Why do people reduce their cadence on hills? Doesn't this imply inadequate gearing?
09-09-09, 09:40 PM
#126
Senior Member
All this talk of power and torque and gravity is stupid. It's psychology.
Your brain says "I can hold this pace in this gear" because you're delusional. You paid $8k for a bike, $2k in gear, and you think you're frickin Pantani. So you don't downshift. You hang on to the delusion far too long, then it's too late to shift.
Your brain says "I can hold this pace in this gear" because you're delusional. You paid $8k for a bike, $2k in gear, and you think you're frickin Pantani. So you don't downshift. You hang on to the delusion far too long, then it's too late to shift.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
09-09-09, 09:42 PM
#127
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Sign up for a race with your triple and see what happens on the hills. If you can hang with the fast guys...more power to you. I've seen it done, although somewhat rare.
Overspinning on hills makes my HR go up too high and limits my total speed output, hence the slower cadence. That works for me.
Overspinning on hills makes my HR go up too high and limits my total speed output, hence the slower cadence. That works for me.
09-09-09, 09:43 PM
#128
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
OP, the problem you're having is your staunch belief that every rider has an "ideal" cadence that should be maintained, if possible, under all riding conditions, uphill or flat. For reasons that umd has explained pretty well, that's really not true.
I also think that you might be misreading statements you've seen or are referring to an argument that you've had with someone else, because I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread argue that a low cadence is better for climbing. You seem to be kind of locked into a prescriptivist mindset, and seem to be attributing that same mindset to others. The fact of the matter is that most cyclists are more comfortable when climbing at a lower cadence than they would use on the flat. This is more likely to be the case when someone is trying to climb fast. When I've climbed big hills on my touring bike, I've been perfectly happy spinning a low gear and just toodling along, but when I want to climb fast that just doesn't work well, even if I'm putting out similar power.
Of course, if you're spinning along at a nice, pleasant pace next to someone who is just grinding along at 45 RPM and insisting that they are doing everything right, well, they're doing it wrong. Most of us are probably climbing at a cadence noticeably below what we would use on the flats, but still much higher than 60 RPM. I'm generally comfortable at about 80 RPM when climbing seated (if I'm really cranking, my cadence will be higher), if I get below about 75 or so I really start bogging down.
And as Brian Ratliff says, there are compromises to be made when gearing a race bike, though it's not too bad with 10-speed cassettes. But I still won't choose my gearing around one or two steep 200m sections and end up sacrificing a cog that I might put to more use during the rest of the ride. I ride a 12-25 cassette most of the time, and that turns out to be all that's necessary 90% of the time.
I also think that you might be misreading statements you've seen or are referring to an argument that you've had with someone else, because I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread argue that a low cadence is better for climbing. You seem to be kind of locked into a prescriptivist mindset, and seem to be attributing that same mindset to others. The fact of the matter is that most cyclists are more comfortable when climbing at a lower cadence than they would use on the flat. This is more likely to be the case when someone is trying to climb fast. When I've climbed big hills on my touring bike, I've been perfectly happy spinning a low gear and just toodling along, but when I want to climb fast that just doesn't work well, even if I'm putting out similar power.
Of course, if you're spinning along at a nice, pleasant pace next to someone who is just grinding along at 45 RPM and insisting that they are doing everything right, well, they're doing it wrong. Most of us are probably climbing at a cadence noticeably below what we would use on the flats, but still much higher than 60 RPM. I'm generally comfortable at about 80 RPM when climbing seated (if I'm really cranking, my cadence will be higher), if I get below about 75 or so I really start bogging down.
And as Brian Ratliff says, there are compromises to be made when gearing a race bike, though it's not too bad with 10-speed cassettes. But I still won't choose my gearing around one or two steep 200m sections and end up sacrificing a cog that I might put to more use during the rest of the ride. I ride a 12-25 cassette most of the time, and that turns out to be all that's necessary 90% of the time.
1) your ideal cadence isn't constant, but varies based on power output, and
2) putting down more power on hills is beneficial (if you have the fitness to do so) because of the different characteristics of gravity vs wind resistance
I'm happy to admit where I was wrong and misguided. But before anyone tells me it was all obvious, nobody actually explained #2 with the key being that wind resistance is quadratic with your speed. And there were definitely a lot of incorrect explanations in this thread! And to be fair, the original post does ask the question, not declare that others are wrong.
OK,with that disclaimer, I'm ready to be flamed. Bring it on.
Last edited by rumatt; 09-09-09 at 09:46 PM.
