stand up rider

what do you guys think about being a stand up rider on hills?
is there an advantage, disadvantage? i live around lots of
mountains, and theres lots of hills may sound crazy
but (i love hills) and id like to be able to stand on climbing
say 70% of the time i notice it takes alot more out of me
when i stand, but is what im thinking the longer i can
stand on a hill the fitter ill get, whats your opinion on
this?

The most efficient way to climb is to pick a lower gear and higher cadence and sit towards the back of the saddle. The further back on the saddle you are the better leverage you'll get on the pedals. By doing most of your climbing like this you'll be able to clock a fast time and conserve more energy than someone who clocks the same time but stands up. However just because standing up on the pedals uses more energy doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.

The fastest way to accelerate up a climb is to climb out of the saddle as you can use your body weight to dump more wattage on the pedals. This is less efficient but tactically if you need to bridge to a breakaway or drop some riders this is the way to do it. You just need to time your all out effort out of the saddle so that what you loose in efficiency is made up for in time gained.

This year on Luz Ardiden Lance won the stage by attacking out of the saddle. He had already rode most of the stage's climbs (including the Tourmalet) in the saddle so that he could conserve energy for his attack. When he attacked speed and acceleration were more important than efficiency so he rode out of the saddle to put as much time as possible between himself and his rivals.

If you want to practice climbing steep hills while sitting in the saddle take a mountain bike out on some steep off road hills with loose dirt. You'll find that if you stand up you loose traction on the rear wheel so you end up having to do the whole climb in the saddle. Also because traction is such an issue this type of hill climbing on loose dirt tends to teach you good pedaling style. By this I mean that you end up pedaling smoothly in circles so that you can maintain a constant traction on the dirt.

You mentioned being able to stand up all the way up a hill as being a measure of fitness. For steep hills it certainly pushes you to the limit. For myself I guess I've always liked the challenge of forcing my way up a steep (15%+) hill out of the saddle. I suppose it's fun to be able to say, "Hey, I did that hill in such and such a gear ... so there!"

Here's an interesting question. Most people say that the reason that climbing out of the saddle is harder is because you're shifting you weight around from pedal to pedal and using your upper body. Does this mean then that a pure climber like Richard Virenque or Roberto Heras will find it easier to climb out of the saddle because they are so much lighter? I heard Phil Liggett say that he saw Richard Virenque do an alpine climb in the Tour completely out of the saddle. I can't imagine Cipollini doing the same thing! Does this mean that a pure climber like Virenque can remain relatively efficient while climbing out of the saddle?

Again going back to the Luz Ardiden stage Lance accelerated away standing up but Ullrich stayed seated to chase. Could this reflect the fact the Ullrich is a heavier rider and Lance is that much lighter. i.e. Lance's power to weight ratio is better so he could afford to attack out of the saddle knowing that Ullrich couldn't follow?

Originally posted by PhilippeR, i replied with >>
The most efficient way to climb is to pick a lower gear and higher cadence and sit towards the back of the saddle. The further back on the saddle you are the better leverage you'll get on the pedals. By doing most of your climbing like this you'll be able to clock a fast time and conserve more energy than someone who clocks the same time but stands up. However just because standing up on the pedals uses more energy doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you're most efficient when you pick a bigger gear and pedal at *lower* cadences. Efficiency is increased at low cadences at a given workload, with the most efficient cadence increasing at relative and absolute power outputs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

however, this isn't the most optimal method of riding, which is generally a faster cadence

If you want to practice climbing steep hills while sitting in the saddle take a mountain bike out on some steep off road hills with loose dirt. You'll find that if you stand up you loose traction on the rear wheel so you end up having to do the whole climb in the saddle. Also because traction is such an issue this type of hill climbing on loose dirt tends to teach you good pedaling style. By this I mean that you end up pedaling smoothly in circles so that you can maintain a constant traction on the dirt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

definitely true!

Again going back to the Luz Ardiden stage Lance accelerated away standing up but Ullrich stayed seated to chase. Could this reflect the fact the Ullrich is a heavier rider and Lance is that much lighter. i.e. Lance's power to weight ratio is better so he could afford to attack out of the saddle knowing that Ullrich couldn't follow?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the TdF site actually lists Ullrich as being lighter than Armstrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, as they were virtually inseperable on the climbs and TTs then they must both produce virtually the same power and being virtually the same mass. There can't be much in it.

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the TdF site actually lists Ullrich as being lighter than Armstrong.

Ric

Surely this can't be true? When they kept referring to Ulrich as the 'big German' etc., I assumed he was the heaviest guy in the race. Where does this put Armstrong, and he never looks 'big'. i assume the TDF site is wrong?

ive been mtb for the last 3 years and would make nasty climbs
with rocks to rool over at the same time, ive been rd bikeing
for almost a month now and i climb very well, i just thought
that if i can get( my self to stand and talorate a higher heart
rate in turn it may make me faster when i stay seated).
the only intervals i do are hills, 2 days a week i ride a 20 mile
rd with a 3,500 elev gain, and once a week i do a steep 2 mile
climb as fast as i can, my goal is to do a 25 mile ride once a week
with a 9k ft elev gain. im hoping the pay off is i can hold my speed
longer on the flats for my 1st race in jan, thanks for your input.

