Originally Posted by Ben Cousins
Ok - your model is too simple. So simple, in fact, that it's not worth taking seriously. If the conclusion of the model is that a good climber is also a good flat cyclist, then 1000's of results from amateur and professional races every year prove your proposition wrong. Watch the TDF this year - check out the flat sprinting experts (high speed on the flat) falling to pieces in the mountains.
Yes. You could read up on it if you spend some time around cyclists or do some book research on the topic. I take it you didn't learn your physics by posting 'what is physics' on a message board?
OK, it is simple, for a reason, which is to eliminate subjectiveness. That sort of subjectiveness which says "climbing is great, flat riding sucks" because I accept that some riders like it (in fact I _love_ climbing) while others hate it.
Subjectively, to me, climbing IS different, and thinking about it, it could be due to the fact that while climbing, there is a constant force on the pedals that you are battling against; slack off for a moment and your speed bleeds away. It requires sustained effort which in flat riding you can take a moment of rest without the speed bleeding off too much.
So here is something I didn't think of before:
Is climbing different due to the resisting force coming through the pedals? Eg, if you're riding a fixie slowly up a hill, if you don't keep on going every second, your going to roll to a stop and then backwards - there is a reversing force from the pedals. While riding flats, there is resistance but it is not driving backwards, it is merely slowing down.
Is that it?