GhostRider62

Unichris, you have basically no data to guide you. I would try to get a rim based speed measurement and HR and start a little slower and then pour it on as you get closer to the top. If you are not gasping like you are dead at the end, you did not go hard enough. GPS is not good enough at slow speeds.

How I would do it? I would estimate how long in time in seconds. I would divide my anerobic power (FRC or W') by that time. I would add that to my FTP and then go into the hill in the big ring out of the saddle and not let up. If I felt good with 30 seconds to go, I would go harder but not usually possible unless a fitness breakthru. There is actually an AP (fee based) that displays this information real-time on your Garmin.

UniChris

Well, that was embarrassing. Just back from my worst ever attempt. Took the bike given the amount of icy spots on the ground and the need to run an errand first. Not worth going into the details, beyond the fact that any quest will have its ups and downs (I actually turned around at one point, and then finally decided to finish it anyway).

To be clear I do have a wheel counter speedometer on both bike and unicycle. The bike one I can actually watch steadily, the unicycle just risk a quick glance at now and then when trying to stay on top of a challenging climb.

So for the bike just shooting at a target speed may work. But the truth is I'm clearly not good at generating power seated on the bike yet, so will need to work on that more. Maybe I should first try to PR the 1% rail grade through town, LOL (I don't even feel it on the unicycle, but now I know why my niece has always been so much slower on the way to the park than the way back)

woodcraft

I tend to leave a little in reserve until the last chunk, then use up whatever gas is left- better than starting too hard, and bogging down at the end.

There is a hill on a regular route, about 500', that I did very fast one time, but have never come close to that time again, trying repeatedly. Sigh...

Cdst

Things that have worked for me to PR on short (under 5 minute) climbs.

• If the incline varies, don't tire yourself out so much on the steeper parts that you need to reduce your power and rest on the flatter parts. I don't have anything scientific here, but I think this has worked for me because keeping the power on when its flatter results in a higher percentage speed gain than it does in the steep sections. I feel like I can ride double the speed in the flatter parts, but maybe only 50% faster in the steeper parts.
• Be warmed up, but still extremely fresh. I have done better after warming up for 2-3 minutes than 10-12.
• stay in the saddle as much as you can... until the end. If the end is flat then just stay seated the whole time (of course use your judgement, some climbs might be best suited for a few out of the saddle stretches early on or midway through). When I'm going for a PR, I tend to give it everything when I'm out of the saddle, but according to my power meter I usually can only surpass my seated power for 10-20 seconds. And standing is a big aero disadvantage (not significant at 5mph however).

These are totally not scientifically supported, just my feeling. Please feel free to tell me if these recommendations go against the science that the pros use and I will see if I can use that knowledge to beat my PRs

UniChris

Interesting thought. I really have been using the more moderate section before the final push as a chance to get things back under control, even when I didn't make a crazy effort on the steeper parts. Will have to think about that more.

The hill is about 3 miles form home, so I get a nice warmup headed out there (a fair chunk of it at 1% climb, or more up and down if I have to take the road due to ice and snow on the rail trail). Taking a break shortly before the attack might make sense - today I'd discovered my phone had frozen and had to connect the charger to revive it(!)

This is part of what's unfamiliar for me. I've done very little riding out of saddle since buying an actual bike last month, but the tilted forward unicycle climbing position is even if still in contact with the saddle closer to riding a bike out of saddle than it is to a seated spin - the few times I've stood up on the bike it's been an "okay, that's what was missing!" - but I haven't so far resorted to that on this climb. Getting used to really cranking out the watts on longer cranks when seated is new to my body. I could and maybe will try raising the seat another half inch, but it's already up there.

GhostRider62

To minimize time, always make the harder efforts when going slower or in other words, on the steep part rather than on the flat part.

PeteHski

Yeah, you got the science completely back to front there, lol! Using more power on the steeper sections and less on the flatter sections is the most efficient way of minimising your total time. Obviously it's a balance, but that's the way it works. You generally stand to lose more time on a steeper section than you do on a flatter section when you back off the power. Pacing algorithms like BestBikeSplits always have higher power targets on the steeper parts of a climb.

Cdst

yeah mathematically this checks out. a 500 ft steep section will take more seconds than a 500 ft flat section, and if doubling the power doubles the speed then there is more time to be saved on the steeper section. And while going slower, more power goes to increasing speed vs power being lost to higher aerodynamic drag. Like I said my experience is unscientific, but I always end up taking more time when I try and shift more energy expenditure to the steep sections.

PeteHski

Yeah, if you try too hard and completely blow up on the steepest sections, then the science goes out of the window. But it is worth knowing that deliberately taking it easy on the steepest parts and then pushing hard on the flatter sections is not a good strategy. Better to do it the other way round within your comfort zone.

tomato coupe

It's still not that simple, if you're pushing yourself to the limit. If you're capable of doubling your power on the 500 ft. steep section, you should be able to more than double your power on the 500 ft. less steep section, because you don't have to sustain the power for as long.

UniChris

Probably, but to what effect?

Riding the faster parts faster doesn't make as much gain in the overall time as riding the slower parts less slowly.

The folks who argued that have a definite point.

I'm reminded of a classic word problem that takes this to extreme: You're to drive from point A to point B at an average of 60 miles per hour. You drive the first half of the journey at 30 mph. How fast must you drive the remainder?

burnthesheep

When they say this, they don't mean double. Or even 50% harder. Or maybe not even 25% harder.

If you have a 20min climb and you can do 300w for 20min. That's kind of a budget. It doesn't work out to do even 25% extra for a few min then back off. 25% extra is 75w.

