Running vs. Cycling up steep hills?

[Dan Stumpus]

I'm a runner (brother Bob is a mtn bike racer in Aspen), and the question
came up on the rec.running list:

On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent level will
beat an equally talented biker?

There are sections where I run in the San Gabriels above LA where I've never
been passed by a biker, eg, Eaton Canyon bridge to Henninger flats. (when
younger I did it in 24 minutes, when my vo2 max was 76)

Is this just because I've only encountered weekenders, and not racers?

Regards,

Dan

 

[Chris Neary]

>There are sections where I run in the San Gabriels above LA where I've never
>been passed by a biker, eg, Eaton Canyon bridge to Henninger flats. (when
>younger I did it in 24 minutes, when my vo2 max was 76)

Any idea of what the distance and elevation gain are on the road you
describe?



Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[Dan Stumpus]

It's about 2.4 miles up and 1,400 ft of climb (starts at 1000 elevation),
according to my trail book.

--Dan

"Chris Neary" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >There are sections where I run in the San Gabriels above LA where I've
never
> >been passed by a biker, eg, Eaton Canyon bridge to Henninger flats.
(when
> >younger I did it in 24 minutes, when my vo2 max was 76)
>
> Any idea of what the distance and elevation gain are on the road you
> describe?
>
>
>
> Chris Neary
> [email protected]
>
> "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
> you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
> loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[Chris Neary]

OK, so it works out to about 11% average.

Your average speed when you were younger was 6 MPH.

I rarely ride on unpaved trails, so I can't easily compare my bike speeds to
your running speeds. But on pavement, my middle-aged, so-so climber body
would probably average 7 to 8 MPH.

I'd expect a pro climber could double that speed.

I don't know if there are grades where a runner can climb faster than a
rider, but I guarantee they are steeper than the section in your example.

Regards,

Chris


>It's about 2.4 miles up and 1,400 ft of climb (starts at 1000 elevation),
>according to my trail book.
>
>--Dan
>
>"Chris Neary" <[email protected] > wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >There are sections where I run in the San Gabriels above LA where I've
>never
>> >been passed by a biker, eg, Eaton Canyon bridge to Henninger flats.
>(when
>> >younger I did it in 24 minutes, when my vo2 max was 76)
>>
>> Any idea of what the distance and elevation gain are on the road you
>> describe?
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Neary
>> [email protected]
>>
>> "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
>> you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
>> loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
>

 

[Bruce Frech]

"Dan Stumpus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent level
will
> beat an equally talented biker?

Many years ago the fastest time up Mt Washington, NH, was a runner, but it
is now a cyclist. So that gradient would be close to the steepness where
they are equal.

Bruce

 

[Paul Southworth]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Stumpus <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm a runner (brother Bob is a mtn bike racer in Aspen), and the question
>came up on the rec.running list:
>
>On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent level will
>beat an equally talented biker?
>
>There are sections where I run in the San Gabriels above LA where I've never
>been passed by a biker, eg, Eaton Canyon bridge to Henninger flats. (when
>younger I did it in 24 minutes, when my vo2 max was 76)
>
>Is this just because I've only encountered weekenders, and not racers?

I haven't done that climb but now I will definitely have to try it
and see.

I used to ride a mountain bike in the Ashland watershed in southern
Oregon in the 1980s where being passed by Ric Sayre was an occasional
phenomenon, but that is a case where there was a huge gap in
fitness between him and the rest of the us. Some types of trails
definitely favor the runner.

 

[TopCounsel]

>Your average speed when you were younger was 6 MPH.

>I rarely ride on unpaved trails, so I can't easily compare my bike speeds to
>your running speeds. But on pavement, my middle-aged, so-so climber body
>would probably average 7 to 8 MPH.

>I'd expect a pro climber could double that speed.

(e.g., 14 -16 mph.)

As for the "pro" (or world class) hill runner, even if they could somehow
sustain 5:00-minute miles up that grade, they'd be at 12 mph. Such a pace is
not to be expected I don't think, even out of the very best. Anyone care to
guess what the best pace manageable up that grade would be for a world-class
runner?