09-09-09, 09:48 PM
#129
FBoD Member at Large
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Woodbury, MN
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
Again, let's just call umd's explanation good and move on. Much more important things like Fredism and Lance doping for the 41 to discuss.
09-09-09, 10:25 PM
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
well for me, i have a 53-39 front and a 12-27 rear, i usually climb 39 front 24 rear, with a cadence of about 60, on the flats my cadence is usually about 75-85. I can increase my cadence in 39 front 27 rear, but i go faster for a bit, and then lactic acid builds up and i end up going slower.
09-09-09, 10:44 PM
#132
carpe napum
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think UMD covered the issue and I don't want to re-ignite the debate. But I'll go ahead and be the one to say that riding up hills with taller gearing and lower cadences does indeed make you faster.
I'm not saying that it is itself "faster" or "better" than spinning up hills, simply that there is a big up-side to it and that folks who automatically go to the granny gears miss out. I'm talking relatively lower cadence, not absurdly staggering up some mountain at 30 rpm.
1. It makes you strong, able to push (or spin if you like) a bigger gear up that hill, and therefore faster,
2. It gives you confidence and trains you mentally to use bigger gears and go up faster, whether you mash or spin.
So often I see guys drop down to low gears as soon as the road tilts up. Lower and slower than they need to go to. Maybe they think they have to maintain some mythical perfect cadence, or want their CV systems to do most of the work, like Lance. But usually I think they just go low because the gears are available to them and because using them involves less pain. Or less intense pain, anyway. I personally think there's less total pain in getting to the top quickly and not dragging it out. Riding fixed gear up and down hills trains you for power (up) as well as spinning (down) so you become better equipped to go up those hills fast, whether you spin or mash, either one.
I know this is not what the OP was asking, precisely, but sometimes folks just think things too much. Ride more and attack the hills. Your legs and your lungs will figure out what works best for you. What works best for you won't be the same as for other people, or necessarily as yourself as you gain or lose fitness. Armchair physics won't do it. JMO.
I'm not saying that it is itself "faster" or "better" than spinning up hills, simply that there is a big up-side to it and that folks who automatically go to the granny gears miss out. I'm talking relatively lower cadence, not absurdly staggering up some mountain at 30 rpm.
1. It makes you strong, able to push (or spin if you like) a bigger gear up that hill, and therefore faster,
2. It gives you confidence and trains you mentally to use bigger gears and go up faster, whether you mash or spin.
So often I see guys drop down to low gears as soon as the road tilts up. Lower and slower than they need to go to. Maybe they think they have to maintain some mythical perfect cadence, or want their CV systems to do most of the work, like Lance. But usually I think they just go low because the gears are available to them and because using them involves less pain. Or less intense pain, anyway. I personally think there's less total pain in getting to the top quickly and not dragging it out. Riding fixed gear up and down hills trains you for power (up) as well as spinning (down) so you become better equipped to go up those hills fast, whether you spin or mash, either one.
I know this is not what the OP was asking, precisely, but sometimes folks just think things too much. Ride more and attack the hills. Your legs and your lungs will figure out what works best for you. What works best for you won't be the same as for other people, or necessarily as yourself as you gain or lose fitness. Armchair physics won't do it. JMO.
09-09-09, 10:52 PM
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,457
Bikes: Cervelo R3 (Force)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
well for me, i have a 53-39 front and a 12-27 rear, i usually climb 39 front 24 rear, with a cadence of about 60, on the flats my cadence is usually about 75-85. I can increase my cadence in 39 front 27 rear, but i go faster for a bit, and then lactic acid builds up and i end up going slower.
ive got the same combo. i think 12-27 is the best cassette for a double. i don't see the advantage of a 25. why settle for a 25 when its only the last two gears that are different? the bigger jump keeps the spacing more consistent, rather than tighter at that end.
12-25: 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-23-25
12-27: 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24-27
09-09-09, 10:52 PM
#134
Headset-press carrier
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corrales New Mexico
Posts: 2,137
Bikes: Kona with Campy 8, Lynskey Ti with Rival, Bianchi pista, Raleigh Team Frame with SRAM Red, Specialized Stump Jumper, Surley Big Dummy
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
HEy power geeks. Beginner PM user here with an ancient PT.
Why is it harder to maintain say 200 W constant uphill regardless of cadence or gearing, than maintaining 220 W on the flats. HR creeps up, you get more winded. Uphill means 7% plus.
