Climbing Technique

Tom Sherman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I will give serious focus to the swaying action when I want to by
distracted from the pain in my legs...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Get in shape man. This is not supposed to hurt.

Quoted message said:

"(Training) doesn't get easier; you just get faster" - Greg Lemond

Quoted message said:

Presumably Mr. Lemond was in shape during his amateur and
professional racing careers.

Racing is all about suffering and making others suffer, that's why I
canned that approach and decide on enjoying the freedom of bicycling
to interesting places and adventures.

http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos.html

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I will give serious focus to the swaying action when I want to by
> distracted from the pain in my legs...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Get in shape man. This is not supposed to hurt.

Quoted message said:

"(Training) doesn't get easier; you just get faster" - Greg Lemond

Quoted message said:

Presumably Mr. Lemond was in shape during his amateur and
professional racing careers.

Racing is all about suffering and making others suffer, that's why I
canned that approach and decide on enjoying the freedom of bicycling
to interesting places and adventures.

But if you push yourself harder, you get to see "more" interesting places
and adventures!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I will give serious focus to the swaying action when I want to
>> by distracted from the pain in my legs...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Get in shape man. This is not supposed to hurt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"(Training) doesn't get easier; you just get faster" - Greg Lemond

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Presumably Mr. Lemond was in shape during his amateur and
professional racing careers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Racing is all about suffering and making others suffer, that's why
I canned that approach and decide on enjoying the freedom of
bicycling to interesting places and adventures.

Quoted message said:

But if you push yourself harder, you get to see "more" interesting
places and adventures!

Oh, you mean make it no fun. I think I have seen more places and
enjoyed more miles than most of the "no pain, no gain" folks who ride
mainly to get merit badges for having suffered. This is not my idea
of enjoying bicycling. You can see my perception of bicycling in the
ride reports that I have posted about local rides and one in the Alps
on rec.bicycles.rides these many years. There is another side to
bicycling that I believe many folks have not discovered, judging from
what I read here.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Pulling up on one side as the other goes down also makes the bike acts a lever,
creating more power with less work.

Leo wrote: (clip), the hand, pedal and rolling line will fall in one plane,
and you will become less tired.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jobst wrote: Pedal and "rolling line" are always in one plane, three
points determining a plane (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
True, the rolling line and pedal determine a plane. As you point out, the
pedaling force is not in this plane, so there is a moment tipping the bike
to the side being pushed. This moment is balanced by the hand on the same
side, pulling up. Jobst, you have convinced me that I have laid out the
forces incorrectly, but I am not sure either of us has it completely right,
yet. Imagine someone standing on the pedals, rocking the bike the WRONG
way. It is intuitively obvious that this will interfere with strong
pedaling.
First, it would tend to lower the pedal, having a similar efrfect to a kushy
suspension. Secondly, and more important, it would extend the pulling arm
at a greater angle from the body, making the muscles less effective. And,
of course, as you pointed out, it reduces the effective component of body
weight by
the cosine of the angle.

Does it seem to you, as it does to me, that all three effects are present?
And, if going the wrong direction is harmful in these three ways, then
rocking the bike correctly ought to have these three benefits: 1.) Pulls
the pedal more solidly into the stroke 2.) Allows the hand to pull toward
the shoulder at an effective angle 3.) Applies body weight more directly to
the pedal.

In the limiting case, where the rider is barely able to turn the pedals,
pulling up on the handlebars becomes dominant, so the second effect becomes
more important than the other two.

Does this seem logical to you? Or is it even comprehensible?

Soldier462 snipes anonymously:

Quoted message said:

Pulling up on one side as the other goes down also makes the bike
acts a lever, creating more power with less work.

Ohhh! Speed secrets. Free power with no effort. Just what we've
been looking for all these years. Could you explain how this
perpetual motion machine works?