 

[andrew smith]

"Dan Stumpus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm a runner (brother Bob is a mtn bike racer in Aspen), and the question
> came up on the rec.running list:
>
> On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent level
will
> beat an equally talented biker?
>
> There are sections where I run in the San Gabriels above LA where I've
never
> been passed by a biker, eg, Eaton Canyon bridge to Henninger flats.
(when
> younger I did it in 24 minutes, when my vo2 max was 76)
>
> Is this just because I've only encountered weekenders, and not racers?

There are some steep sections of hills I can run faster than I can ride.

But, I'm a better runner than cyclist.

a.

 

[Terry Morse]

Chris Neary wrote:

> OK, so it works out to about 11% average.
>
> I rarely ride on unpaved trails, so I can't easily compare my bike speeds to
> your running speeds. But on pavement, my middle-aged, so-so climber body
> would probably average 7 to 8 MPH.

8 mph up an 11% grade? Really? That's 77 vertical ft/minute, or 1400
meters/hour. That would put you at or near the front of the pro
peloton, which is hard to believe.

> >I'd expect a pro climber could double that speed.

No way. The best climbers in the world can do only about 10 mph up
an 11% grade.

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

 

[Dan Stumpus]

"TopCounsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> As for the "pro" (or world class) hill runner, even if they could somehow
> sustain 5:00-minute miles up that grade, they'd be at 12 mph. Such a pace
is
> not to be expected I don't think, even out of the very best. Anyone care
to
> guess what the best pace manageable up that grade would be for a
world-class
> runner?

I was 20% slower than world records at the time at all of my racing
distances, so I'd expect a world class runner to do 17-18 minutes, or 8+
mph. (The time I ran it was in the middle of an 8 mile race, so I probably
could have done it faster as a stand-alone segment)

My best time as a 52 year old is 29 min, btw, at the beginning of a 20 mile
round trip to the summit (4,500' of climb) and back down again.

--Dan

 

[Dan Stumpus]

"Paul Southworth" <[email protected]> wrote

> I haven't done that climb but now I will definitely have to try it
> and see.

It's a good grind, by man or mechanical beast. If you want to go all the
way to the summit (10 miles and 4,500 vertical feet), my best at age 52 is
2:00:34 from the parking lot.

Let me know how you do.

> I used to ride a mountain bike in the Ashland watershed in southern
> Oregon in the 1980s where being passed by Ric Sayre was an occasional
> phenomenon, but that is a case where there was a huge gap in
> fitness between him and the rest of the us.

That must have been very cool..

--Dan

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Dan Stumpus wrote:

> I'm a runner (brother Bob is a mtn bike racer in Aspen), and the
> question came up on the rec.running list:
>
> On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent
> level will beat an equally talented biker?
>
> There are sections where I run in the San Gabriels above LA where
> I've never been passed by a biker, eg, Eaton Canyon bridge to
> Henninger flats. (when younger I did it in 24 minutes, when my vo2
> max was 76)
>
> Is this just because I've only encountered weekenders, and not racers?

If a hill is steep enough, a runner is faster than a cyclist. I've often been
passed by runners on certain steep sections of trail -- but then I would pass
them just beyond the crest, and leave them far behind.

According to a Shimano engineer I talked to, the lowest gear for the original
XTR group was set at the point where an elite racer would be faster if they
dismounted and walked/ran, cyclocross style.

If you think about it, the mechanics of cyclists and runners become more similar
on steeper grades, but the runner is not saddled with 25-30 LB of bike. So it
makes perfect sense that a runner would be faster at some point of steepness.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Terry Morse wrote:

> Chris Neary wrote:
>
>> OK, so it works out to about 11% average.
>>
>> I rarely ride on unpaved trails, so I can't easily compare my bike
>> speeds to your running speeds. But on pavement, my middle-aged,
>> so-so climber body would probably average 7 to 8 MPH.
>
> 8 mph up an 11% grade? Really? That's 77 vertical ft/minute, or 1400
> meters/hour. That would put you at or near the front of the pro
> peloton, which is hard to believe.
>
>>> I'd expect a pro climber could double that speed.
>
> No way. The best climbers in the world can do only about 10 mph up
> an 11% grade.

Three of us did a few miles of 11% grade the other day. I don't remember the
average (I can get it from my friend), but IIRC it was like 6 MPH. This hill
started out gradually then got steeper, but overall I think the grade was about
11%.

BTW, for anyone planning to do the Mountains of Misery next month, this section,
Jameson Mt. Road, will leave you begging for mercy!

http://www.mountainsofmisery.com/

Matt O.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I'm a runner (brother Bob is a mtn bike racer in Aspen), and the question
> came up on the rec.running list:
>
> On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent level will
> beat an equally talented biker?

I would think so, but don't know what that point would be. 100% slope,
maybe? <GGG>

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Dan Stumpus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent level
> will
> > beat an equally talented biker?
>
> Many years ago the fastest time up Mt Washington, NH, was a runner, but it
> is now a cyclist. So that gradient would be close to the steepness where
> they are equal.

Mt. Washington averages 12% over the 7+ miles of road, with the
finishing pitch at 22%, and several other pitches at 16-18%

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Chris Neary wrote:
>
> > OK, so it works out to about 11% average.
> >
> > I rarely ride on unpaved trails, so I can't easily compare my bike speeds to
> > your running speeds. But on pavement, my middle-aged, so-so climber body
> > would probably average 7 to 8 MPH.
>
> 8 mph up an 11% grade? Really? That's 77 vertical ft/minute, or 1400
> meters/hour. That would put you at or near the front of the pro
> peloton, which is hard to believe.
>
> > >I'd expect a pro climber could double that speed.
>
> No way. The best climbers in the world can do only about 10 mph up
> an 11% grade.

Over what kind of distance? I can do that on some of the short hills
around my house, but can't keep it up for long.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[terry morse]

David Kerber wrote:
> Terry Morse wrote:
> > No way. The best climbers in the world can do only about 10 mph up
> > an 11% grade.
>
> Over what kind of distance? I can do that on some of the short hills
> around my house, but can't keep it up for long.

Over distances typical in a mountain stage of the Tour de France. Over
a very short
distance, like 1 km, a pro can manage better than 10 mph. In the
recent Flech Wallone
race, Davide Rebellin rode the final 1 km (an 11.2% grade) to win at
an astounding 13.6 mph.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> David Kerber wrote:
> > Terry Morse wrote:
> > > No way. The best climbers in the world can do only about 10 mph up
> > > an 11% grade.
> >
> > Over what kind of distance? I can do that on some of the short hills
> > around my house, but can't keep it up for long.
>
> Over distances typical in a mountain stage of the Tour de France. Over
> a very short
> distance, like 1 km, a pro can manage better than 10 mph. In the
> recent Flech Wallone
> race, Davide Rebellin rode the final 1 km (an 11.2% grade) to win at
> an astounding 13.6 mph.

Ok; that makes sense. I'm talking about distances of at most a few
hundred yards (meters); usually less than that.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[Chalo]

"Dan Stumpus" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent level will
> beat an equally talented biker?

Running is not a "talent". It is the chief activity of cockroaches
and other untalented creatures. It is an activity to be engaged in
when required to avoid death or serious blood loss. (But then, so are
other undignified activities, like losing one's bowels.)

As to whether a cyclist or some barefoot yokel would be first to the
top of the hill when, say, a tsunami approaches, let's just hope we
don't have to find out.

Chalo Colina

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:17:25 +0000, Dan Stumpus wrote:

> I'm a runner (brother Bob is a mtn bike racer in Aspen), and the question
> came up on the rec.running list:
>
> On steep hills, Is there a point where a runner of a given talent level will
> beat an equally talented biker?

Yes, there is. The hill has to be pretty steep, though. Consider this:
you can easily (well, not really easily) run up stairs, but it is
impossible to ride any real distance up a hill sloped as high as stairs
are. They run around 64%, (7" step height for an 11" tread) more or less.
20% is considered a very steep hill to ride up.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure
_`\(,_ | you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
(_)/ (_) |