If I can circumvent this, I could probably really spin up higher when climbing
They said power is power, but I am a bit confused what is going on. OK I'll go to the racing training sections but maybe this is related why most spin down a bit when on an incline.
Why is it harder to maintain say 200 W constant uphill regardless of cadence or gearing, than maintaining 220 W on the flats. HR creeps up, you get more winded. Uphill means 7% plus.
If I can circumvent this, I could probably really spin up higher when climbing
They said power is power, but I am a bit confused what is going on. OK I'll go to the racing training sections but maybe this is related why most spin down a bit when on an incline.
09-09-09, 10:54 PM
#135
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Maybe sitting up allows for more force (torque) to be exerted. Not much wind resistance on the hills, so you can sit up and crank a lower rpm. On the flats, you are folded over at the waist more, so it pays to spin a higher cadence (lower torque).
I usually use a higher cadence for more strenuous efforts and a lower cadence to tool around. I think that umd said the same thing earlier. The idea that you lower your cadence to put out more power on the hills does not jive with that.
B/t/w - I typically ride 88 rpm on the flats, and am happy if it is 80 on the hills. I'm a puss, though, and run out of gearing on lots of sustained 8% hills.
I usually use a higher cadence for more strenuous efforts and a lower cadence to tool around. I think that umd said the same thing earlier. The idea that you lower your cadence to put out more power on the hills does not jive with that.
B/t/w - I typically ride 88 rpm on the flats, and am happy if it is 80 on the hills. I'm a puss, though, and run out of gearing on lots of sustained 8% hills.
09-09-09, 11:10 PM
#136
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,457
Bikes: Cervelo R3 (Force)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
HEy power geeks. Beginner PM user here with an ancient PT.
Why is it harder to maintain say 200 W constant uphill regardless of cadence or gearing, than maintaining 220 W on the flats. HR creeps up, you get more winded. Uphill means 7% plus.
If I can circumvent this, I could probably really spin up higher when climbing
They said power is power, but I am a bit confused what is going on. OK I'll go to the racing training sections but maybe this is related why most spin down a bit when on an incline.
Why is it harder to maintain say 200 W constant uphill regardless of cadence or gearing, than maintaining 220 W on the flats. HR creeps up, you get more winded. Uphill means 7% plus.
If I can circumvent this, I could probably really spin up higher when climbing
They said power is power, but I am a bit confused what is going on. OK I'll go to the racing training sections but maybe this is related why most spin down a bit when on an incline.
09-09-09, 11:30 PM
#137
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 28,387
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
HEy power geeks. Beginner PM user here with an ancient PT.
Why is it harder to maintain say 200 W constant uphill regardless of cadence or gearing, than maintaining 220 W on the flats. HR creeps up, you get more winded. Uphill means 7% plus.
If I can circumvent this, I could probably really spin up higher when climbing
They said power is power, but I am a bit confused what is going on. OK I'll go to the racing training sections but maybe this is related why most spin down a bit when on an incline.
Why is it harder to maintain say 200 W constant uphill regardless of cadence or gearing, than maintaining 220 W on the flats. HR creeps up, you get more winded. Uphill means 7% plus.
If I can circumvent this, I could probably really spin up higher when climbing
They said power is power, but I am a bit confused what is going on. OK I'll go to the racing training sections but maybe this is related why most spin down a bit when on an incline.
09-10-09, 04:44 AM
#138
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Interesting, it's usually the opposite. On the google wattage group this comes up from time to time and I'm not sure of the reason but there are some people that can maintain power on flats or the descent better than on climbs. I think it may be due somewhat to motivational issues and muscle development (i.e. you use stronger muscles riding on the flats).
Although I think it comes down to body postion. Try climbing in the TT position and see if you can exceed your FTP for 5 minutes. When I climb, I am pretty upright and non-aero in comparison.
09-10-09, 05:17 AM
#139
Senior Member
I agree with everything you wrote. We may have crossed posts (I wrote a long explanation a couple posts up from yours, but just to clarify.. the two things I wasn't getting right (and UMD and others helped hammer home) were:
1) your ideal cadence isn't constant, but varies based on power output, and
2) putting down more power on hills is beneficial (if you have the fitness to do so) because of the different characteristics of gravity vs wind resistance
I'm happy to admit where I was wrong and misguided. But before anyone tells me it was all obvious, nobody actually explained #2 with the key being that wind resistance is quadratic with your speed. And there were definitely a lot of incorrect explanations in this thread! And to be fair, the original post does ask the question, not declare that others are wrong.
OK,with that disclaimer, I'm ready to be flamed. Bring it on.
