[email protected] (Rik O'Shea) writes:
> Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
>
>> Climbing is not mysterious. You get on the bike and yu keep pedaling while you go uphill. If you
>> want to go faster, work harder. Pick the gear and cadence combination that seems comfortable.
>> Keep it simple. The math can be fun in its own right, but IMHO there's no need to overcomplicate
>> something as simple as riding a bike up a hill.
>
> The mathematical model doesn't lie. If you have accurate input variables (rider size, rider mass
> and so on) then its very accurate and can be used to predict all sorts of variables like cadence,
> gearing, power output and velocity.
Like I said, the math can be a fun thing in its own right. But it's not climbing the hill.
> Cadence for climbing is very much a personal thing - most riders when climbing seem to prefence a
> lower cadence (60-65 rpm) than when riding on the flat. Armstrong is an exception if not
> exceptional; his prefenced cadence when attacking, or riding aggressively is 90+. The theory here
> is that this reduces torque or pedal force required per pedal revolution since "power =
> pedal_force X cadence".
Pedal force, not torque. Armstrong is an exception, but he is not singular.
> I recommend having gearing for long climbs that allow you to pedal at least in the range 60-65
> rpm, since generally below this gearing you often resort to climbing out of the saddle which isn't
> as efficent especially if you are a big rider (generally produces a higher heart rate at the same
> power) as seated climbing.
And yet some people prefer to climb standing, even some big guys, and a lower cadence works better
for this. For example Jobst isn't exactly tiny, and he's been climbing the Alps for 44 years so far-
in big gears, standing almost all the way. Your model doesn't really take into account individual
morphology and psychology which account for a lot on long climbs. Fitness is more important than
gearing, IMHO.
> The last thing you need on an Apline climb is to be struggling out of the saddle at a low cadence
> on your lowest gear - you'll end up stopping to recover. The best option is a triple. If you want
> a double ensure you have Alpine gearing.
As I've said a number of times, my 38 x 28 was fine all over the Alps. I rode Alpe-d'Huez, Col de
Sarenne, Glandon/Croix de Fer, Telegraphe, Galibier, Lauteret, Izoard, Vars, Cayolle, Valberg, Col
d'Eze with this gearing. It was low enough. One riding partner did all those hills with a 39 x 25
low gear, and he was not only comfortable but her also beat me to the top by 10-15 minutes on most
climbs. Our other riding partners, with triples, were 10-20 minutes behind me.
> As for hard climbs see the following monster from Spain;
http://tinyurl.com/28nmd
>
> Even the best climbers in the world use a triple on it - it's more a case of of just getting to
> the top than racing. I dont think many (if any) recreational rider could ride to the top in one go
> (maintaining an average 4 mph) regardless of gearing - the average power requirement would be just
> too much placing you well over threshold.
Which is not where the OP is riding. He wanted to know about gearing for an Alpine ride, where the
grades are not this steep. Riding the Alps is a lovely experience. The scenery is incredible, the
roads are beautiful, the food and accomodations are fantastic. It's a blast and every cyclist should
do it at least once. The climbs are long but not brutally hard- why make it seem like they are? What
does that add to the experience? Nothing- it detracts.