I guess the subject heading begged for this sort of advice because it
could be interpreted that climbing hills is done with technique rather
than work. Reasonable folks didn't take it that way but the belief
that special pedal or body motions are the key to faster bicycling
prevails. See claims that Anquetil achieved his successes by a
peculiar pedaling style, when in fact he was so heavily drugged that
he could not be interviewed after races offering only his vacant
speechless stare for the press. Believers abound.

Ankling, remember that above all!

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Leo Lichtman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...the hand, pedal and rolling line will fall in one plane,
and you will become less tired.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pedal and "rolling line" are always in one plane, three points
determining a plane (clip)

Quoted message said:

True, the rolling line and pedal determine a plane. As you point
out, the pedaling force is not in this plane, so there is a moment
tipping the bike to the side being pushed. This moment is balanced
by the hand on the same side, pulling up. Jobst, you have convinced
me that I have laid out the forces incorrectly, but I am not sure
either of us has it completely right, yet. Imagine someone standing
on the pedals, rocking the bike the WRONG way. It is intuitively
obvious that this will interfere with strong pedaling.

You will find that this requires more force on the bars than leaning
away from the downward pedal because the pedal moment arm increases.
As I said, these motions are not artificially created but arise from
pragmatic use. You don't have to teach a young rider how to do this
if he hasn't got some preconceived notions passed to him from people
who oppose riding while standing or ones who believe it is all
"technique". This develops naturally.

Quoted message said:

First, it would tend to lower the pedal, having a similar effect to
a kushy suspension. Secondly, and more important, it would extend
the pulling arm at a greater angle from the body, making the muscles
less effective. And, of course, as you pointed out, it reduces the
effective component of body weight by the cosine of the angle.

I don't believe that is the reason. As I said, I and many new riders
when first getting a bicycle and riding on steep hills automatically
stand and automatically lean the bicycle correctly. This is not an
arbitrary style and it comes from the leverage one has on the bicycle
frame as I explained in my first response.

Quoted message said:

Does it seem to you, as it does to me, that all three effects are
present? And, if going the wrong direction is harmful in these
three ways, then rocking the bike correctly ought to have these
three benefits: 1.) Pulls the pedal more solidly into the stroke
2.) Allows the hand to pull toward the shoulder at an effective
angle 3.) Applies body weight more directly to the pedal.

It boils down to greatest output for the muscular strength available.
Climbing up a steep rise that approaches the riders anaerobic strength
automatically evokes the right motion. It's not a matter of the three
benefits you mention when observed from the limit. Of course, since
that condition makes it natural, doing so on a continuous climb is
natural.

Quoted message said:

In the limiting case, where the rider is barely able to turn the
pedals, pulling up on the handlebars becomes dominant, so the second
effect becomes more important than the other two.

The arm motion is performed under practically no load as the bicycle
is tilted from one side to the other. This occurs during the vertical
position of the cranks where there is no frame torque. The holding
force of the arms is what counts and being a muscular weight lifter
does not a better hill climber make.

Quoted message said:

Does this seem logical to you? Or is it even comprehensible?

Yes but as you see, I analyze it differently.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Jobst Brandt said:

...
Ankling, remember that above all!

For anyone who does not understand that the above is not meant to be
taken seriously, Mr. Brown's cautionary tale should be heeded.
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_a.html#ankling>

--
Tom Sherman

Ron Hardin wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To do this you must first develop the muscles that permit pedaling
while standing. These are a little different from the ones used
sitting. That is why riders switch between the two modes of riding,
to relax some muscles while engaging others. Also, one can exert more
force standing. That is why steep climbing and sprinting are most
often done standing.

Try it and you'll see why.

If you want a stunning surprise, arrange a handle in back of the seat
(you have to find the right height below the seat level) that you
can pull up on with one hand to keep yourself in the seat, as you
pedal uphill seated and steering one-handed with the other hand.

I did this one day, when needing to stabilize a milk crate loaded
with groceries on a failed luggage rack, and positively flew up
hills one handed with the other hand on the milk crate handle.
--

USSR or E.Germany rode some events with cables attached from torso to h'bar
stem. I think the cables were outlawed, so it almost certainly have been of
benefit.

