Climbing Technique

Ryan Cousineau said:

...

Quoted message said:

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.

Like this 42-lb. monstrosity [1] that someone cobbled together?

[1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm> - locally
known as the "Green Monster."

--
Tom Sherman

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Sherman said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

...

Quoted message said:

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.

Like this 42-lb. monstrosity [1] that someone cobbled together?

[1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm> - locally
known as the "Green Monster."

Exactly. Note that as aero 'bents go, that's pretty light (I'm sure
someone will now show me a picture of a fully faired 30-pound
low-racer). Now visualize how well you would climb hills if you gained
20 pounds of fat overnight, which is how much more this bike weighs than
my not-especially-light race bike (and when I say not especially light,
I err on the side of understatement. There are mountain bikes that weigh
less than 20 pounds).

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

Richard Pu said:

Does anyone know why you are supposed to sway the bicycle from side to
side when pedaling standing up? I do it because I've been told to do it,
but I don't see any particular benefit from swaying the bicycle.

It's a natural tendency, trying to get the upper body to contribute some
energy to the climb, I think. I don't think it helps, really, since you
waste more energy with all that flopping around than you could possibly
add. Given that, I do it as well sometimes.

It's helpful to learn how to climb out of the saddle without pushing the
bike from side to side. For one, it helps you climb more smoothly. For
another, it allows you to climb out of the saddle when the bike is loaded
for touring.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
_`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
(_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]

David L. Johnson wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Richard Pu said:

Does anyone know why you are supposed to sway the bicycle from side to
side when pedaling standing up? I do it because I've been told to do it,
but I don't see any particular benefit from swaying the bicycle.

It's a natural tendency, trying to get the upper body to contribute some
energy to the climb, I think. I don't think it helps, really, since you
waste more energy with all that flopping around than you could possibly
add. Given that, I do it as well sometimes.

It's helpful to learn how to climb out of the saddle without pushing the
bike from side to side. For one, it helps you climb more smoothly. For
another, it allows you to climb out of the saddle when the bike is loaded
for touring.

I think it helps when the gear is high for the power required. The larger
muscles of the legs tire less and so the action puts most of the power to
these muscles. It becomes automatic with experience as the lower leg
muscles tire and become painful. The slow action of the legs does not
enable a fast enough return of blood to the heart and so the lower leg
muscles suffer due to waste products hanging around.. If you consider speed
walking, this is the sort of cadence that also should be used for cycling.
In a recumbent with the legs level with the heart the pump effect to
overcome gravity is reduced and so the likelihood of lower leg pain, I
imagine is lessened. The need to alter pedal technique would be less likely
to be required.

Elliptical chainrings only go partially towards helping with the problem of
low cadence (under 85/min).

Trevor

[email hidden] wrote in news:0S1Yc.10544$54.145638
@typhoon.sonic.net:

Quoted message said:

Also, one can exert more
force standing. That is why steep climbing and sprinting are most
often done standing.

True, standing generates more short-term power. To me, though, seated
climbing is more efficient in terms of longer-term power for a long climb.

I've always thought of a certain climbing position as the "Thevenet
position" because as a teen in the late 70's I had this poster in my room:

http://www.jimlangley.net/ride/Thevenet_Poster.jpg

I just figured that if a TdF winner climbs mountains this way, then that's
the right technique to climb a grade. Eddy Merckx does it better:

http://www.place-of-fame.ch/images/eddy%20merckx/merckx03small.jpg

So that's how I climb. Ideally hands on top of the bars, close to the stem,
forearms nearly horizontal. I pick a gear that permits a spin of 80-90 rpm
and focus on applying smooth power.

To me it feels that this seated position is the most efficient way to
climb. Is it?

[email hidden] wrote in news:0S1Yc.10544$54.145638
@typhoon.sonic.net:

Quoted message said:

Also, one can exert more
force standing. That is why steep climbing and sprinting are most
often done standing.

True, standing generates more short-term power. To me, though, seated
climbing is more efficient in terms of longer-term power for a long climb.

