How Fast Can You Climb?

Carrera said:

What's the top speed people hit uphill? Myself I average between 09 - 15 mph, depending how steep a climb may be.
Also, does anybody practise uphill time-trialing - picking an average steep climb that's at least 2 - 3 miles long and really slamming the pedals against the clock?

It depends on the grade and distance. I myself do an 11-mi climb with an average grade of 6%. I do a "ride on my tempo" with a speed of around 9mph.

It really depends on the hill, 10% - 12% hills around 6mph, the normal hills in my area are 3% - 5% and 1 to 2 miles long, these hills I ride at 13 - 18 mph. I don't time trial on these hills but I do intervals on one hill in particular it's about 2.5 miles and around 6% grade. When I'm training for climbs, I will ride this about 5 times in a row at about 13 mph. A couple weeks ago I climbed Palomar Mountain in San Diego county, that was over 12 miles at 8% average (including some switchbacks at over 12%). This was my toughest climb so far, and we went for another 90 miles of hilly terrain afterwards🙂

The way I always climbed was using speed and power - more power than speed in my case. I tended to select the biggest gear I could comfortably handle and then attack the hill.
However, I'm now wondering whether this strategy was correct (I've had some slight knee aches).
Is there a case for climbing a gear or two lower than the one you are actually capable of using? For example, if I select my third lowest gear I can climb one very steep hill at about 9 mph. This is reasonably fast. But I could gear down a couple of cogs if I wanted to.
My point is, do people climb in the highest gear they can use comfortably or is it always better to climb in lower gears? Here I'm talking peak performance and peak speed.

How does everyone determine the grade of a hill? Here in Utah, we have some steep ones.

Carrera said:

The way I always climbed was using speed and power - more power than speed in my case. I tended to select the biggest gear I could comfortably handle and then attack the hill.
However, I'm now wondering whether this strategy was correct (I've had some slight knee aches).
Is there a case for climbing a gear or two lower than the one you are actually capable of using? For example, if I select my third lowest gear I can climb one very steep hill at about 9 mph. This is reasonably fast. But I could gear down a couple of cogs if I wanted to.
My point is, do people climb in the highest gear they can use comfortably or is it always better to climb in lower gears? Here I'm talking peak performance and peak speed.

Just wondering, how long is the climb your doing? You always mention, in all your posts if it talks about climbing, speed and power. But you cant always go all out everytime. You can injure yourself, as what you have been complaining, based on your previous posts (knee aches). I always believe in using your own tempo in climbing. In this way, you conserve energy throughout without going empty.

Carrera said:

The way I always climbed was using speed and power - more power than speed in my case. I tended to select the biggest gear I could comfortably handle and then attack the hill.
However, I'm now wondering whether this strategy was correct (I've had some slight knee aches).
Is there a case for climbing a gear or two lower than the one you are actually capable of using? For example, if I select my third lowest gear I can climb one very steep hill at about 9 mph. This is reasonably fast. But I could gear down a couple of cogs if I wanted to.
My point is, do people climb in the highest gear they can use comfortably or is it always better to climb in lower gears? Here I'm talking peak performance and peak speed.

I climb in the biggest gear im most comfortable in most of the time.for 2 months my training was for mountain TT. a 9 mile course avg grade around 8%.a few months ago when i did the TT my time was 42 min avg 12.99 mph.
i was climbing this on my small chain ring. my coach since this TT has had me climb it in the 53x21 i have knocked off 3 minutes off my best time without even trying. when i spin faster on climbs it seems to tax my arobic system more then my legs, i prefer a cadence of 70-80 rpm on most climbs.

[quote="OCRoadie"] A couple weeks ago I climbed Palomar Mountain in San Diego county, that was over 12 miles at 8% average (including some switchbacks at over 12%). QUOTE]

man, i did that ride about a month ago...on my motorcycle...and i barely made it then!

neilkod said:

How does everyone determine the grade of a hill? Here in Utah, we have some steep ones.

I am no engineer, but I know it's an equation of rise/run. Total elevation feet gained divided by distance traveled or lateral feet. For example 1000 foot elevation gain over 2 miles = 9.5% grade (1000 feet divided by 10,564 feet). I am sure some techies can elaborate, but that's the basics.

OCRoadie said:

I am no engineer, but I know it's an equation of rise/run. Total elevation feet gained divided by distance traveled or lateral feet. For example 1000 foot elevation gain over 2 miles = 9.5% grade (1000 feet divided by 10,564 feet). I am sure some techies can elaborate, but that's the basics.