Trevor

Jobst Brandt said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

But if you push yourself harder, you get to see "more" interesting
places and adventures!

Oh, you mean make it no fun. I think I have seen more places and
enjoyed more miles than most of the "no pain, no gain" folks who ride
mainly to get merit badges for having suffered. This is not my idea
of enjoying bicycling. You can see my perception of bicycling in the
ride reports that I have posted about local rides and one in the Alps
on rec.bicycles.rides these many years. There is another side to
bicycling that I believe many folks have not discovered, judging from
what I read here.

Of course, one could always ride in a paceline where the scenery never
changes. 🙁

--
Tom Sherman

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I guess the subject heading begged for this sort of advice because it
could be interpreted that climbing hills is done with technique rather
than work. Reasonable folks didn't take it that way but the belief
that special pedal or body motions are the key to faster bicycling
prevails. See claims that Anquetil achieved his successes by a
peculiar pedaling style, when in fact he was so heavily drugged that
he could not be interviewed after races offering only his vacant
speechless stare for the press. Believers abound.

Ankling, remember that above all!

Jobst Brandt

You also fell for Anquetil's clever tactics which enabled him to carry his
pedaling secret to the grave. Over the past 50 years engineers have tried in
vain to eliminate the dead spot area, medical experts have tried in vain to
eliminate cycling's lower back pain while Hinault rightly claims that
it is impossible to use arm resistance when riding at speed in the saddle.
Using Anquetil's simple linear pedaling technique, a rider can do all three.
As for swaying when climbing out of the saddle, it is probably caused by the
failure of the rider to unweight the rising pedal.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if you push yourself harder, you get to see "more" interesting
places and adventures!

Oh, you mean make it no fun. I think I have seen more places and
enjoyed more miles than most of the "no pain, no gain" folks who ride
mainly to get merit badges for having suffered. This is not my idea
of enjoying bicycling. You can see my perception of bicycling in the
ride reports that I have posted about local rides and one in the Alps
on rec.bicycles.rides these many years. There is another side to
bicycling that I believe many folks have not discovered, judging from
what I read here.

Jobst: You (as do I) benefit greatly from having built a cycling base at a
relatively-young age. Even when we're out of shape because we haven't been
riding in a while, we can still ride further, more comfortably, and dare I
say faster, than others who didn't start riding until later in life. I'd
further suggest (from observation) that there was a time when you enjoyed a
hard challenge as much as anybody.

I guess I'm the oddball because I enjoy cycling both hard & easy, depending
upon the company I'm riding with. For me, it's the experience of being on a
bike, the people I'm with, and the places I go that makes it so wonderful,
not the speed I'm traveling. But that encompasses anything from riding
against time up King's Mtn to a much more leisurely cruise with people new
to cycling.

But I do recall, back in the day, that you weren't always quite so "casual."
In particular, towards the end of a very long ride through the Santa Cruz
mountains, you had this way of riding very fast across the flats, with a
trail of younger riders (upstart young punks who would try and get the best
of you on the climbs) just barely hanging on. You *could* have ridden at an
easier tempo, but I think you *enjoyed* pushing your advantage (at longer
mileages) just a wee bit.

Quoted message said:

There is another side to
bicycling that I believe many folks have not discovered, judging from
what I read here.

I agree, but it's not about the speed people ride, but the time they find to
get out on their bike & explore. You've put in an enormous number of hours
on a bike over the years; obviously, it's one of the priorities (perhaps
definingly-so) in your life. Others have different priorities (not better,
not worse, just different) and live life in a more "compressed" manner.
Personally, I hope to become "decompressed" over time and not have so many
things to do in so little time. But the choice I've made are fine for me; I
could have had a much simpler life and ridden a whole lot more if I didn't
have a couple of kids and a wife... but I can't see *my* life any other way.
But it does cut back on the time I can ride, so, when I do, I ride fairly
hard so I can enjoy some of the nastier stuff without constantly being at
the limit.

