new to cycling: hill climbing question
- Thread starter leo1971
- Start date
Ahhh, Fresburgh... you bring back memories of time trialing Tollhouse or slugging up Big Creek and Kaiser not to mention the Auberry grade, Watts Valley and a host of other great climbs in the foothills. You live in great cycling country, I miss having that sort of terrain nearby.quenya said:
-Dave
Persevere. If you've got a good bike then you've got all the equipment you need, it's now a matter of fitness. By persevering your strength and fitness will improve and you'll soon be able to tackle the hill without stopping.
Yes Dave I am very lucky to be here, well at least until June when I tackle the Climb to Kaiser.
Leo, ItsikH is exactly right a triple isn't necessary. If you find a gearing change is in order swapping your cassette is much less hassle than putting on a triple. Granted a triple gives you a ton more mechanical advantage for climbing in terms of gear ratios but pretty soon you wont need it.
One other thing, a friend at work started commuting by bike and complained to me one day how slow he was riding even though he was working really hard. I took one look at his bike and knew what was wrong. I raised his seat about four inches and his stem a couple of spacers, the next day he hugged me because he knocked several minutes off his commute. The moral of the story, make sure your bike is set up for your proportions.
Leo, ItsikH is exactly right a triple isn't necessary. If you find a gearing change is in order swapping your cassette is much less hassle than putting on a triple. Granted a triple gives you a ton more mechanical advantage for climbing in terms of gear ratios but pretty soon you wont need it.
One other thing, a friend at work started commuting by bike and complained to me one day how slow he was riding even though he was working really hard. I took one look at his bike and knew what was wrong. I raised his seat about four inches and his stem a couple of spacers, the next day he hugged me because he knocked several minutes off his commute. The moral of the story, make sure your bike is set up for your proportions.
Further more - changing the crank set and changing the cassette will give almost the same result (gear ratios), with all the advantages of a double set in favor of the compact. IMHO compact is the best solution for almost all cyclists, given the proper cassette.
ItsikH said:
I don't want to derail the discussion, but I strongly disagree with the above statement I would say 'the compact is a workable solution for the vast majority of cyclists.' I know I wouldn't trade my standard for a compact as long as I can keep pushing big gears up a hill.
I enjoy my compact ever since I have found out I am essentially a cadence rider, pushing big gears suddenly did not seem right anymore... my performance has improved just by switching the crank set.
ItsikH said:
I think this statement is a bit too broad. In general, I don't believe that any statement of suitability can be made about any crankset type, be it standard, compact, or triple. It's always dependent on rider needs, based on said rider's condition, strengths, location, type of riding, and so on. It's always better to talk about gear ratios as opposed to crankset type, as it's gear ratios that define what's suitable for a rider.
These days wide gear ratios can be had with virtually any style crankset. SRAM just announced their Apex group, whose rear derailleur has a capacity up to 32T (or so they say). That opens the door much wider for standard cranksets. Triples have no real downside but do have a virtually untouchable gear range. They're just not fashionable.
I'm not tilted against compacts at all: I use one, but then I live in an area where my rides comprise anything from long flats, to long mountain slogs, to very steep painfests.
The best solution is always based on the needs of the individual in question.
jhuskey said:
Draggin more weight up hill does take more effort, but there's a point where your body can be underweight too. I once had a body comp under 4% when I was in college. One would think that I was in great shape when in fact my body was malnurished the majority of the time. Thus I could never sustain high intensity efforts for long periods of time. Once my BF rose closer to 10% my energy level increased as well. Granted I weighed more, but I also had more energy to sustain tougher climbs, longer sprints, etc.
Yeah, you'll beat that hill and you'll beat it by working at it. As previous posts have stated, getting to your optimal weight will help you climb.
However, some other tips. First of all, it is much easier to get to the top of a hill without stopping because, unless you are walking to the top of the hill, starting out on a 16% grade is not going to be fun. So, there's your extra motivation to get to the top in one go. Speed up your cadence a bit before getting to your hill (not so high that your heart is going to bust out of your chest before you even start climbing, but high enough that cadence, and added speed, get you part of the way up without too much power output). Then, try to keep your cadence up throughout the climb. Don't look at a spedometer, instead focus on keeping your legs moving fluidly. Drop gears as your legs fatigue.
Finally, and most importantly, keep asking yourself "how am I feeling right now?" not, "when am I going to die/blow up?" By constantly assessing how you are feeling, you will be able to keep your RPE (relative perceived effort) constant (or as constant as possible) throughout the climb. By using your gears, adjusting your cadence, and modulating your power output, you should be able to dial yourself into an RPE that you can hold "all day" (or at least 20min) and you'll have no trouble beating your hill!!!!
