genejockey 

We like to wait at the top of the hill so that we're all refreshed when you roll up... "Okay, let's go!"

Of course, the next bit is usually downhill.

ofajen

Personal preference is definitely a factor. I’m now more of a runner who cross trains on a single speed bike, so big surprise even at 80kg I stand on long climbs and don’t think much of it. Even before shifting to running, single speed had pretty much wiped out my tolerance for slow, seated climbs.

Otto

79pmooney

Depends on the drivetrain you are riding, how well it is tuned, the shifter type, how fast you are going (and primarily your pedal RPM) and both how strong and how clumsy you are. In theory with the new systems, shifting under load is OK but pedaling too hard or too slowly is asking for trouble.

The old rule (and basically required with all the derailleur systems 40 years ago) was that you backed off the pedal pressure while you were shifting. This still helps a lot. In the old days, the rider had the option of doing the shift in a manner that was both quick, clean and even "elegant" if he chose to learn how. Others were quite brutal in their approach to shifting. Now, the brifter mechanism to a large part dictates how "elegant" the shift is,

The old shift strategies still work. Plan ahead. Shift before it feels really hard. Plan on letting up a touch just before you shift. If you cannot do all that, bring a few extra chain links and a couple of master links and a chain tool or have a ride home handy. Blown shifts have massacred more than a chain or two. Broken cog and chainring teeth. (Not often and usually the bike is still ridable after.) Trashed rear derailleurs happen. Front derailleurs not so often. (That chain tool and the links will let you shorten the chain and limp home on one gear.)

And, if you simply cannot do that elegant shift because the hill is too steep and you are going too slow, stop! Get off the bike or pick up the rear wheel and shift to low. Start. Your mechanism will thank you. (And you might be spared the wrath of your SO.)

If you want to see the potential downside to a blown shift, there is easy to find video footage of Andy Schleck in the Tour de France making a mess of his shift while initiating the move that was to win him the race. Instead he was at the side of the road sorting his bike out while his rival rode past and on to the win. That shift probably cost him $100k. Patience and easing up would have cost him two seconds. (I never did hear what damage the bike suffered. No surprise. Team mechanics are very closed mouth about both their mistakes and issues with gear from sponsors. The bike worked after as I recall but maybe he got a new bike.)

79pmooney

And to the cost of standing vs weight - light or long and slim for your weight rules. I cannot argue why or how. I just know. I raced as a nearly 6'1 145 pounder with arms and legs that were so long they were a curse for finding clothes all my life but on a bike? That uphill dance I simply loved. The bigger, more solid guys simply hated me in any race that wasn't flat.

Now, "standing" wasn't really what I did. I pulled my weight forward. My pedal stroke was not me putting my weight on the pedals, it was me pushing and pulling the pedals against each other in a dance where I rocked the bike and pushed and pulled the brake levers or drops as well. (Races with really steep hills I doubled up my toestraps so I couldn't possibly pull my foot out.)

pepperbelly

I have a ‘13 Specialized Comp with Ultegra components. I did have to replace my rear derailleur. The only one available was a Shimano 105 which should be just as good!

downtube42

Back when I rode a recumbent, sit was the only option. So it was sit and spin until the gears ran out, then sit and grind. 20 years of that and I'm pretty acclimated to sit and grind.

Now I ride an upright, the ability to get out of the saddle is a joy. Riding with gears, I spin until the gears run out. Riding fixed, as the hill kicks up the progression is spinning on the flats > sit and grind > stand and spin > stand and grind > get off and walk. On the really sucky hills, I have to alternate between sit and grind, and stand and grind, without things getting steep enough to justify walking.

tomato coupe

Even on climbs of moderate length (3 km), most cyclists spend more time sitting:

Abstract from the referenced article:

bikingshearer 

. . . where I can more than hold my own.

genejockey 

What point are you arguing, dude? There's nothing relevant to the discussion there, like a simple plot of percent of time spent out of saddle as a function of weight. But, hey, thanks for playing!!

genejockey 

Next time we do the C&V ride, we should start from that stop sign on Alpine and Corte Madera, and see who can achieve the highest Vmax.

Trakhak

I believe that story usually attributes the "spin big gears" comment to Eddy Merckx, not Andy Hampsten.

Trakhak

The GCN crew, inspired by the spindly Spanish climber Alberto Contador's having mentioned in an interview that he regularly made of point of training in the mountains by riding out of the saddle for up to 20 minutes at a time, once did a video shoot where a bunch of the GCN presenters tried to replicate that training method.