Sorry, this is one of my worst rambles in a while. Obviously I need to get
out on my bike & ride!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I will give serious focus to the swaying action when I want to
>>> by distracted from the pain in my legs...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Get in shape man. This is not supposed to hurt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "(Training) doesn't get easier; you just get faster" - Greg Lemond

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Presumably Mr. Lemond was in shape during his amateur and
> professional racing careers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Racing is all about suffering and making others suffer, that's why
I canned that approach and decide on enjoying the freedom of
bicycling to interesting places and adventures.

Quoted message said:

But if you push yourself harder, you get to see "more" interesting
places and adventures!

Oh, you mean make it no fun. I think I have seen more places and
enjoyed more miles than most of the "no pain, no gain" folks who ride
mainly to get merit badges for having suffered. This is not my idea
of enjoying bicycling. You can see my perception of bicycling in the
ride reports that I have posted about local rides and one in the Alps
on rec.bicycles.rides these many years. There is another side to
bicycling that I believe many folks have not discovered, judging from
what I read here.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Ohhh! Speed secrets. Free power with no effort. Just what we've
been looking for all these years. Could you explain how this
perpetual motion machine works?

It works if you know how to accelerate a skateboard, snowboard,
ice skate, sailboat...

--Blair
"Personally, I never tried it on a
bike. Consciously."

Tom Sherman said:

Jobst Brandt said:

...
Ankling, remember that above all!

For anyone who does not understand that the above is not meant to be
taken seriously, Mr. Brown's cautionary tale should be heeded.
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_a.html#ankling>

I do it all the time*, and keep my pedals set up with the spindle
on the front of the ball of my foot.

It sounds like Sheldon simply tore a piece of tissue
(or pulled it away from the bone) due to overstressing
it, which may or may not have had anything to do with
his ankling.

--Blair
"Bionics. The only answer."

* - I use "all the time" as a figure of speech. For most
strokes I keep my foot steady. I ankle when I want to
grab some power from my underused gastrocnemei when my
quads start to fade and need a shorter throw so they can
get some recovery in on each stroke.

Trevor said:

USSR or E.Germany rode some events with cables attached from torso to h'bar
stem. I think the cables were outlawed, so it almost certainly have been of
benefit.

Absolutely. Otherwise, you'd only have your arms and
your entire upper torso to act as tensioning devices to
increase your foot force. With the cable, you can press
with your back. Think of the difference between the
weight you can pick up in a bent-over position vs. the
weight you could press up if it was resting flat on your
lower back. For most people, I'd say the difference is
5-10X.

--Blair
"Gotta get me one of those."

Blair P. Houghton said:

Quoted message said:

USSR or E.Germany rode some events with cables attached from torso
to h'bar stem. I think the cables were outlawed, so it almost
certainly have been of benefit.

Quoted message said:

Absolutely. Otherwise, you'd only have your arms and your entire
upper torso to act as tensioning devices to increase your foot
force. With the cable, you can press with your back. Think of the
difference between the weight you can pick up in a bent-over
position vs. the weight you could press up if it was resting flat on
your lower back. For most people, I'd say the difference is 5-10X.

I think you are overlooking the difference between force, work and
power. Power is what defines the speed of the bicycle and rider, not
force and power is entirely dependent on the aerobic conversion of
body fluids and oxygen to cardiovascular support of the muscles. This
is why one runs out of breath running up stairs (to abstract this from
bicycling style or technique). This is the same for any endurance
activity whether swimming, running or bicycling.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Blair P. Houghton said:

Trevor said:

USSR or E.Germany rode some events with cables attached from torso to h'bar
stem. I think the cables were outlawed, so it almost certainly have been of
benefit.

Absolutely. Otherwise, you'd only have your arms and
your entire upper torso to act as tensioning devices to
increase your foot force. With the cable, you can press
with your back. Think of the difference between the
weight you can pick up in a bent-over position vs. the
weight you could press up if it was resting flat on your
lower back. For most people, I'd say the difference is
5-10X.