However, some other tips. First of all, it is much easier to get to the top of a hill without stopping because, unless you are walking to the top of the hill, starting out on a 16% grade is not going to be fun. So, there's your extra motivation to get to the top in one go. Speed up your cadence a bit before getting to your hill (not so high that your heart is going to bust out of your chest before you even start climbing, but high enough that cadence, and added speed, get you part of the way up without too much power output). Then, try to keep your cadence up throughout the climb. Don't look at a spedometer, instead focus on keeping your legs moving fluidly. Drop gears as your legs fatigue.
Finally, and most importantly, keep asking yourself "how am I feeling right now?" not, "when am I going to die/blow up?" By constantly assessing how you are feeling, you will be able to keep your RPE (relative perceived effort) constant (or as constant as possible) throughout the climb. By using your gears, adjusting your cadence, and modulating your power output, you should be able to dial yourself into an RPE that you can hold "all day" (or at least 20min) and you'll have no trouble beating your hill!!!!
quenya said:
I might be doing the Climb to Kaiser this year depending on how that fits with the Alta Alpina Challenge and The Doddle Ride over in Markleeville in July.
Don't be knocking the triple, I was loving it coming back up Monitor Pass from 395 after 180miles...
Just climbed Haleakala in Maui last week.
38 miles from sea level to 10,023 ft.
Above 8000 ft. the air starts to get thin, as you can see above the clouds in the background:
8:30AM to 1:15 PM to summit:
Even took an illegal detour to visit "Science City":
Endangered plantlife that would cost your Maui vacation if you step on it:
The 38 mile ride down took less than 45 minutes, had to sit up and use upright upperbody and arms to slow bike down instead of braking that might heat up the rims and cause a flat.
Between the elevation of 6500 ft. and 4000 ft., it was in the rain/fog/clouds.. cold and wet, visibility down to 20 ft. at 40+ mph.. passing cars in hairpin turns.. fun fun fun...
38 miles from sea level to 10,023 ft.
Above 8000 ft. the air starts to get thin, as you can see above the clouds in the background:
8:30AM to 1:15 PM to summit:
Even took an illegal detour to visit "Science City":
Endangered plantlife that would cost your Maui vacation if you step on it:
The 38 mile ride down took less than 45 minutes, had to sit up and use upright upperbody and arms to slow bike down instead of braking that might heat up the rims and cause a flat.
Between the elevation of 6500 ft. and 4000 ft., it was in the rain/fog/clouds.. cold and wet, visibility down to 20 ft. at 40+ mph.. passing cars in hairpin turns.. fun fun fun...
swampy1970 said:
Swampy I didn't mean to 'knock the triple' or anyone for using one, especially for rides like the Alta Alpina Challenge, or CTK. What I was meaning to say was that the OP has a fairly short, 1 mile, climb which probably doesn't require a triple.
alienator said:
Braking late and hard is a given, but 38 mile of downhill pavement of braking late and hard would still generate significant heat. Using air resistance against the upperbody is probably the most simple way of slowing yourself down and stretch out and save your strength in nech/back/arms.
With the altitude difference also comes with air pressure difference, if I had let out air at the summit, the tires would be even softer once I get to sea level, I wouldn't want to travel at 40+ mph with narow road tires at 40-60 psi.
"A" said:
The air pressure isn't that much at all. Airliners are pressurized to about 10,000 ft, and tires don't rupture or blow off. The difference in air pressure between sea level and 15,000 ft is about 8 psi. Also heat damage to a tire on a descent like that is even less likely, given a lower tire pressure, because most heat is dissipated through convection--relative wind passing over the rim and tire--and that is the most effective mode of heat transfer, short of conduction, in most of the lower atmosphere. So goin' fast cools the rims/tires more quickly. With alloy rims, heating isn't really an issue; however it is with carbon fiber rims, particularly clinchers (w/ CF brake tracks). Even then the standard manufacturer recommendation is to lower the pressure in the tires iffin' you're going to be doing big, twisty descents.
Also in terms of stability, riding in the drops on fast descents is the most stable position--important when cornering--as it preloads the front more which should result in more effective braking and less chance of the dreaded speed wobble.
I'm not being argumentative, I'm saying it's possible to go faster safely. Riders almost always over estimate risk. That said, someone shouldn't ride beyond the point where they're no longer comfortable with the perceived risk.
"A" said:
You really averaged more than 50mph, whilst sitting upright and riding through hairpins in the rain, fog, cold and 20ft visibility?
Did you borrow Dr Who's Tardis?
alienator said:
Descent in the drops is a given.
swampy1970 said:
I started the descent with two other riers, within the first mile, I no longer see them following me. I know that I've gone way faster than 50 mph on the descent, I passed about 6 cars in hairpin turns.
At the return of the rental bikes, one of the rider approached me and said that I was fearless on the descent.
If you've never climbed/descented Haleakala you'd never know what's possible... the distance between hairpin turns are greater than Alpes d'Huez, which I climbed in 2003, though not as steep in gradien, you generate much faster speed through the turns. Most of the time I was accelerating midway through.
