for the bumps.

 

[G.T.]

Terry Morse wrote:

> Carl Fogle wrote:
>
>
>>You may not feel it, but I suspect that your speed on a
>>five-mile long thousand-foot climb starting from sea level
>>in Palo Alto [1] will be noticeably faster than your speed
>>on a similar five-mile long thousand-foot climb that starts
>>ten thousand feet higher.
>
>
> I would think that would be the case, but I have noticed very little
> difference in climbing rate/heart rate ratio at sea level and at
> altitude. For example, I climbed to Rock Creek (Near Bishop, CA) at
> 10,400' at the beginning of this month. The climb is 10.3 miles at
> 5.4%. My climbing rate/heart rate ratio was 28. Today, I climbed
> Highway 9 up to 2550'. The climb is 6.7 miles at 5.7%. My ratio was
> 31. Last month, I climbed Kingsbury Grade in Tahoe (7210' summit,
> 7.9 mi., 5.8%). Ratio was 30. All pretty close.
>

If you're saying that you can climb a 6% grade from 8,000' to 10,000' in
the same time you can climb a 6% grade from sea level to 2,000' you're
either a freak of nature or your simply not riding hard enough at sea level.

Greg

--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

 

[Terry Morse]

"G.T." wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
> >
> > I have noticed very little
> > difference in climbing rate/heart rate ratio at sea level and at
> > altitude. For example, I climbed to Rock Creek (Near Bishop, CA) at
> > 10,400' at the beginning of this month. The climb is 10.3 miles at
> > 5.4%. My climbing rate/heart rate ratio was 28. Today, I climbed
> > Highway 9 up to 2550'. The climb is 6.7 miles at 5.7%. My ratio was
> > 31. Last month, I climbed Kingsbury Grade in Tahoe (7210' summit,
> > 7.9 mi., 5.8%). Ratio was 30. All pretty close.
> >
>
> If you're saying that you can climb a 6% grade from 8,000' to 10,000' in
> the same time you can climb a 6% grade from sea level to 2,000' you're
> either a freak of nature or your simply not riding hard enough at sea level.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Or more specifically, when riding at a
"tempo" heart rate (~ 75% of max), my climbing speed at sea level
and altitude is virtually identical. I can't explain it, but there
it is. I should mention that the high altitude rides were done after
a couple of days at altitude, so I probably was partially
acclimatized. Strange but true.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/