I've always thought of a certain climbing position as the "Thevenet
position" because as a teen in the late 70's I had this poster in my room:

http://www.jimlangley.net/ride/Thevenet_Poster.jpg

I just figured that if a TdF winner climbs mountains this way, then that's
the right technique to climb a grade. Eddy Merckx does it better:

http://www.place-of-fame.ch/images/eddy%20merckx/merckx03small.jpg

So that's how I climb. Ideally hands on top of the bars, close to the stem,
forearms nearly horizontal. I pick a gear that permits a spin of 80-90 rpm
and focus on applying smooth power.

To me it feels that this seated position is the most efficient way to
climb. Is it?

Jim Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Blair P. Houghton 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.

I don't think I am but that's neither here nor there.

Being able to apply more force with your legs means you'll
lose less momentum per stroke, waste less power hanging
on with your arms/shoulders/upper back/moving your ass
around on the seat, and you can start ramping back up to
cadence sooner before the crest of the hill.

They ought to let everyone ride a TdF with those belly
cables and see what it does for overall times.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Power is what defines the speed of the bicycle and rider, not
force

Ask a pedal on a hill.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and power is entirely dependent on the aerobic conversion of
body fluids and oxygen to cardiovascular support of the muscles. This

Unless it's anaerobic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is why one runs out of breath running up stairs (to abstract this from
bicycling style or technique).

I don't run out of breath running up stairs. Any more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

There's also the matter of waste removal, but in general
that's going to happen about as fast as oxygen delivery.
(Someone look up the limbic system and give us a full report
over the weekend.)

Quoted message said:

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.

Now that's interesting. Why isn't it compensated by heavier
breathing if there's a 30% excess respiratory capacity?

Quoted message said:

The increase in respiration during exercise is mostly the
result of the joints moving.

For interesting values of "mostly". I can pretty much
guarantee that slower motion at higher force can create
more respiration than faster motion at lower force. It can
also work the other way, but force*displacement=work and
work is energy and energy needs oxygen (at least in our
preinstalled power plants) so increasing the work cranks
up the CO2 output which accelerates respiration.

Quoted message said:

That is, if you strap someone down and
wiggle their arms and legs around they will breath faster.

This costs extra in most towns.

Quoted message said:

Part of it
is also due to higher areas of the brain recognizing that one is
exercising.

Nothing like the power of suggestion. Keeps those infomercials
on the tube 24/7.

Quoted message said:

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.

I'd say it's another contributor, but power output is going to
make the most difference in your noticeable panting behaviors.

--Blair
"The hill isn't over until you're
back at cadence."

Al James <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

To me it feels that this seated position is the most efficient way to
climb. Is it?

Depends on how fast you want to climb. Seated is great if you can generate
enough power that way to go as fast as you want (or need) to go. Standing can
give you more power for more speed. Obviously, more speed requires more
energy.

Al James said:

Quoted message said:

Also, one can exert more force standing. That is why steep
climbing and sprinting are most often done standing.

Quoted message said:

True, standing generates more short-term power. To me, though,
seated climbing is more efficient in terms of longer-term power for
a long climb.

Quoted message said:

I've always thought of a certain climbing position as the "Thevenet
position" because as a teen in the late 70's I had this poster in my
room:

http://www.jimlangley.net/ride/Thevenet_Poster.jpg

Quoted message said:

I just figured that if a TdF winner climbs mountains this way, then
that's the right technique to climb a grade. Eddy Merckx does it
better:

http://www.place-of-fame.ch/images/eddy%20merckx/merckx03small.jpg

Quoted message said:

So that's how I climb. Ideally hands on top of the bars, close to
the stem, forearms nearly horizontal. I pick a gear that permits a
spin of 80-90 rpm and focus on applying smooth power.

I think you'll find that these same riders also climb in the standi
pposition on other climbs. That they are seated in these pictures
means only that they were seated at that moment. I assure you that
when sprinting to the finish line, uphill, they were standing as they
do in other situations. Don't get caught in an idee-fixe from some
poster.

Quoted message said:

To me it feels that this seated position is the most efficient way to
climb. Is it?

