Climbing Speed
 

I should really have titled this thread "Pitiful Climbing Speed". Anyway, looking at the data from many rides (road, mountain and gravel) I've noticed that on long rides my climbing rate (elevation change / time) is always about the same (a slow 1000-1200 ft/hr). It doesn't matter if it's a 2% grade on the road bike or a 12% grade on the MTB - on long rides where I'm staying at a comfortable aerobic pace it always end up about the same. I can go 2-3 times as fast on shorter climbs, but once it's longer than maybe 15-20 minutes I always end up plodding up at the same rate.

My question isn't what speeds others climb at. Obviously the strong riders here will climb much faster. My question is whether others also tend to a fairly constant climbing rate on long solo rides regardless of conditions.

BTW This becomes really obvious looking at bike computer outputs of elevation plotted against time - all my hills then look like they have exactly the same slope.

If I were to plot my speed against the grade, there'd be a consistent and repeatable decrease in speed as the grade increases. I can usually maintain 15 mph up to 2-3%, and then it goes down to about 3 mph around 9-10%. I guess my power, heart rate, and respiration rate go up as the grade increases from that point, as I'm huffing and puffing more, but it's easier to work harder than to stay upright over that.

FWIW, you might want to zoom in on your hills and see if there's any variation in the grade. Modern road engineers like to keep grades at 6% or below, but I think there are some hills with older roads out in your county where the grades are more challenging.

I think you misunderstood my question. I'm not asking how fast you go, but how fast you go up. In fact, your numbers confirm my suggestion: 2% x 15 mph = 10% x 3 mph - a consistent 0.3 mph climbing rate (which is about 1500 ft/hr).

Full gas over a 1+/- hour effort - 3040 ft/hr, or VAM of 920. Normal climbing I can do 1500-2200 ft/hr,

That is about 1/2 of what the average elite rider can do.

From what I understand - the steeper the incline, the higher VAM you can achieve. You are rolling slower, but have less aero drag and rolling resistance, so you can climb/gain elevation at a faster rate.

As long as you're producing consistent power, the steeper the grade, the higher your climbing rate.

Before the days of power meters, climbing rate was the thing to watch. Now that power meters are more common, the focus on climbing rate has diminished.

I no longer even look at my climbing rate. What's important to me is average power over a specific climb.

I'm just happy if I can get to the top of the danged hill.

If it's a long climb, yes. I do a slower steady pace. If I go at a pace that I can't maintain, then I'd likely not make it up the hill.

If it's a short climb such as the rolling hills around me that are 1000' of distance and just 50' of vertical gain, then I'll rip up them as fast as I can, while taking into account the distance I plan to ride and the remaining hills I'll need reserve energy for. After each hill, I can recover on the backside going down and the brief false flat till the next climb.

Regardless of which type of climb it is, HR and my PM give me clues as to whether I can go faster or slower than the time before.

Yeah ... two words that should never go together, eh?

If I ever need to explain what an oxymoron is, I will refer back to this thread.

To respond to the thread ... i assume everyone has a comfortable balance of power and breathing/heart rate which they know t from experience or sort of osmosis (absorbed unconsciously into the brain through repetition) which they revert to.

I used to live near a 12 mile dirt road that had 3 or 4 thousand feet of climbing.

My times up it with an 18lb road bike with a low gear of 34x30, a 22lb gravel bike at 40x44, and a 29lb MTB with 30x46 were all almost the same.

I haven’t lived there in a few years. I miss that hill.

I always try to maintain a climbing speed consistent with not falling over

I'm not sure you're saying what you meant to say. If by "producing consistent power" you mean the same power. Your rate of climbing (elevation change per unit time) is essentially going to be the same, regardless of the gradient. Which is exactly what the OP is observing in their data. This is exactly what is expected. Now, you will climb slightly faster for a steeper grade simply because as you go slower, less of your power is going into aero losses. But assuming we're not comparing a 0.1% grade to a 10%, the speeds would generally be slow enough that the differences in aero losses won't affect things too much.

If we ignore aero losses, the rate of climb will depend on the power. Same power, same climb rate. For a lower gradient, you'll cover more ground horizontally, but the same vertically. I.E., you'll have a higher speed, but not higher vertical speed in ft/min or m/sec. or furlongs per day (pick your units).

But again, I think you "misspoke" as it would make very good sense to use climb rate as a stand-in for power which you say was used before power meters.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2a03e09ed1.png

I stand corrected, the aero losses don't drop as as fast as I thought. Though remove that 0% gradient point, and the curve doesn't look quite so dramatic. But still over say 2% to max gradient, VAM is around a 2:1 ratio. So, certainly a significant difference.

Rate of climbing at constant power is roughly the same above about 8%.

This is for default rider at 200 Watts:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...962604b478.png
If you want to set a climbing rate PR, find a road that's 8% or greater.

Back in the day, I could manage 5000 ft/hr on an 8% grade, for a handful of minutes. These days, not going to happen. I'm content to do tempo at 3000 ft/hr on an 8% grade.

Although I did do a short sprint climb yesterday, just to see if I still had it. 16.1 mph, 5.7% grade, 4800 ft/hr. That felt hard, 6.5 W/kg. Glad it was less than 1 minute.

I don't worry about it. I'd rather climb slowly in a low gear than burn my legs out trying to be faster.

I like to save some legs for the descents and to finish the ride strong.

Unless you're a pro, who cares?

if i am familiar with the climb* I tend to start & finish about the same rate. The middle area is often flat with a consistent power output.

Really?

Can we all agree that the "unless you're a pro, you shouldn't ___________" is an insult to active cycling enthusiasts?

I put my head down, downshift & work. if I keep moving forward, I'm happy

In the context of the OP, do you calculate your climbing rate or are you, like most people, trying to get up the hill/climb as fast as possible w/o toppling over? If the latter, then I'd agree that it shouldn't really matter".

I just try to ride the bike up the hill. I'm not really concerned with anything else.

I only come here for the graphs.

This sort of show a little naïvety on your part about pro cycling and races. They don't try to just get up the hill as fast as they can. They try to get up the hill as fast as they can while considering all the hills yet to come and the distance yet to be traveled and whether they have the energy to sprint at the finish line if that will be required.

Which in fact is much like I do too. And I definitely am not a pro cyclist.

Of course it shouldn't really matter whether a cyclist riding for just recreation rides that way or not. They should ride how they like to ride. But they also shouldn't make disparaging remarks about those of us that do like to push on our rides to see what we are able to do.

No we can't agree. I do forget that a lot of you take yourselves WAY too seriously; lost track of the big picture.

Obviously, the OP doesn't train hard enough to improve his climbing speed. The real question is whether it's worth the effort to him.

Reviewing Strava data, it looks like climbs with grades above 5%, riding at a threshold effort, my VAM is 800-850 (2625-2790 ft/hr). Occasionally, I'll get into the upper 800s, but nothing sustained over 900. I weigh 180-185lbs.