ULRICH looks a lot heavier then ARMSTRONG.

According to an article here:

Ullrich's Weight - Internation Herald and Tribune

Ullrich's race weight is 73kg although he was up to 83kg at the beginning of the year. The Tour de France site lists Ullrich as 73kg and Armstrong as 75kg.

Lance's Performance Program book lists his race weight at the beginning of the 1999 Tour as 158lbs or 71.8kg. I've read elsewhere that Lance's race weight is around 72kg.

Chris Charmichael mentions here:

Lance's Power to Weight ratio - Chris Charmichael

that Lance has a higher power to weight ratio than Ullrich. This makes sense given Lance's ability (when at top form) to beat Ullrich when climbing. OK there may not be much in it if their race weights are only about 1kg different but if that means 60 sec over a 45min climb then I guess that's the advantage that Chris is talking about. Of course weight isn't the only presenting factor if they have different power outputs.

Ric, Thanks for the reply. You mention that a cyclist is more efficient at a lower cadence and pushing a higher gear. I understand that the term 'efficient' may have a specific meaning for a sports scientist but looking up the word in my trusty Oxford Dictionary it says, "productive with minimum waste of effort". You clarified that riding with a lower gear and a higher cadence was the optimum way to climb a hill but how does this make it inefficient (in sports science speak that is)? 😕

Please note I'm not saying you're wrong just that my understanding of the term 'efficient' may be different from yours in this context.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by PhilippeR
Ric, Thanks for the reply. You mention that a cyclist is more efficient at a lower cadence and pushing a higher gear. I understand that the term 'efficient' may have a specific meaning for a sports scientist but looking up the word in my trusty Oxford Dictionary it says, "productive with minimum waste of effort". You clarified that riding with a lower gear and a higher cadence was the optimum way to climb a hill but how does this make it inefficient (in sports science speak that is)? 😕

Please note I'm not saying you're wrong just that my understanding of the term 'efficient' may be different from yours in this context.

Philippe,

Efficient in sport science has a similar meaning.

In exercise work done is measured in watts (for cycling) and the amount of energy used measured as the oxygen uptake (this is known as economy). The more efficient technique will use the least oxygen for a given workload. Also at a given workload (e.g. 200 watts) a rider will be more efficent than at other workloads (e.g. 150 or 250 watts). As the greatest efficency is acheived with a bigger gear and while pedaling at *lower* cadences; all other techniques are therefore less efficient! The exact numbers will differ between riders.

As Ric pointed out, the *most* efficent technique is not always the optimum. For example, sprinting is very in efficent (i.e. high energy cost for work done) yet is the optimum technique (i.e. acheives a specific outcome) in a number of situations. Climbing out of the saddle is also very inefficent, but often the best solution to a given situation. The goal of most cycling events is to be fast/produce high power outputs rather than being efficent.

Riders will rarely ride at their *most* efficent, rather choosing (1) their *most* efficent technique (cadence x gear) at a given speed/power output or (2) the technique that alows them to have the biggest power output irrespective of efficency. Therefore the 'optimum' technique is often based on power output alone or a comprimise between power output and efficency.

This *most* efficent cadence at any given power output increases as the power output increases.

Hope this makes sense.

Does'nt standing offer some sort of rest for your legs? You see riders stand for a few moments and then sit back down. I certainly do that naturally as well. I have heard somewhere that standing up gives the illusion of resting your legs but that in reality it might not be so?

Does standing up provide some minor relief to your legs ?

Does standing up provide some minor relief to your legs ?
[/QUOTE]

does mine, you use a differant set of mucsels when
you stand so them sit spin mucsels get a brief rest.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by redstorm
Does standing up provide some minor relief to your legs ?

Yes, it would give your legs a bit of a break as you would be using your muscles in a different way.

A change is as good as a rest!

aside from alternating leg muscle usage when standing, you're also preventing lower back strain. i remember reading something to the effect that standing likewise gives relief to the muscle groups in your arms, upper back, and neck.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by trek930
aside from alternating leg muscle usage when standing, you're also preventing lower back strain. i remember reading something to the effect that standing likewise gives relief to the muscle groups in your arms, upper back, and neck.

I agree, although doesn't really give your cardiovascular system a rest though. As standing up is less efficent you will give your cardiovascular system will be more stressed, unless you reduce the power output when you stand up.