It may well be but on a long climb riders most often alternate as I
mentioned. If you were to use Lance Armstrong as your ideal model
then you would have to ride standing more than seated.

http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/rider_bio.asp?rider_id=33

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 05:29:01 GMT, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

If you were to use Lance Armstrong
as your ideal model then you would
have to ride standing more than seated.

How do you know he climbs more out of the saddle than in? Have you
seen long periods of video of him in the middle of a race?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Probably not "more" but surely alternating between styles. Very few
riders can do long sustained out-of-the-saddle climbing. But it's very
hard to do a rapid acceleration in-the-saddle style. Remember "the
look?" Lance was out-of-the-saddle attacking. Jan remained seated.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 05:29:01 GMT, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

If you were to use Lance Armstrong
as your ideal model then you would
have to ride standing more than seated.

How do you know he climbs more out of the saddle than in? Have you
seen long periods of video of him in the middle of a race?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:32:14 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Probably not "more" but surely alternating between styles. Very few
riders can do long sustained out-of-the-saddle climbing.

My real point was that for many people (in the US at least) who watch
racing cycling on TV, it's difficult to tell what is typical as the
coverage focuses on key moments when power output is super high, and
not the typical climbing when not much is changing.

Quoted message said:

Remember "the
look?"

No, I don't watch much racing on TV.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

I just figured that if a TdF winner climbs mountains this way, then that's
the right technique to climb a grade. Eddy Merckx does it better:

http://www.place-of-fame.ch/images/eddy%20merckx/merckx03small.jpg

So that's how I climb. Ideally hands on top of the bars, close to the stem,
forearms nearly horizontal. I pick a gear that permits a spin of 80-90 rpm
and focus on applying smooth power.

To me it feels that this seated position is the most efficient way to
climb. Is it?

If you look carefully at the picture of Merckx, you see that he's
riding on a less than ideal road surface--looks like gravel to me. I
suspect his position at that moment was more dictated by the need to
keep weight over the rear wheel than by climbing efficiency.

Andrew

Blair P. Houghton said:

Jim Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Blair P. Houghton writes:

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.

There's also the matter of waste removal, but in general
that's going to happen about as fast as oxygen delivery.
(Someone look up the limbic system and give us a full report
over the weekend.)

The limbic system? As in the amygdala, hippocampus, cingulate gyrus
and mammillary body? The seat of Love and Fear?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Now that's interesting. Why isn't it compensated by heavier
breathing if there's a 30% excess respiratory capacity?

Not sure what you mean. The point is just that respiration is not a
limit on performance unless you have seriously screwed up lungs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The increase in respiration during exercise is mostly the
result of the joints moving.

For interesting values of "mostly". I can pretty much
guarantee that slower motion at higher force can create
more respiration than faster motion at lower force. It can
also work the other way, but force*displacement=work and
work is energy and energy needs oxygen (at least in our
preinstalled power plants) so increasing the work cranks
up the CO2 output which accelerates respiration.

Although CO2 is potentialy a very strong stimulator of respiration, it
does not seem to a role in exercise because even during the most
strenuous exercise the CO2 and pH remain normal. It is true that
control of respiration is not completely understood. (by anyone, not
just me)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is, if you strap someone down and
wiggle their arms and legs around they will breath faster.

This costs extra in most towns.

Quoted message said:

Part of it
is also due to higher areas of the brain recognizing that one is
exercising.

Nothing like the power of suggestion. Keeps those infomercials
on the tube 24/7.

Quoted message said:

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.

I'd say it's another contributor, but power output is going to
make the most difference in your noticeable panting behaviors.

Suprisingly not.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

If you were to use Lance Armstrong as your ideal model then you
would have to ride standing more than seated.

Quoted message said:

How do you know he climbs more out of the saddle than in? Have you
seen long periods of video of him in the middle of a race?

Yes. He gets plenty of air time on TV, especially in Europe where I
happen to be during the TdF every year.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

[email hidden] wrote in news:xcyZc.11555$54.159088
@typhoon.sonic.net:

Quoted message said:

Al James said:

Quoted message said:

Also, one can exert more force standing. That is why steep
climbing and sprinting are most often done standing.