On a recumbent bicycle, one's back is braced against a seat back, yet
the most commonly cited disadvantage of a recumbent is poorer climbing
and acceleration.

The very high pedal forces that can be produced in the recumbent
position do not appear to be very useful for cycling, as they can not be
sustained aerobically.

--
Tom Sherman

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Sherman said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

Trevor said:

USSR or E.Germany rode some events with cables attached from torso to h'bar
stem. I think the cables were outlawed, so it almost certainly have been of
benefit.

Absolutely. Otherwise, you'd only have your arms and
your entire upper torso to act as tensioning devices to
increase your foot force. With the cable, you can press
with your back. Think of the difference between the
weight you can pick up in a bent-over position vs. the
weight you could press up if it was resting flat on your
lower back. For most people, I'd say the difference is
5-10X.

On a recumbent bicycle, one's back is braced against a seat back, yet
the most commonly cited disadvantage of a recumbent is poorer climbing
and acceleration.

I suspect has a lot to do with the fact that 'bents are (in general)
heavy. What with the weight of fairings, there is a perverse tendency
for the most aerodynamic recumbents to be relatively heavy as bikes go.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

Quoted message said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

Quoted message said:

USSR or E.Germany rode some events with cables attached from torso
to h'bar stem. I think the cables were outlawed, so it almost
certainly have been of benefit.

Quoted message said:

Absolutely. Otherwise, you'd only have your arms and your entire
upper torso to act as tensioning devices to increase your foot
force. With the cable, you can press with your back. Think of the
difference between the weight you can pick up in a bent-over
position vs. the weight you could press up if it was resting flat on
your lower back. For most people, I'd say the difference is 5-10X.

I think you are overlooking the difference between force, work and
power. Power is what defines the speed of the bicycle and rider, not
force and power is entirely dependent on the aerobic conversion of
body fluids and oxygen to cardiovascular support of the muscles. This
is why one runs out of breath running up stairs (to abstract this from
bicycling style or technique). This is the same for any endurance
activity whether swimming, running or bicycling.

Correct. Once the phosphagen and glycogen systems are played out the limit
on power output is the rate of delivery of O2 to the muscle, which in turn
is limited mostly by the cardiac output. Even at maximal exertion there
is still a 30 to 40 percent reserve of respiratory capacity.

As far a running out of breath after running up stairs, well, that is
a little bit more complicated. There is an "oxygen debt" of about 10
to 15 liters (mostly due to the anaerobic systems) which is incurred
during the first few minutes of exercise and must be paid back,
requiring somewhat increased ventilation for about a hour after
exercise. The increase in respiration during exercise is mostly the
result of the joints moving. That is, if you strap someone down and
wiggle their arms and legs around they will breath faster. Part of it
is also due to higher areas of the brain recognizing that one is
exercising. This is demonstrated by the fact that respiratory rate
increases almost immediately with exercise before there has been any
change in the oxygen content, pH, or anything else in the blood.

Blair P. Houghton said:

Tom Sherman said:

Jobst Brandt said:

...
Ankling, remember that above all!

For anyone who does not understand that the above is not meant to be
taken seriously, Mr. Brown's cautionary tale should be heeded.
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_a.html#ankling>

I do it all the time*, and keep my pedals set up with the spindle
on the front of the ball of my foot.

It sounds like Sheldon simply tore a piece of tissue
(or pulled it away from the bone) due to overstressing
it, which may or may not have had anything to do with
his ankling.

What Sheldon describes in his article sounds like a textbook
description of an Achilles tendon rupture. As you say, it is a tear
in the substance of the tendon itself. It is rather rare to have the
tendon pull away from the bone.

Ankling certainly could precipitate this sort of injury, particularly
if much force is applied to the foot while the ankle is dorsiflexed
(toes pointed towards the sky) or if ankling is a new activity and the
relevant structures are not conditioned.