One thing I've noticed when watching the Tour coverage, is that Lance seems to stand a lot, and not just when he's attacking. His coach says he climbs seated, but nearly everytime I see him, he is standing, even when he is riding in the peleton on one of the earlier climbs of the day. Many times, I've noticed that he is the only one standing in the group.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
As Ric pointed out, the *most* efficent technique is not always the optimum. For example, sprinting is very in efficent (i.e. high energy cost for work done) yet is the optimum technique (i.e. acheives a specific outcome) in a number of situations. Climbing out of the saddle is also very inefficent, but often the best solution to a given situation. The goal of most cycling events is to be fast/produce high power outputs rather than being efficent.

Thanks 2LAP this does make sense!

This explains why the top climbers use a lower gear and a higher cadence. It's the optimum way of maintaining the power output that they want to put out even though technically it's less efficient in terms of the amount of power produced given a particular oxygen/calory intake.

I guess the best analogy that I can think of is the difference between a car speeding down the motorway at 80mph vs. 60 mph. The car gets to where it's going quicker if it does 80 but it's more efficient if it does 60. i.e. it uses more petrol at 80 but goes faster.

Thanks for the explanation.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by PhilippeR
I guess the best analogy that I can think of is the difference between a car speeding down the motorway at 80mph vs. 60 mph. The car gets to where it's going quicker if it does 80 but it's more efficient if it does 60. i.e. it uses more petrol at 80 but goes faster.

Thanks for the explanation.

I think your speeding car analogy is a perfect one, and would like to take it a bit further. Like you said, 60 mph would be the absolute most efficient speed to travel at, but there are times when the car has to go 80 to get to it's destination on time. The driver (or the automatic transmission) must then select the gear or RPMs that is most efficient relative to the speed of 80 mph. If the driver puts the car in second gear, and floors the gas, the engine would burn out quickly.

Cyclists are the same. In a race, their speed may not be as efficient as a lower speed, but they still must maintain that speed. The cyclist has to determine how their particular bodies are more efficient at a given speed (seated or standing, low gears/high cadence, or high gears/low cadence, etc).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ebrunner
I think your speeding car analogy is a perfect one, and would like to take it a bit further. Like you said, 60 mph would be the absolute most efficient speed to travel at, but there are times when the car has to go 80 to get to it's destination on time. The driver (or the automatic transmission) must then select the gear or RPMs that is most efficient relative to the speed of 80 mph. If the driver puts the car in second gear, and floors the gas, the engine would burn out quickly.

Cyclists are the same. In a race, their speed may not be as efficient as a lower speed, but they still must maintain that speed. The cyclist has to determine how their particular bodies are more efficient at a given speed (seated or standing, low gears/high cadence, or high gears/low cadence, etc).

well, since everyone is fond of using LA analogies, here's another one. Lance's training focuses on specific reps both in and out of the saddle, mixing speeds, mixing cadence on the same climb. he does this because he must train his body to be able to respond to the multiple attacks from his arrivals and he also must be able to attack himself and then transition smoothly back into an in-the-saddle, high cadence effort.

in a race, half the amateur riders you face will get dropped if the lead group starts mixing up the speed and cadence. when people do not train specifically to be able to adapt to these changes, they cannot handle the change in pace and will go anaerobic and blow up.

a fun trick on a climb is to hit a particularly steep pitch pretty hard but to make sure the guy on your wheel is able to follow. slow WELL BEFORE you're maximum effort and fake like you've blown up. the guy following will see you "suffering" and take the pull, often burning every match in the book to drop you because he sees his "opportunity". you can take his wheel and then wait till HE blows up. of course, if you don't have the fitness, then this exercise is rather pointless.

SquadraSF,

Maybe you can answer my earlier question on Lance. Although everyone labels him a seated climber, I see him standing a lot. This year, he was often on the ropes, so it is understandable to see him standing simply to keep on Ullrich's or Vino's wheel. However, when he was arguably on his best form, in 2001, he seemed to stand a lot, even when he wasn't actually attacking (or responding to attacks). I would consider Jan Ullrich to be much more of a seated climber--he hardly ever stands. Armstrong seems to do about 50/50 (standing/seated).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ebrunner
SquadraSF,

Maybe you can answer my earlier question on Lance. Although everyone labels him a seated climber, I see him standing a lot. This year, he was often on the ropes, so it is understandable to see him standing simply to keep on Ullrich's or Vino's wheel. However, when he was arguably on his best form, in 2001, he seemed to stand a lot, even when he wasn't actually attacking (or responding to attacks). I would consider Jan Ullrich to be much more of a seated climber--he hardly ever stands. Armstrong seems to do about 50/50 (standing/seated).

sh/t! i answered this last night, but it got erased for some reason. ah well, the short answer is that LA is known as a seated climber because of his high cadence in-the-saddle efforts of which he's famous. even JU tried copying his form in the offseason during his comeback to try and save "bad knees". when LA was asked during this year's Tour "why have you spent so much time out of the saddle", his response was "i don't know". the real answer is that he was riding by feel on the climbs and in survival mode because of his crash in the Dauphine, the heat and his recent illness. his body did not respond how it normally would so he had to go on instict much more then he normally might. hence, more out of the saddle.