As shown in that video, Emma Poole, a featherweight former women's world champion on the road, had no trouble pedaling out of the saddle for the entire ride. Sy Richardson, a tall former pro who can still ride time trials at a power level of around 500 watts, struggled to stay out of the saddle and soon gave up the attempt.

Edit: found the video. (At about 2:45 in the video, Sy mentions that the FDJ pro team conducted a study on the topic and found that their lightest riders were equally efficient in or out of the saddle but the heavier riders were less efficient out of the saddle, with the difference becoming significant after around 30 seconds of standing and climbing.)

wheelreason

"Those who can, climb, those who can't, argue about the best way to do it"...

ofajen

I still think much of it is how you train. Two summers ago I had a time where I was saddle sore to the point that I rode without using the saddle for all three rides I did that week. Rides ranging from 60 to 90 minutes. Now, I will point out that I was using touring bars not drop bars which makes the longer standing sessions more practical. The big limitation was what my feet could endure.

Otto

genejockey 

Oh, of course training is a big part of it. Spending more time out of the saddle and trying to dance rather than stomp helps a lot. But I'm not much of a dancer.

RChung

If you have the data (and they did) you can usually tell when a rider switches from sitting to standing. Sometimes you can also tell when they switch from standing to sitting but it's less obvious. When going from sitting to standing, almost always cadence suddenly drops, and torque and power suddenly increase. When going from standing to sitting, sometimes you see a sudden change but sometimes you see a slow gradual change which makes it harder to spot the point when riders sit.

tomato coupe

I stated that the majority of cyclists spend most of their time on long climbs sitting, and stand occasionally. You called that nonsense. I provided a link to a study that directly addresses the issue. That's it.

Carbonfiberboy 

I've watched a lot of recreational riders climb. I'm a group ride nut and also do events. Folks I see out of the saddle are much more likely to be slim and the slimmer they are, the more time they're up. At some certain BMI, they never stand.

I like to climb at between 78 and 83 and gear to be able to do that on my usual routes. I stand briefly every 10 minutes until I get so tired that standing is a complete waste of my fading leg energy. That's usually on multi-1000' climbs. BMI 24.in summer, 25 in winter. I've never walked my single on a climb. I'm more likely to stop for 1' and then go again. We once walked our tandem when loaded touring and on a 19% grade. That was horrible.

genejockey 

I think I can clarify. I wasn't calling that nonsense. Perhaps that wasn't clear and that's my fault. What's nonsense is your contention that heavier riders are at no disadvantage to lighter riders when riding out of the saddle, beyond the simple difference in hauling the extra mass uphill.

tomato coupe

Okay. What makes climbing out of the saddle more difficult for heavier riders?

genejockey 

I don't know for absolutely sure, but I think it really does have to do with raising the entire body weight a bit on every pedal stroke, since when standing you use your weight to help push down on the pedal. Yes, EVERYBODY is doing that, but heavier riders are, as I said, heavier, and even if it takes the same power/kg no matter how much you weigh, heavier riders are lifting more kg.

But, you know, empirical observation trumps hypothesis, so if your hypothesis doesn't account for the fact that heavier riders are less efficient when standing than lighter riders (see above) then your hypothesis isn't a complete model of the reality.

tomato coupe

Again, this doesn't matter. Yes, a heavier rider expends more energy raising his body weight every pedal stroke, but the expended energy is proportional to body weight, just as it is when pedaling seated. If you weigh 10% more, you'll expend 10% more raising your body weight on each pedal stroke. But, you will also expend 10% more energy if you remain seated. It's a wash.

The hypothesis doesn't account for that, because it isn't correct.

genejockey 

But that's IN ADDITION TO the energy you'd expend seated. You seem to be arguing that lifting 200 lbs is as easy for a 200 lb rider as lifting 145 lbs is for a 145 lb rider.

Being incomplete is one way of being incorrect. There's an empirical observation (heavier riders less efficient standing) that your hypothesis doesn't explain. In my business, that means you adjust/replace your hypothesis.

tomato coupe

No, it's not in addition to the energy expended while seated. The energy that goes into lifting your body is what drives the cranks and moves the bike uphill.

genejockey 

So, here's the thing - it really doesn't matter whether I can explain the observation. The observation doesn't require that I be able to explain it for it to be true.