hhnngg1

That describes the vast majority of the riders in the local recreational group. And a good number of these riders average over 200 miles per week with over 10,000 feet of climbing per week. Definitely NOT speedster climbers by any stretch but they ride religiously and greatly enjoy the social aspect of it more than the competitive side.

On the other hand, there's a popular local crit series here, and a I know a few guys between 35 & 55 who love it and only do the crit rides or crit training rides when it's in season. No hilly or century rides for them during this period. But dang they'll hurt you bad when they show up to the club hill ride after all those flat but fast crits.

Gordy748

If you can't (or won't) make it out to the hills (and you really should), you can try putting yourself in bigger gears and lugging yourself on a time trial between two points, with any luck into a headwind for extra resistance. This will force you to keep going while making it hard for yourself, much like a hill would.

There are A LOT of drawbacks to doing just this, and there really is no substitute to ascending miles. But if you are going to stay on the flats...

Jobiensis

I think there is a quite a bit of difference between some cyclists that do crits all the time, that probably have climbed many hills and done a couple centuries vs a new rider that hasn't done either. I don't think there is any way you can possibly be prepared for a big climb without doing some climbing.

rowebr

I agree with the folks who recommend getting out there and climbing some hills. Even if you have to drive 2 hours, a day trip for a ride out in the mountains is a great way to spend a saturday.

The types of climbing on a ride can make a big difference. Doing 10K feet of climbing over 100 miles, with most of the climbing happening in 4 or 5 big ascents, is a different beast than if the same amount of climbing was spread out over a bunch of rollers and shorter hills.

MattFoley

I can understand those making the point that power is power, therefore climbing is no different than flats. I guess in my head that doesn't explain the vast differences in climbing abilities among pro stage racers. Is the difference between Cavendish and Contador simply a matter of capability, or training, or is there an actual physiological difference that accounts for it? If it's the latter (all that slow-twitch/fast-twitch stuff) then that would seem to indicate that there indeed is more to it than simple power output. That's not a rhetorical question or meant to be snarky...I'm honestly curious what it is that makes the two types of riders so dramatically different once the road gets steep.

hhnngg1

You should see how many die-hard Computrainer-predominant bike training triathletes, including a good number of them professional triathletes, hang out on Slowtwitch and throw down some monstrous bike splits even on hilly terrain. It was after seeing how successful these guys (as well as some strong amateurs) were with targeted power / intensity training even on an indoor trainer that convinced me that you didn't need the hills to still ride strongly on them.

Andy Potts (one of the top US professional triathletes) will destroy 99% of amateur cyclists on any climb of any distance and he's known for often doing entire seasons on nothing but a Computrainer, not even going outside to ride except a handful of times right before race day.

Seattle Forrest

Oh really?

It was on the first page!

Seattle Forrest

You don't need a power meter, you don't need to do intervals on the flat, and you don't want to learn how to ride a bike on the internet. If you want to get good at riding your bike up mountains, you need to ride your bike up mountains.

It's its own reward.

gregf83 

It's power/weight that counts and Contador has a much higher power/weight ratio at threshold (i.e. the power he can maintain for about an hour) than Cavendish.

Cavendish on the other hand has a much higher short term power/weight ratio than Contador due to his higher percentage of fast twitch (type II) muscle fibers. Most of that is genetic and Contador will never be a sprinter.

Any pro with a power/weight ratio over 6W/kg will be a decent climber regardless of where they did their training. I'm pretty sure there are some decent dutch climbers who don't spend all their time in the mountains.

banerjek

You don't need hills for fitness, and if you have the strategy and technique figured out, it won't matter so long as you don't have issues with altitude and temperature.

But most people who haven't spent much time on hills don't have this stuff figured out. On hilly rides, I frequently see people who are a lot stronger than me DNF or ride like crap because they don't know what they're doing. The OP could just go out there and if he paces himself, he could do just fine. Worst case scenario is he has to be picked up by SAG after spending some time puking and cramping by the side of the road. In many ways, it's more fun to do these things without preparing since the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.

rowebr

@Seattle Forrest, where did you take that photo with the bridge overhead? Really cool.

hhnngg1

UNless you don't have easy access to mountains like the OP.

vesteroid

Its been discussed here several ways, but I am in the very strong camp of climbing is considerably different than flat. I live on a road where if I go one way, I have a 2500 foot climb in the next 7 miles, or I go the other way and I have a 4200 foot climb in the next 9 miles. Or I can go N/S and stay under 1500 feet of climbing in 40 miles. Long sustained climbs require substantial power (constant) over all that time. I am slow, and about 220 lbs. I cant really go less than 180 watts on these hills or I fall over. I have to average around 190-200 on the climbs (50/34 - 12/28) What I mean is if the climb is 2.5 hours to the top, I am cranking 200 watts for 2.5 hours....that to me is WAY different than any fast flat ride I have ever done. I always find a way to take a break on the flats, or catch a draft, or something.

I am a rank beginner, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but if you have only ridden flats, and you want to go climb 9K feet...be ready for a world of hurt.

Rowan

By comparison, though, a two-hour drive is easy access for the OP. And he's motivated enough to do the drive at least once.

I will be interested to read the outcome of his first ride out there. His reaction to taking four times as long to cover the same distance as on the flats will be of most interest, along with how he controlled his intensity...

hhnngg1

2 hrs drive each way is fine for a once in awhile ride, but definitely wouldn't be considered amenable to training every other day, or even every 3rd day unless you've got a lot of spare time on your hands.

OP should definitely ride those hills at least a few times just to get a sense of how the hills work, but in terms of the nitty gritty regular training hours for the goal ride, it's perfectly fine to not make that 2 hour trek out for every training ride and still be prepared for the ride.

rowebr

+1, that sounds good to me.

banerjek

Hey mike12!

We are expecting a ride report. BTW, if you find your first experience climbing several thousand feet a totally humbling and painful experience, that's normal so don't worry. You'll be fine for the 9K route. Hills get easier pretty fast.

Grambo

Really??? At 19% your climbing roughly a 1000 ft of vertical per mile (5,280 x's .19). Assuming your walking pace (all day aerobic zone HR pace) of 5mph translates to 5000 feet of climbing in one hour. Mt. Washington is less than 5000 ft of climbing and the top elite riders can finish in ~ hour (although it is a 7.5 mile course and not 5 miles). I realize that my comparison is not exactly apples to apples but I would guess that vast majority of the folks posting to this board cannot climb 5000 ft of vertical in an hour. I'll say it again ... put the bong down and let your head clear.

nhluhr

It looks like the Pacific Crest Trail crossing over Chinook Pass on SR410 near Mount Rainier in Washington. The road is closed most of the year and is opened every summer once the threat of avalanche passes and road crews are able to get in there to open it up.

From the Washington State DOT's flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/s...7629489111630/ lots of photos showing the opening/closing of the pass this year.

hhnngg1

Ok, make it 15% with bursts of 19% and a LOT shorter than an hour for that segment (I don't know of any sustained 60 minute long 19% climbs anywhere in the US that are road-bikable - assumed that people would know this) and that's what I'm talking about if you want to get all anal about the precise numbers. (I also guesstimated walking pace - could be 3-4mph for all I know. This isn't supposed to be a Strava specific brag with exact numbers.)

Still doesn't change my premise that you do NOT need to be climbing these steep grades regularly to survive on them, and that even with all-flatland training you can ride even 15% climbs at an aerobic level if you slow it down to walking pace on the climb.

Seattle Forrest

That's Chinook Pass, at the edge of Mt Rainier national park.

The road was closed to cars at the time, but clear of snow. They were doing avalanche blasting a bit east of here, so I had turned back at the Sourdough Gap trailhead.

Here's a picture of the descent route:

Grambo

Dude your the guy who said he could ride 19% grades at a 5mph all day not me. For the record 19% is insanely steep and the 15% you backed off to is still a very very effin steep climb. Bottom line is that as soon as you get into the high single digits % grade for any kind of distance you are talking about a potentially difficult climb that puts most recreational riders in a survival mode even with proper gearing. My point is that I tried everything mentioned thus far in this thread to prepare for some of the first hill climbs I did and even with lots of prep it still ended up being a very humbling expereince. There just isn't any way to replicate the physical and mental stresses combined with different riding positioning encountered during prolonged steep climbs other than to head out and ride some mountains. Just my 2 cents.

For the record some Tour data on the most difficult climbs. Check out the avg. % grade.

hhnngg1

And I'll just reply - you can absolutely do a hilly century even if you live 2 hours away from the mountains and can only go out there and ride those mountains a few times before race day, if you just ride with enough duration and intensity on your flat training rides (or trainer rides). You'll figure out roughly how long it'll take to ride the race day route after just one mountain climb, and you work it from there.

All this stuff about how you CAN'T ride mountains without training for mountains is overblown. By reading some of the posts on this thread, you'd think that you would be dead on the side of the road after an hour of climbing at a leisurely pace if you live in Florida or some other place with few to no hills.

Training on hills is absolutely good stuff, and is def the best way for a beginner to get used to riding hills, but that does no good for the OP who has to drive 2 hours just to get to those hills.

caloso

It can be done. I trained for a hill climb doing almost exclusively flat land riding. The key workouts were 2x20' and 6x5' intervals, into the wind if possible. See the sticky at the top of the racing sub forum for ideas. Most of the workouts are keyed to power, but can be done with a HRM or even a regular bike computer.

gregf83 

heretic