Quoted message said:

True, standing generates more short-term power. To me, though,
seated climbing is more efficient in terms of longer-term power for
a long climb.

Quoted message said:

To me it feels that this seated position is the most efficient way to
climb. Is it?

It may well be but on a long climb riders most often alternate as I
mentioned. If you were to use Lance Armstrong as your ideal model
then you would have to ride standing more than seated.

Not sure about emulating Lance, given that his biometrics are outside the
norm. High cadence out-of-saddle for a short while, OK, but too tiring
for me to do it as long as he does.

I thought about this more today. I wonder if I like seated climbing
because i'm built more like a Spanish climber. Thin build with not much
fast-twitch. Maybe if I was heavier I'd get more out of standing than I
do.

http://www.cptips.com/climb.htm claims seating climbing is 10% to 12%
more efficient. Not sure about that, you raise a good point, if that was
true then more pros would exploit that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, one can exert more force standing. That is why steep
climbing and sprinting are most often done standing.

It may well be but on a long climb riders most often alternate as I
mentioned. If you were to use Lance Armstrong as your ideal model
then you would have to ride standing more than seated.

Not sure about emulating Lance, given that his biometrics are outside the
norm. High cadence out-of-saddle for a short while, OK, but too tiring
for me to do it as long as he does.

I thought about this more today. I wonder if I like seated climbing
because i'm built more like a Spanish climber. Thin build with not much
fast-twitch. Maybe if I was heavier I'd get more out of standing than I
do.

http://www.cptips.com/climb.htm claims seating climbing is 10% to 12%
more efficient. Not sure about that, you raise a good point, if that was
true then more pros would exploit that.[/QUOTE]

==========================================================

Even though you are exerting more force when standing, it has a less
straining effect on the knees and lower back than if the same or even less
force was applied when seated. This is one important point that cycling's
medical researchers overlooked. Total elimination of chronic cycling related
lower back pain and many knee injuries are directly related to this fact.
With the correct adjustment of the pedaling technique, one can reproduce
the same standing climbing power when seated with the same safer less
straining effect on the knees and lower back. That was where Anquetil's
mysterious extra TT pedal power came from.

n crowley said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Also, one can exert more force standing. That is why steep
> climbing and sprinting are most often done standing.

It may well be but on a long climb riders most often alternate as I
mentioned. If you were to use Lance Armstrong as your ideal model
then you would have to ride standing more than seated.

Not sure about emulating Lance, given that his biometrics are outside
the
norm. High cadence out-of-saddle for a short while, OK, but too tiring
for me to do it as long as he does.

I thought about this more today. I wonder if I like seated climbing
because i'm built more like a Spanish climber. Thin build with not
much
fast-twitch. Maybe if I was heavier I'd get more out of standing than
I
do.

http://www.cptips.com/climb.htm claims seating climbing is 10% to 12%
more efficient. Not sure about that, you raise a good point, if that
was
true then more pros would exploit that.

Although I find that getting out of the saddle can make a welcome break
at times, I don't do it on long climbs. Also, when I do it I find I'm
always going more slowly than when sitting, probably because I generally
use certain amount of pull-back on the pedals, which increases
efficiency.

Anthony

--
<<|
| http://www.acampbell.org.uk/cycling/
_________ ,___o / \
__________ _\ <;_ / \ OCD Cycloclimbing
___________ (_)/ (_) / \ http://www.ocd.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Campbell said:

Although I find that getting out of the saddle can make a welcome break
at times, I don't do it on long climbs. Also, when I do it I find I'm
always going more slowly than when sitting, probably because I generally
use certain amount of pull-back on the pedals, which increases
efficiency.

Anthony

You can pull-back out of the saddle too.

Francesco

n crowley said:

With the correct adjustment of the pedaling technique, one can reproduce
the same standing climbing power when seated with the same safer less
straining effect on the knees and lower back. That was where Anquetil's
mysterious extra TT pedal power came from.

Egods, not this hoary chestnut again!

How do I set up a bogus Anquetil pedaling style filter on my
newsreader?
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/