...or you get a bike computer like the HAC4 that will compute it for you, although I don't know how accurately.

Below is a pic of one of the steepest climbs in my area. It is actually a very long climb and the pic is deceptive since I've seen lorries struggle to get up this hill. During Summer I used my inner ring (I have a triple on one bike). Plus, the photo only shows the first half of the climb. It's the highest peak in England.
But, yes, I think I may have overdone things in my zeal to kick ass on the bike. I've always had this thing about pushing myself intensity wise but I don't do big hills at present for fear of ruining my knees. I felt fine at the time but my knees just started to ache gradually, although only a mild ache.
You can hit 40 easily on the descent just coasting.
http://www.geocities.com/resromae/climbing.html

tanggoman said:

Just wondering, how long is the climb your doing? You always mention, in all your posts if it talks about climbing, speed and power. But you cant always go all out everytime. You can injure yourself, as what you have been complaining, based on your previous posts (knee aches). I always believe in using your own tempo in climbing. In this way, you conserve energy throughout without going empty.

I'm the opposite to you. I climbed my hill below in bigger gears initially and the first time nearly killed me. It's far steeper than it looks to pedal upwards so strength was a factor on my smaller chain rings, till I got larger cogs on the triple.
On the triple I can do it no problem when I'm in shape but in bigger gears I risk hyper-ventilation.
http://www.geocities.com/resromae/climbing.html

zaskar said:

I climb in the biggest gear im most comfortable in most of the time.for 2 months my training was for mountain TT. a 9 mile course avg grade around 8%.a few months ago when i did the TT my time was 42 min avg 12.99 mph.
i was climbing this on my small chain ring. my coach since this TT has had me climb it in the 53x21 i have knocked off 3 minutes off my best time without even trying. when i spin faster on climbs it seems to tax my arobic system more then my legs, i prefer a cadence of 70-80 rpm on most climbs.

zaskar said:

I climb in the biggest gear im most comfortable in most of the time.for 2 months my training was for mountain TT. a 9 mile course avg grade around 8%.a few months ago when i did the TT my time was 42 min avg 12.99 mph.
i was climbing this on my small chain ring. my coach since this TT has had me climb it in the 53x21 i have knocked off 3 minutes off my best time without even trying. when i spin faster on climbs it seems to tax my arobic system more then my legs, i prefer a cadence of 70-80 rpm on most climbs.

Do you have any idea how much power you're generating on this 9 mile course?

I've been riding this hill for awhile (2.8 miles at 7% grade) and my best time on it is 8'45" ~ 19 mph. I did this with a combination of standing and sitting at 39x17. I used to ride this hill at 35x19 or even 21. There are times that I ride at high cadence and sometimes do intervals (3x) with increasing gear (19-17-17 w/ more speed). I recommend varying your climb (high cadence, low cadence, and some standing) this will train your body/lungs/legs and also avoid knee injury. Also, listen to your body and it will tell you how you should climb the hill.

Carrera said:

The way I always climbed was using speed and power - more power than speed in my case. I tended to select the biggest gear I could comfortably handle and then attack the hill.
However, I'm now wondering whether this strategy was correct (I've had some slight knee aches).
Is there a case for climbing a gear or two lower than the one you are actually capable of using? For example, if I select my third lowest gear I can climb one very steep hill at about 9 mph. This is reasonably fast. But I could gear down a couple of cogs if I wanted to.
My point is, do people climb in the highest gear they can use comfortably or is it always better to climb in lower gears? Here I'm talking peak performance and peak speed.

Mansmind said:

Do you have any idea how much power you're generating on this 9 mile course?

No im sorry, i don't have a power meter yet. if it helps im 140lbs.

Carrera said:

Below is a pic of one of the steepest climbs in my area... It's the highest peak in England.

What's the name of this climb and what road is it on?

What do you mean when you say highest peak in England? Are you specifically referring to the Peak District's highest peak, or to the highest road traffic pass, or to something else?

Some real tests around this area - you have the A686 running up to the Hartside summit, which is just under five miles of continuous uphill winding; the Kirkstone Pass - gradient of 18 to 20% for nearly all of its 3.8 miles - running above Ambleside in the Lake District; Wrynose and Hardknott Passes, hitting gradients of 1 in 3!!!

Not for the faint-hearted...or the weak-legged...!