They're talking more like do 310 or 315 short/steep then do 290 long/easier. Even then, the average will be less than 300 as 300 is best possible when evenly paced. Lookup "over under intervals" as a workout. That kind of workout is what would be meant by that. Usually the overs are like 105% and the unders 95%.

Koyote

O a 3/4 mile climb at 5% grade, I'd be up off the saddle for a significant chunk of the hill - esp on the steeper sections.

UniChris

I'll admit that's tempting, but my understanding is it's not really called for or considered ideal?

I don't even have very low range gearing, but what I do have is well enough to make it possible seated.

My body may be more used to climbing it in an almost-standing unicycle position, but everything I understand is that this is a climb that should be taken seated on a bike.

tomato coupe

Riding a steeper section at double power will, in fact, give a faster time than riding double power on a less steep section of the same length. But, riding double power on the steeper section requires more effort, because you have to hold double power longer. So, part of your theoretical time advantage is just due to the fact that you're expending more effort. For a more realistic comparison, you must allow for riding at more than double power on the less steep section, so that the overall effort is the same.

woodcraft

I disagree. On the climb that I mentioned, I analyzed The KOM in relation to my PR, & on the steep section the power/speed was not that different, but on the flatter section the KOM was way faster. By your reasoning, the KOM would have been kind of the reverse- big difference on the steep section in relation to my lesser effort. (The climb in question w/ over 42,000 Strava attempts)

sean.hwy

If you can believe this bicycle calculator, it's better to use more watts on the hills.
I used the standard defaults on everything. The only thing I changed was the grade 0%, -10%, 10% and varied the watts between 150 watts and 200 watts.


https://www.gribble.org/cycling/power_v_speed.html

0% grade flat
11.17% faster
If you apply 150 watts of power, you will ride at velocity 18.62 mph.
If you apply 200 watts of power, you will ride at velocity 20.81 mph.

-10% downhill grade
.01% faster
If you apply 150 watts of power, you will ride at velocity 46.15 mph.
If you apply 200 watts of power, you will ride at velocity 46.76 mph.

10% uphill grade
32% faster
If you apply 150 watts of power, you will ride at velocity 3.86 mph.
If you apply 200 watts of power, you will ride at velocity 5.12 mph.

PeteHski

It's not my reasoning. It's just real physics. But it doesn't imply that you can go full gas on the steeps and then cruise on the flatter sections. The difference in power might be quite subtle depending on the gradients involved. If you put a link to your Strava segment I'll run it through BestBikeSplit for you. I can guarantee the fastest solution will involve higher power targets on the steeper sections.

GhostRider62

All hills are different but let's say the hill is steady at 8% but there is a pitch at 12%, I was not suggesting accelerating but merely increasing power some in order not too lose too much momentum. On a short climb, one is just metering out the functional reserve capacity or W', which is sort of like having a little battery that drains and recharges during a ride. I would spend that battery juice on steeper pitches rather than increasing output on any flat section, where I would just keep the power steady. At least that is how I do it.

I have a 4:06 PB on one climb and have never cracked 4:20 since doing it. I use Strava and wonder if it was a GPS glitch although I did it without power meter and after riding my bike cross country, so, my suffering ability was pretty good. A short 3-4 minute hill is all about suffering.

UniChris

You're seeing how air resistance rapidly soaks up wattage at the higher speeds you plugged in such that adding power there doesn't make as much difference as adding it to slower sections.
​​​​​​
But in the realm where I'm riding the air resistance increase if speeding up 6-7 (faster steep) vs 8-9 mph (faster shallow) is not yet a big deal.

For the guy who holds the KOM with an average of maybe 14 mph or so (which might vary well be 10 on the steep and 18 on the shallow) then it could matter.

There's a longer segment encompassing this one that has an additional preview climb and some descent before the main one, there figuring out what speed to carry through that could get into a lot more strategy, though that's beyond the scope of my current little personal quest.

Yesterday I did use the descent to charge the start of the interesting segment, one of my mistakes was likely in keeping the speed up too long into the actual climb. But I also clearly just need to get into pushing myself on the bike more consistently during rides in general, have been using it more for relaxed utility stuff than goal rides.

burnthesheep

The other folks in here keep ignoring physiology also. As in you can't hammer at VO2 power for a few minutes of a climb then expect to get anywhere near your PR average power for the full climb.

This is a fake climb, but looking close you can see when the slope eases and speed goes up I let the power ease up on the Alpe du Zwift:
https://www.strava.com/activities/5449234635/overview

seypat

Crash and burn, baby! Who cares about the PR?

GhostRider62

That is a 75 minute climb. Apples to rocks comparison. OP's climb is 3-5 minutes. If a rider has an FTP of 300 watts and W' of 20,000 joules and if the climb is 250 seconds, the rider can ride at 300 watts + (20,0000/250) = 380 watts. The legs have to be fresh, of course.

UniChris is ignoring rather simple physics. The easiest way to minimize time to distance is to go hardest when you are going the slowest and easiest when going fastest. Easy/hard is relative. It might be +/- 10-15% off FTP.

burnthesheep

Ohhhhh, oops. Well, a hair under 50min for me. I was under race weight at the time and had just finished my A-race TT prep and race. So fitness was also optimal. I didn't realize for some reason it was just 3 to 5min hill. Yeah, that's ummmm just "to the wall" the whole time. I still wouldn't pace it too over or under though if you know what your 5min power is.

Curiosity, how did you get to the W' figure? My inquiring mind would like to learn more how to do that math.

UniChris

I'm "ignoring" nothing - I already recognized that point last night, and mentioned such in posts:

To be correct I should have said "improvement" instead of "gain"