1) your ideal cadence isn't constant, but varies based on power output, and
2) putting down more power on hills is beneficial (if you have the fitness to do so) because of the different characteristics of gravity vs wind resistance
I'm happy to admit where I was wrong and misguided. But before anyone tells me it was all obvious, nobody actually explained #2 with the key being that wind resistance is quadratic with your speed. And there were definitely a lot of incorrect explanations in this thread! And to be fair, the original post does ask the question, not declare that others are wrong.
OK,with that disclaimer, I'm ready to be flamed. Bring it on.
Go back to the series of equations you posted earlier and plug in identical power, but vary the RPM and you'll see that force on the ground will be different.
09-10-09, 05:56 AM
#140
FBoD Member at Large
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Woodbury, MN
Posts: 6,094
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
Interesting, it's usually the opposite. On the google wattage group this comes up from time to time and I'm not sure of the reason but there are some people that can maintain power on flats or the descent better than on climbs. I think it may be due somewhat to motivational issues and muscle development (i.e. you use stronger muscles riding on the flats).
Guess I need power huh?
09-10-09, 06:37 AM
#141
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I climb at a lower cadence than on the flats, usuallly 70-80 vs 90+, with gears to spare, so it's not a matter of running out of gears per se. My typical climbs are around 6%-9% and I have gearing suited to that. For steeper sections I don't mind grinding it out. I'm not going to carry gearing that I won't want 99% of the time.
09-10-09, 06:45 AM
#142
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 187
Bikes: Time VXR
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
On flats, you have momentum, less force is required, hence allowing you to work your more efficient muscle groups (they operate better with less force and higher rpm as previously mentioned). On a hill, the laws of flat ground get thrown out the window. There will always come a point that you can't possibly match your cadence. If you ever see video of Lance climbing Leadville on a mountain bike with a 22/34 (that's a .64:1 --- about as low as you can get), he's barely turning 50rpm on some of the steep sections.
Lets talk about your hill - a 7 mile, 6% grade with occasional 10's. Don't jump to conclusions delineating triples from doubles. Your triple is a 30/27? That's a 1.11:1 ratio. My wife went from a triple to a compact double running a 34/28 (1.21:1) and she can barely tell the difference. So if you see someone with a double, don't assume they're a hypocrite, their gearing might not be all that much different from yours.
Personally, I know what I'm climbing and I gear accordingly - If I'm doing a ride in the flats, I'll run an 11-23 cassette - or on something steep (like Brasstown), I'll run an 11-28. I can't turn a 23T up Brasstown, but on flats (where cadence is easier to control), I like the narrow margins because I'm going within 5-7mph of a certain pace the entire time. Not so on a climb - I want all the gear I can get just to get up the hill - regardless of cadence.
As metioned before - you are digging WAY to deep in to this. There's either some serious disconnect with what it really takes to get up 7mile / 6%+ hill, or I call "TROLL".
Last edited by timeedgevxr; 09-10-09 at 06:50 AM.
09-10-09, 07:07 AM
#143
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
OK, I get it. The answer to my question is that yes, there's a good chance reducing your cadence on hills makes sense. But why?
The key (and without this the whole thing changes) is that air resistances increases quadratically with your speed, but gravity is a constant force. UMD was right and I was wrong when I started arguing that both are the same.
In other words:
With gravity: If you're climbing straight up, if you double your power, you double your speed.
With wind resistance (flats): If you double your power, you do NOT double your speed. It becomes diminishing returns very quickly.
The key (and without this the whole thing changes) is that air resistances increases quadratically with your speed, but gravity is a constant force. UMD was right and I was wrong when I started arguing that both are the same.
In other words:
With gravity: If you're climbing straight up, if you double your power, you double your speed.
With wind resistance (flats): If you double your power, you do NOT double your speed. It becomes diminishing returns very quickly.
The result is that it's better bang for the buck to put down power on hills. Thus, even in a time trial (where the break-away-from-the-pack aspect is nonexistant) you should vary your power output and increase it on hills to minimize total time.
More power does NOT require a lower cadence, but once you are changing your power output you might start hitting the limits of your cardiovascular system, thus the only way to go faster is to use more leg and sacrifice some of your fast twitch muscle (even though once used it's much slower to recover).
But climbing a hill isn't just about power. FORCE is also important. If the amount of force a rider puts out is equal to the component gravity resolved along the hill (ie (total bike and rider weight) * sine(slope angle)) then he literally won't move - because the force pulling him back will be equal to his propulsive force. So a rider is rewarded not for the total force his muscles exert but the surplus over the minimum required to "hover". This increases the payoff for extra effort.
The fitter and better trained and genetically endowed people can make this effort without drifting too far from optimal cadence, but the less fit people are forced to go lower to exert the optimal amount of force, which is what matters in climbing.
09-10-09, 07:08 AM
#144
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,170
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Interesting, it's usually the opposite. On the google wattage group this comes up from time to time and I'm not sure of the reason but there are some people that can maintain power on flats or the descent better than on climbs. I think it may be due somewhat to motivational issues and muscle development (i.e. you use stronger muscles riding on the flats).
I spend a lot of time training at very high intensity on the track and as a result I think I find it easier to bury myself on the flats than most people do, though I can do the same in the mountains if I want, too (living at the base of some decent sized ones). But motivation and muscle development are both aspects of that training, so you're still right...
09-10-09, 07:22 AM
#145
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
On flats, you have momentum, less force is required, hence allowing you to work your more efficient muscle groups (they operate better with less force and higher rpm as previously mentioned).
On a hill, the laws of flat ground get thrown out the window. There will always come a point that you can't possibly match your cadence. If you ever see video of Lance climbing Leadville on a mountain bike with a 22/34 (that's a .64:1 --- about as low as you can get), he's barely turning 50rpm on some of the steep sections.
Lets talk about your hill - a 7 mile, 6% grade with occasional 10's. Don't jump to conclusions delineating triples from doubles. Your triple is a 30/27? That's a 1.11:1 ratio. My wife went from a triple to a compact double running a 34/28 (1.21:1) and she can barely tell the difference. So if you see someone with a double, don't assume they're a hypocrite, their gearing might not be all that much different from yours.
Personally, I know what I'm climbing
As metioned before - you are digging WAY to deep in to this. There's either some serious disconnect with what it really takes to get up 7mile / 6%+ hill, or I call "TROLL".
09-10-09, 07:24 AM
#146
Bromptoneer
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 2,942
Bikes: Brompton S2L
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wow... this thread, talk about over-analyzing!
Personally, maybe it's my physiology, genetics, etc, but the better I stay in my happy cadence, which for the flats is around 95-105, but climbing, I noticed it drops to about maybe 85-95, the faster and more fluid I get up the hill. When I'm in a higher gear to save a few gears or whatever and my cadence drops below 80 or so, I burn out much faster.
*shrug*
Don't know... works for me. Chugga-chugga-chugga up that hill! Popovich that b*tch!
Personally, maybe it's my physiology, genetics, etc, but the better I stay in my happy cadence, which for the flats is around 95-105, but climbing, I noticed it drops to about maybe 85-95, the faster and more fluid I get up the hill. When I'm in a higher gear to save a few gears or whatever and my cadence drops below 80 or so, I burn out much faster.
*shrug*
Don't know... works for me. Chugga-chugga-chugga up that hill! Popovich that b*tch!
09-10-09, 07:30 AM
#147
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,296
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8281 Post(s)
Liked 9,053 Times
in
4,479 Posts
09-10-09, 07:45 AM
#149
Headset-press carrier
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corrales New Mexico
Posts: 2,137
Bikes: Kona with Campy 8, Lynskey Ti with Rival, Bianchi pista, Raleigh Team Frame with SRAM Red, Specialized Stump Jumper, Surley Big Dummy
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Interesting, it's usually the opposite. On the google wattage group this comes up from time to time and I'm not sure of the reason but there are some people that can maintain power on flats or the descent better than on climbs. I think it may be due somewhat to motivational issues and muscle development (i.e. you use stronger muscles riding on the flats).
I guess the goal is to lower all the physiological efforts (HR specifically) while maintaining what I can now on the flats. Use core use ass/glutes
Also even though I've lived here for a while now, some of our long climbs start at 7K going to 12K and the higher the altitude you can't put out a lot even on the descents. Need more lung. When I go over to my sister's in the East Bay, I can climb those hills faster the first days I am there, but that Cali pollution finally gets to me.
Last edited by logdrum; 09-10-09 at 07:48 AM.
09-10-09, 07:57 AM
#150
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lexington, SC
Posts: 1,445
Bikes: Lynskey R240, 2013 CAAD10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
When you think about it, in the saddle going up a climb, you're pushing differently on the pedals. You've leaned forward a little more and the pendulum has roatated relative to your position. Basically, in the pedal rotation, your knee is now further back in the stroke when the crank arm is horizontal. I find this forces me to use my glutes more.