Jump to content

My Hill Climbing Technique


Henley 1

Recommended Posts

 

  • Look at what the pros do. Are they standing? When are they standing? 
  • I don't believe these muscles work very much during ascending. The upper body should be relaxed, so the arms shouldn't be doing work. 
  • What you described with the energies is a total wastage. The require energy to LIFT your body (quads). Then you want to use the potential energy from your body mass to force it into the pedals, but then over and over again? Doesn't that sound exhausting? 
  • Sounds like a bunny hop to me  :blink:
  • Ones knee is never dead straight.

In conclusion - look at the pros. Their upper bodies do not bob and weave like a boxer. They are using the superior power from their quads and hammies to generate wattage beyond our wildest imagination. If you want an efficient pedaling technique up the hill, go and tackle some hills, or assess what your mates do. 

 

 

It was found recently that using your upper body - which means bobbing around your upper body - can make a climber save 3% leg power at the same speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think best is to use both seated and standing for best climbing. The fitter I get the more I stand on climbs. It is like taking a break from sitting and pedaling, and when a little extra power is needed standing is the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no such thing as free energy, so which ever muscles you use, you will be basically using the same motion as climbing stairs when you are standing and climbing. Do you climb stairs using your quads, or do you bounce up by using your calves? 

 

 

Spot on. If you are gaining potential energy by lifting yourself up out of the saddle to a greater height, you have to expend energy getting there. Also, the weight that the saddle was previously supporting, is now being supported by your legs.

 

I'd say the best climbing technique is to just do a lot of climbing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its quite commonly accepted that standing is less energy efficient than sitting but you get more power through than sitting.

 

Check out this video of Contador talking about climbing

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need (meaningful) comments on my theory please:

·       If done correctly, the stand-up position of hill climbing (very slow cadence) can be more energy-efficient than when seated and spinning at high cadence

·       Use mostly calves and triceps muscles, thus saving the quads and ham strings

·       Principle of elevating body weight against gravity (with minimal use of upper legs) then transferring this gain in potential energy into kinetic energy

·       In the standing position, when the right foot is at the bottom (6 o’clock) you push up with the right calve and simultaneously help with both arms to bounce the whole body up against gravity

·       Moments later you straighten the right knee asap

·       You recover the potential energy in the form of rotational kinetic energy with the (straight) right leg from the 2 to 6 o’clock down stroke

 

Any links on the Internet exploring this and other optimal advanced techniques for hill climbing?

Thanks

 

 

Now hang on a second here.......and indulge me for a moment.......

 

You really don't have a clue about the anatomy of the leg......let alone the theory of efficient climbing....

 

And you have the  audacity to question the understanding of your fellow forumers ........?

 

Quoted as per your post :

 

"Brickleberry seems to understand what I describes. 

I will experiment on an IDT, keeping watts constant and comparing heart rate.

Disappointed about the lack of technical understanding of some readers, and disappointed that the answer had not clearly been determined in lab conditions somewhere on planet Earth  :-(

Thanx anyway"

 

First off the word is 'describe'

 

Now back to the issue at hand........

 

Standing and pedalling at a slow cadence will use mostly calves and triceps according to your theory......the triceps should not take a beating unless you are sprinting......pedalling at a lower cadence means a heavier gear requiring more power.....by doing this you will be putting more effort in to the Vastus medialis and lateralis, extra effort will go in to the rectus femorus for you to be able to turn the power required.......for the heavier gear at "very slow cadence" as you so eloquently  pointed it out.....

Bigger muscles groups have a tendency to become tired much quicker......which by this theory will render you useless on a 14 k. climb similar to Alpe d'Huez  before you even reach the halfway mark .

 

Using the body against gravity.....mmmmm interesting but no.....the body is one moer of an apple......standing allows you to throw more body weight in to the pedals giving you more power allowing you to up your cadence as required to be able to get to the top quicker.......

 

The leg never gets to 6 o'clock......if it does your saddle is too high.....now I am no mathematician and the math bofs can help us here but a higher cadence that is more efficient to ride and makes it easier to turn the cranks by using less power and impact on the bigger muscle groups.....should be the more effective way of riding.

 

Power.......lets's see.....we turn a cadence of 100 at 250 watts and it gives us a total of 25 000 watts.......a cadence of 60 at 320 watts gives us a total of 19 200 watts.......less watts and bigger impact to the bigger muscle groups (mathematicians all help would be appreciated)

 

Standing or sitting......purely rider dependant........some are Pantani's and some are Ullrich's......where is the Sheriff when we really need him  :cursing: 

Edited by BarHugger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now hang on a second here.......and indulge me for a moment.......

 

You really don't have a clue about the anatomy of the leg......let alone the theory of efficient climbing....

 

And you have the  audacity to question the understanding of your fellow forumers ........?

 

Quoted as per your post :

 

"Brickleberry seems to understand what I describes. 

I will experiment on an IDT, keeping watts constant and comparing heart rate.

Disappointed about the lack of technical understanding of some readers, and disappointed that the answer had not clearly been determined in lab conditions somewhere on planet Earth  :-(

Thanx anyway"

 

First off the word is 'describe'

 

Now back to the issue at hand........

 

Standing and pedalling at a slow cadence will use mostly calves and triceps according to your theory......the triceps should not take a beating unless you are sprinting......pedalling at a lower cadence means a heavier gear requiring more power.....by doing this you will be putting more effort in to the Vastus medialis and lateralis, extra effort will go in to the rectus femorus for you to be able to turn the power required.......for the heavier gear at "very slow cadence" as you so eloquently  pointed it out.....

Bigger muscles groups have a tendency to become tired much quicker......which by this theory will render you useless on a 14 k. climb similar to Alpe d'Huez  before you even reach the halfway mark .

 

Using the body against gravity.....mmmmm interesting but no.....the body is one moer of an apple......standing allows you to throw more body weight in to the pedals giving you more power allowing you to up your cadence as required to be able to get to the top quicker.......

 

The leg never gets to 6 o'clock......if it does your saddle is too high.....now I am no mathematician and the math bofs can help us here but a higher cadence that is more efficient to ride and makes it easier to turn the cranks by using less power and impact on the bigger muscle groups.....should be the more effective way of riding.

 

Power.......lets's see.....we turn a cadence of 100 at 250 watts and it gives us a total of 25 000 watts.......a cadence of 60 at 320 watts gives us a total of 19 200 watts.......less watts and bigger impact to the bigger muscle groups (mathematicians all help would be appreciated)

 

Standing or sitting......purely rider dependant........some are Pantani's and some are Ullrich's......where is the Sheriff when we really need him  :cursing: 

This is very complicated....blah blah blah....

 

This is the simple answer.....from a ladies perspective ;)

If you are fat.... remain seated

If you are hot....then please stand all you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you weak - sit and spin with a compact chainset and a 29 rear cog. IF you strong and can manage stand and use a big ring in front and mid size cog in rear with hands on hoods. Easy hey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very complicated....blah blah blah....

 

This is the simple answer.....from a ladies perspective ;)

If you are fat.... remain seated

If you are hot....then please stand all you like.

 

Is this advice for men or ladies or both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standing is far less efficient as you have to carry your weight on your legs.

Low cadence strains the muscles.

High cadence means less force - high cadence apparently helps to get rid of the lactic acid.

 

Think of high performance cars - small pistons high revs.

 

You can't choose which muscles to use or not to use when standing.

 

The way I approach hills - stay seated for as long as you can and change gears sooner rather than later.

Stand to make a break or to keep on someones tail but stand for as short as possible.

Get that man a Bells.

Spot on.

Case closed.

Bounce on over and fetch me some ice please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the odd 10 second of standing on LONG climbs assist as a kinda break of the seated climbing muscles 

Edited by ' Dale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would Lance do?

 

I know you not seriously asking but...

 

Lance (i think) liked to stand more (because of back pain) but was advised by his coaches (Carmichael and Ferrari) to sit and spin rather

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now hang on a second here.......and indulge me for a moment.......

 

You really don't have a clue about the anatomy of the leg......let alone the theory of efficient climbing....

 

And you have the  audacity to question the understanding of your fellow forumers ........?

 

Quoted as per your post :

 

"Brickleberry seems to understand what I describes. 

I will experiment on an IDT, keeping watts constant and comparing heart rate.

Disappointed about the lack of technical understanding of some readers, and disappointed that the answer had not clearly been determined in lab conditions somewhere on planet Earth  :-(

Thanx anyway"

 

First off the word is 'describe'

 

Now back to the issue at hand........

 

Standing and pedalling at a slow cadence will use mostly calves and triceps according to your theory......the triceps should not take a beating unless you are sprinting......pedalling at a lower cadence means a heavier gear requiring more power.....by doing this you will be putting more effort in to the Vastus medialis and lateralis, extra effort will go in to the rectus femorus for you to be able to turn the power required.......for the heavier gear at "very slow cadence" as you so eloquently  pointed it out.....

Bigger muscles groups have a tendency to become tired much quicker......which by this theory will render you useless on a 14 k. climb similar to Alpe d'Huez  before you even reach the halfway mark .

 

Using the body against gravity.....mmmmm interesting but no.....the body is one moer of an apple......standing allows you to throw more body weight in to the pedals giving you more power allowing you to up your cadence as required to be able to get to the top quicker.......

 

The leg never gets to 6 o'clock......if it does your saddle is too high.....now I am no mathematician and the math bofs can help us here but a higher cadence that is more efficient to ride and makes it easier to turn the cranks by using less power and impact on the bigger muscle groups.....should be the more effective way of riding.

 

Power.......lets's see.....we turn a cadence of 100 at 250 watts and it gives us a total of 25 000 watts.......a cadence of 60 at 320 watts gives us a total of 19 200 watts.......less watts and bigger impact to the bigger muscle groups (mathematicians all help would be appreciated)

 

Standing or sitting......purely rider dependant........some are Pantani's and some are Ullrich's......where is the Sheriff when we really need him  :cursing: 

 

Did u really need to add that last bit?

 

Your comments above sound a lot like him  :whistling:  and you should know that the sheriff does not miss this pathetic forum (his words not mine) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very complicated....blah blah blah....

 

 

If you are hot....then please stand all you like.

 

You might have a point there....

 

Standing increases the surface area, which while moving forwards will increase resistance (that's bad) and increase the skin surface area exposed to the moving air resulting from the forward motion effort, potentially increasing the cooling effect or perception of being cooled (that's good if you are to hot),....

 

jaa you are right its far to complicated 

 

as we were

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout