# Hills are killing me



## STLBILLY (Aug 1, 2012)

So I have read just about ever post on hills and thought I had it down but I was wrong. Basically I did my first group ride yesterday, over 2k people. I have always read on hills, to spin faster and not use as much force so that is what I typically do. When I begin to struggle I tend to drop it to the lowest gears and spin fast. This is when I get passed by everyone. I was keeping a good pace and was passing people left and right and when it would come to a hill they would pass me, then on flats and downhill I would pass them again (game of leap frog). I am a larger guy 6'5" 285 so I am carrying more weight than them but I have no clue what I am doing wrong. I practice hills, but again I always drop the gears and spin fast to get up the hills. I appreciate your advice. Thanks.


----------



## Daren (Jul 25, 2008)

Spinning is good, especially if you are comfortable with the higher cadence. A lot of it is simple your weight. That's why many of the good climbers in the pro peleton look like prepubescent girls, 'cause it takes a tiny f---er to go uphill quick. It is what it is. Use your strengths on the flats to buffer your weaknesses on the hills. We all yo yo. And keep climbing. Mix up your attempts on hills. Do some big gear slow cadence climbing. That will develop your muscle strength. Find a hill you can spin 130 cadence and do just that. Eventually you'll be spinning your preferred in a bigger gear and going faster. Also, find a long hill and climb it where you are comfortable, then every 2-3 minutes, stand up and accelerate until you feel like your legs are gonna fall apart. That'll help in closing gaps on your rides if they develop


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

285lbs, there's your problem.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Spinning up hills is fairly generic advice. Spinning what kind of gearing? As a light weight racer with high cadence, I like to keep high cadence with a 34x23 or a 34x25 on steep climbs. Even at my light weight, it's still a considerable effort to spin up steep climbs in this gearing. 

At 285lbs, it's a little unrealistic expecting to keep up with everyone in the hills unless you have extreme strength on the bike. It would probably be a good idea to consider a pretty low gearing for climbing.


----------



## STLBILLY (Aug 1, 2012)

I thought the weight may have something to do with it. That is the whole reason for me getting into cycling is to lose some weight and get back into shape. I usually will drop it to the lowest gear and still be struggling.

Can someone help me understand the 34x23 numbers. I try and keep my cadence above 90, but average 87 and on hills it drops to 60s sometimes.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The numbers are front chainring gears x rear gears. A standard crankset is 53/39 and a compact has 50/34. Smaller gears on the crankset and bigger gears in back translate to a lower gear ratio for the hills.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Spinning, pace, ect all help but they are unique to the individual so you'll need to figure that for your self by trial and error. The main thing that helps climbing is getting in better shape. That means either less weight, more power or ideally a combination of both because nothing changes the fact your body needs to produce xx power to move yy pounds up a hill. There's no free lunch, you have to produce the power to move the weight so fitness is the first and foremost way to improve climbing.


----------



## MikeWMass (Oct 15, 2011)

At least you are getting up the hills, so you have something to work with. 
IMHO, if you are able to keep your cadence at or above 80 on the hills you do, you have no need for a lower gear (smaller front and/or larger rear). As long as you are putting some effort into it and not just cruising up the hill you will get stronger. As that happens, and also if you lose weight, you will be able to do the same in a higher gear, and therefore go faster.


----------



## 4Crawler (Jul 13, 2011)

What I have found that helps me with hills is to occasionally push a taller gear. So instead of shifting to your largest cog in back, stop at the next smaller one and try riding that gear instead. Or on a triple crank, try sticking to the middle instead of the smaller ring. And on shorter hills, instead of dropping down, stay in a taller gear and stand up on the climb. Gradually, you'll get to the point on longer hills that you can do them one gear higher. When you reach that point, repeat the process. What I have found with my riding (getting back into riding after ~25 yrs. of little riding), I tend to spin up hills now (say in a 24-34) that I used to stand up and mash before (in a 40-24). With spinning, I found I don't increase leg strength as much and that is what it takes to push a taller gear. Spinning tends to be good for the cardio side, though. 

Some folks can do hill climbing intervals, but I have a hard time with those. So instead, I have recently got into cyclo-cross riding on fire roads and single track MTB trails. With that type of riding, you'll be on a climb in your lowest gear, pretty much maxed out and then the trail will kick up from say 18% to 25% for a short bit and you have no choice but to muscle your way up that ramp. I have found that type of riding has helped with my road climbing.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Spinning, pace, ect all help but they are unique to the individual so you'll need to figure that for your self by trial and error. The main thing that helps climbing is getting in better shape. That means either less weight, more power or ideally a combination of both because* nothing changes the fact your body needs to produce xx power to move yy pounds up a hill.* There's no free lunch, you have to produce the power to move the weight so fitness is the first and foremost way to improve climbing.


That's pretty much it. 

Along with honing in on the climbing style that'll work best for you, STW ratio (strength to weight) is going to determine how well (or not so well) you can climb. So IMO weight loss_ along with _hill repeats/ practice is what you'll need to show performance gains. 

I may be wrong on this, but from your description, you may be downshifting sooner than you need to. It's a definite plus to keep cadence up, but the idea is to only drop to the next lowest gear when you're unable to maintain 'adequate' cadence in the current one. 

Also (back to climbing style) the link below should provide some insight on a style that might work better for you. IMO/E when facing a climb, too many cyclists are too quick to get out of the saddle, but that's covered in the provided link. 

CYCLING PERFORMANCE TIPS -


----------



## JoePAz (Jul 20, 2012)

STLBILLY said:


> I thought the weight may have something to do with it. That is the whole reason for me getting into cycling is to lose some weight and get back into shape. I usually will drop it to the lowest gear and still be struggling.


Consider what would happen if all the riders around you had to strap 100 to 130lbs on thier backs and do the same climbs you do. They would be really slow. On the flats bigger guys are not at the same disadvantge as on the climbs. The reason is once up to speed you are mostly fighting wind resistance. Even being big does not cause you twice with wind resistance. However on the climbs you are probably just over 300lbs with the bike. Compare that to tiny rider at 130lbs and 20lbs bike and just to climb the hill you have to put out TWICE as much power. Power is just measure how much effort it takes to lift a given weight over certain distance and time. 

So how do you overcome this? You have to build more strength and power and lose weight.


----------



## JasonLopez (Aug 19, 2012)

4Crawler said:


> I have found that type of riding (MTB-ish) has helped with my road climbing.


2nd'ed. Lot's of advantages to riding MTB once a week because it simply forces you to do things differently.

Or cyclocross (but that's really just a bunch of nerds riding road bikes in the sand, mud, and obstacles yuck!)


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Simple math*



STLBILLY said:


> So I have read just about ever post on hills and thought I had it down but I was wrong. Basically I did my first group ride yesterday, over 2k people. I have always read on hills, to spin faster and not use as much force so that is what I typically do. When I begin to struggle I tend to drop it to the lowest gears and spin fast. This is when I get passed by everyone. I was keeping a good pace and was passing people left and right and when it would come to a hill they would pass me, then on flats and downhill I would pass them again (game of leap frog). I am a larger guy 6'5" 285 so I am carrying more weight than them but I have no clue what I am doing wrong. I practice hills, but again I always drop the gears and spin fast to get up the hills. I appreciate your advice. Thanks.


A strong amature racer (Cat. 2 or 3) might produce 4 watts per kg and therefore climb pretty well (a top climber in the professional ranks might approach 7 watts per kg). If you could produce 4 watts per kg then you would be putting out 520 watts which is huge. More likely you're putting out maybe 300 watts (or less) and so 2.3 watts per kg. You will not be a climber with that ratio. If you could get down to 200 lbs and keep that 300 watts (just for example) then you would be hitting 3.3 watts per kg and would be perhaps 50% faster up the hills than you are now. When it comes to physics, it's all about the math.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

STLBILLY said:


> So I have read just about ever post on hills and thought I had it down but I was wrong. Basically I did my first group ride yesterday, over 2k people. I have always read on hills, to spin faster and not use as much force so that is what I typically do. When I begin to struggle I tend to drop it to the lowest gears and spin fast. This is when I get passed by everyone. I was keeping a good pace and was passing people left and right and when it would come to a hill they would pass me, then on flats and downhill I would pass them again (game of leap frog). I am a larger guy 6'5" 285 so I am carrying more weight than them but I have no clue what I am doing wrong. I practice hills, but again I always drop the gears and spin fast to get up the hills. I appreciate your advice. Thanks.


1) Compared to lighter riders, heavier riders will climb slower and cruise faster. You'll descend faster but not enough to make up for the additional work climbing. The physics of larger riders cannot be ignored.

2) Pace yourself up the hill - better to start slow and finish strong. Even if I can keep pace the whole way up, it's not good for me to feel like my legs are going to burst at the top. Coming into a hill with momentum, it's tempting to work hard to carry that momentum as long as possible, but I don't think that helps because it becomes a resistance exercise and burns me out early.

3) Your technique of spinning sounds good but I find that for long hills it helps to spin some but also gear down a notch or two and stand on the pedals for steeper stretches.

4) Depending on the steepness of the hill and your leg strength you might do better with different gearing. Do you climb more than once per ride in your most granny gear?

David


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Don't give up all your gear right away. Certainly downshift as you lose speed. But it sounds like you're running to your lowest gear right away - if there's a period when you can't productively put power into the bike, you're leaving a bit of efficiency on the table.

It's useful to have good form out of the saddle, although people say that it's less useful for heavier riders. I think everyone should at least know how to do it well, and then do whatever works.

If you want to make hills easier (and yourself even slower) there are probably some changes you can make to the bike. But if you're getting to the tops of everything, you may not need to.


----------



## kevhogaz (Jul 28, 2007)

STLBILLY said:


> I thought the weight may have something to do with it. That is the whole reason for me getting into cycling is to lose some weight and get back into shape. I usually will drop it to the lowest gear and still be struggling.
> 
> *Can someone help me understand the 34x23 numbers*. I try and keep my cadence above 90, but average 87 and on hills it drops to 60s sometimes.


I'd suggest getting a 12-28 cassette, to help you climb a little better. I'm only 230, and I use a 34 tooth up front, and a 12-26/28 cassette depending on the climb. 12-23 is fine for flat ground, but you're killing yourself on the hills with that gearing.


----------



## twinkles (Apr 23, 2007)

At your size, I think your spinning technique is a good idea. If you start pushing big gears and standing up a lot, you are going to start breaking stuff. Just keep at it and you will fade less at the top of climbs


----------



## MPov (Oct 22, 2010)

I am a relatively small guy, 5'7" and 142 lbs. In my group rides and when I am out riding with friends I routinely pass everyone on the hills without even really trying,even riders who are stronger than me. They tend to catch up to me on the flats and we play leapfrog, with me passing on the hills and them passing on the flats. On the hills I usually just sit and spin while they really work it. It's all about weight. Someone who weighs over 200 pounds is going to have to be super-strong in order to pass me uphill.


----------



## twin001 (Jul 24, 2011)

Hills are like pull ups; at first they suck because you can't do them, but once you do them over and over they get a bit easier. However, at 285lbs, hills and pull ups are going to be very difficult for you. My advice, just keep working at them and don't think you need to be the fastest guy up them.


----------



## D&MsDad (Jul 17, 2007)

I wouldn't worry too much about speed, or about comparing yourself to others, unless you're racing. No matter how fast you are, and there are people (not me) posting on this forum who are quite fast, there is always, always someone faster. I've been riding regularly for 20 years, have 10's of thousands of miles in my legs, and I get passed on nearly every ride.

If your main goal is to lose weight, then spinning up hills is absolutely the right advice, even if you are not as fast as you'd like to be. If you are a relative new comer to cycling, then spinning up hills is absolutely the right advice. If you want to enjoy your rides, then spinning up hills is absolutely the right advice.

Spinning is about putting less stress on your musclature and connective tissue and working your cardiovascular system. If you are just getting into cycling, then putting too much stress on your muscles/tendons/ligaments is a really good way to get some type of overuse injury. Keep spinning, lose weight if you can, and eventually, gradually you'll get faster. Busting it up a hill may make you feel good for the moment, but if you overstress your muscles it can make the rest of the ride painful (or end it with cramps).

One fine day, maybe next month, maybe next year, maybe later, you'll be going up a hill that used to kick your butt and all of a sudden you'll notice that you're kicking it's butt instead. You may still get passed, but you'll have transitioned from surviving the hill to attacking it.

Be patient, keep at it, have fun.





------------------------------


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

I weigh 200lbs and ride now and then with a neighbor who weighs 150. He's got many years of riding experience and goes up hills effortlessly by comparison to me with a few months of riding working by rear off going up them. On the other hand, going down hills I need to brake if he is coasting or he needs to pedal if I am coasting to stay even. The net sum for a hill though overall is he is faster even if we both coast down the hill, the weight going down doesn't make up for the weight going up, not even close.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

I went riding with a buddy who is 65 pounds lighter (160, 6'1" vs 225, 6'). It was absolutely ridiculous to see him effortlessly disappear uphill. After seeing him pull away on the first one, I told him to not hold back on my account and to push himself. 

The guy would get to the top of the hill, ride back down park himself beside me and talk me up to the summit (and I use that term loosely). On flats to slight declines...watch out... I was 225lbs of pure purpose!

I've gotten dropped so many times, I stopped giving a [expletive]. You're out there, you're getting stronger and that's all that should matter to you. Put in enough time and you will see results. I have seen improvement over the course of a 1,000 miles (first season back). I no longer need that granny gear on mid-climbs... in saddle, out of saddle...shut up legs.... and I don't do intervals or any of that fancy stuff, just get out there and sweat.


----------



## D&MsDad (Jul 17, 2007)

9W9W said:


> I don't do intervals or any of that fancy stuff, just get out there and sweat.


Unless you shift to a lower gear and maintain the same cadence and heart rate, then hills ARE intervals. Unstructured and unplanned, maybe, but intervals none the less.





-------------------------


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

D&MsDad said:


> Unless you shift to a lower gear and maintain the same cadence and heart rate, then hills ARE intervals. Unstructured and unplanned, maybe, but intervals none the less.
> 
> -------------------------


Huh, you're right.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

STLBILLY said:


> So I have read just about ever post on hills and thought I had it down but I was wrong. Basically I did my first group ride yesterday, over 2k people. I have always read on hills, to spin faster and not use as much force so that is what I typically do. When I begin to struggle I tend to drop it to the lowest gears and spin fast. This is when I get passed by everyone. I was keeping a good pace and was passing people left and right and when it would come to a hill they would pass me, then on flats and downhill I would pass them again (game of leap frog). I am a larger guy 6'5" 285 so I am carrying more weight than them but I have no clue what I am doing wrong. I practice hills, but again I always drop the gears and spin fast to get up the hills. I appreciate your advice. Thanks.


I've seen this from my Wife too - a white flag retreat from expending effort on hills. Instead of scuttling all the way to your lowest gear, try pushing a little higher gear and see if you can still maintain a 90rpm cadence.

Hills are harder. No 'trick' to overcome that.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Look on the bright side: you can beat almost anyone going downhill!


----------



## Yukikaze (Oct 24, 2012)

Will changing from platform pedals to clipless pedals assist in climbing hills?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Yukikaze said:


> Will changing from platform pedals to clipless pedals assist in climbing hills?


Not IME, but improving the motor and STW (strength to weight) ratio, will.

Here's a related thread on the question of clipless and any performance increases.
Need a ruling on pedals - Page 2 - Road Bike, Cycling Forums


----------



## Yukikaze (Oct 24, 2012)

Thanks for the link PJ352. That thread is very informative.


----------



## kineticFL (Nov 14, 2012)

Bumping this thread......for us clydes on group rides......whats the protocol in a group ride when you come up to a hill? Should you pull out and drift back before the climb?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I don't really understand the question.

Are you trying to make people wait even longer for you?

IMO, just set yourself up to do your own best climb. It sounds like you anticipate people waiting for you one way or the other. That's fine; the faster people understand that they'll do a certain amount of waiting on a no-drop ride, and they'd be riding on their own if it bothered them that much. But don't second-guess or sabotage yourself either.


----------



## kevhogaz (Jul 28, 2007)

I try to keep up as long as I can on shorter climbs. On the long ones, I accept my fate and fall back to the back. No reason to ride in everybody's way!!


----------



## kineticFL (Nov 14, 2012)

I'm not sure how to make it more clear. If you are mid pack but know riders behind you will be able to climb faster than you, should you pull out and fall back before the climb.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

In general, no. Climb your own best climb, from wherever in the group you happen to be. The people who are behind you and can outclimb you can also get around you.

If you're going to stop mid-climb and start pushing your bike, though, you'd probably piss everyone off a lot less if you did it from the back of the group. That tends to be more abrupt and very annoying for the person behind you, especially if he's at redline.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

AndrwSwitch said:


> In general, no. Climb your own best climb, from wherever in the group you happen to be. The people who are behind you and can outclimb you can also get around you.
> 
> If you're going to stop mid-climb and start pushing your bike, though, you'd probably piss everyone off a lot less if you did it from the back of the group. That tends to be more abrupt and very annoying for the person behind you, especially if he's at redline.


I agree. I think the posters comments relate more to general group riding rules/ etiquette, where _be predictable/ be steady_ are key. 

http://www.bamacyclist.com/articles/groupridetech.html


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

I think you're just too heavy to go uphill at decent pace. You should plan for that weakness and just make up ground on the flats/downhills. Also, maybe you don't need to drop it in the lowest gear. Try 1 or 2 gears higher.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

kevhogaz said:


> I'd suggest getting a 12-28 cassette, to help you climb a little better. I'm only 230, and I use a 34 tooth up front, and a 12-26/28 cassette depending on the climb. 12-23 is fine for flat ground, but you're killing yourself on the hills with that gearing.


at that weight a compact crank would not be the best choice -- on most hills, spinning a 34x25 (or 28) just won't generate enough watts to move 285lbs without some unreasonably high cadence (think 120-130 rpms)


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

dnmoss said:


> at that weight a compact crank would not be the best choice -- on most hills, spinning a 34x25 (or 28) just won't generate enough watts to move 285lbs without some unreasonably high cadence (think 120-130 rpms)


This post doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

nhluhr said:


> This post doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


First, let's accept that all else being equal a higher cadence generates higher wattage. 

Let's also accept that all else being equal, a lower gear ratio requires a higher cadence to generate the same wattage as a higher gear ratio.


Without getting too technical here and using pretty general math...

Two people traveling the same speed over a given distance need to generate roughly the same watts/kg. 

I weigh 63kg while the OP is 129kg -- he needs to generate ~2x the wattage to maintain the same speed -- especially going up hill. If I ride ~230 watts he needs to ride ~470. 

I can spin a lower gear ratio and generate 230 watts -- but for him to generate 470 watts using the same gear ratio requires substantially greater torque and cadence.

This is why small guys, like me, can get away with compact cranks while the bigger guys generally use a standard -- with the added weight they need more power to move the same speed over a given distance -- and should have the strength to push a larger gear to do so...

If I were 285 lbs, I'd be working on my fitness and strength until I could turn over that 39/28 with a gear ratio of 2.8 (~18% higher than my 34/28)


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

dnmoss said:


> First, let's accept that all else being equal a higher cadence generates higher wattage.
> 
> Let's also accept that all else being equal, a lower gear ratio requires a higher cadence to generate the same wattage as a higher gear ratio.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but this post further clarifies that you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## shnipe (Jun 6, 2011)

dnmoss said:


> First, let's accept that all else being equal a higher cadence generates higher wattage.
> 
> Let's also accept that all else being equal, a lower gear ratio requires a higher cadence to generate the same wattage as a higher gear ratio.
> 
> ...


Always comes back down to the math mixed with a bit of HTFU.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

nhluhr said:


> I'm sorry, but this post further clarifies that you have no idea what you're talking about.


please enlighten us :idea:


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

dnmoss said:


> please enlighten us :idea:


You're implying that a rider can simply increase his power by running different equipment. No such thing can happen. The only thing a rider can do to increase power is training. You're suggesting that a guy who has trouble going uphill because of his weight will have an easier time if he chooses HIGHER gearing. That's like telling a guy to shift to his big ring for hills.

Until the heavier rider can produce enough power, he will have to settle for going slower with lower gears if he wants to ride up the hills. That means a wider cassette or a compact crank (or even a triple).


----------



## Dg designs (Jun 24, 2012)

I struggle with hills as well at about 210. I will say that as a new rider I didn't push my legs hard enough(I have been riding about 6 months). When it got steep I would go to the 34/25 right away and spin as much as I could. I am sure it helped with my cardio but it takes forever. Recently I have really tried not to drop to the big cog unless my legs are failing. It's helped me build up leg strength and helped me improve greatly. Sure my heart is beating out of my chest but it was doing that when I was spinning as well.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

nhluhr said:


> You're implying that a rider can simply increase his power by running different equipment. No such thing can happen. The only thing a rider can do to increase power is training. You're suggesting that a guy who has trouble going uphill because of his weight will have an easier time if he chooses HIGHER gearing. That's like telling a guy to shift to his big ring for hills.
> 
> Until the heavier rider can produce enough power, he will have to settle for going slower with lower gears if he wants to ride up the hills. That means a wider cassette or a compact crank (or even a triple).


Not implying that changing gearing can help him generate more power. Was saying that due to the high weight (130kg) the power necessary for him to keep up with a little guy will require too high a cadence at a low gear ratio to be sustainable (in other words, I don't think he can spin the 34 fast enough for long enough). Do you disagree that with a higher gear ratio you can generate more power with lower cadence --- the effort in and power produced are the same, it's just the cadence that changes due to the different mechanical advantages of using a 2.8 vs 2.4 gear ratio.

I agree with you that he is not going to keep up with a smaller climber until fitness improves (regardless of equipment)...but you are implying he cannot build fitness in a standard crank, which I disagree with...


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Not IME, but improving the motor and STW (strength to weight) ratio, will.
> 
> Here's a related thread on the question of clipless and any performance increases.
> Need a ruling on pedals - Page 2 - Road Bike, Cycling Forums


I disagree with this. Climbing is all about keeping a smooth motion on the pedals; trying to make the most perfect circles possible. Every time you're over the dead sopt of the pedal stroke your bike will start to slow down, and you'll have to make up for that speed decrease by pushing little bit harder on the power stroke. With every pedal stroke you're fighting inertia by slowing down and speeding up constantly. That's what climbing is, but clipless pedals help minimize that.

It's the same reason why pros forgo aero wheels, in favor of the lightest wheels possible. Not to reduce the weight of the bike, because they have a minim weight requirement, but to reduce the inertia on climbs.

I could not imagine climbing at the same speed with platform pedals, would not even be close. Just my opinion.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

dnmoss said:


> Not implying that changing gearing can help him generate more power.


Yes, you are. Multiple times. Here, let me show you (in red):


dnmoss said:


> at that weight a compact crank would not be the best choice -- on most hills, spinning a 34x25 (or 28) just won't generate enough watts to move 285lbs without some unreasonably high cadence (think 120-130 rpms)





dnmoss said:


> First, let's accept that all else being equal a higher cadence generates higher wattage.
> 
> Let's also accept that all else being equal, a lower gear ratio requires a higher cadence to generate the same wattage as a higher gear ratio.
> 
> ...





> Was saying that due to the high weight (130kg) the power necessary for him to keep up with a little guy will require too high a cadence at a low gear ratio to be sustainable (in other words, I don't think he can spin the 34 fast enough for long enough). Do you disagree that *with a higher gear ratio you can generate more power* with lower cadence --- the effort in and power produced are the same, it's just the cadence that changes due to the different mechanical advantages of using a 2.8 vs 2.4 gear ratio.
> 
> I agree with you that he is not going to keep up with a smaller climber until fitness improves (regardless of equipment)...but you are implying he cannot build fitness in a standard crank, which I disagree with...


The amount of power he is producing is related to speed, weight, and grade. Not his gearing. The gearing works itself out based on the speed. If you have two riders of the same weight and going the same speed, but one of them is in a gear that forces them to pedal 20rpm while the other is pedaling 80rpm in a different gear, they are still both making the same amount of power.

Your hypothetical of "spinning too high of an RPM" is nonsense. The fact of the matter is that Mr 285 is NOT going to be spinning some mysteriously high RPM to 'make more power' because frankly, he can't. His weight will mean explicitly that he goes slower. If he goes too slow, he gets into anaerobic muscle strength limitations and possibly starts doing joint damage. Until he can increase his power output through training, if he runs into a hill too steep to climb in his current lowest gear, the only thing he can do is choose a lower gear.

This is EXACTLY the same issue as a person who, riding along a flat, encounters a hill and is forced to shift to a lower gear to keep moving. If you can't keep going in your current gear, choose a lower gear.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

SFTifoso said:


> I disagree with this. Climbing is all about keeping a smooth motion on the pedals; trying to make the most perfect circles possible. Every time you're over the dead sopt of the pedal stroke your bike will start to slow down, and you'll have to make up for that speed decrease by pushing little bit harder on the power stroke. With every pedal stroke you're fighting inertia by slowing down and speeding up constantly. That's what climbing is, but clipless pedals help minimize that.
> 
> It's the same reason why pros forgo aero wheels, in favor of the lightest wheels possible. Not to reduce the weight of the bike, because they have a minim weight requirement, but to reduce the inertia on climbs.
> 
> *I could not imagine climbing at the same speed with platform pedals, would not even be close.* Just my opinion.


I would suggest you try it, but think your preconceived notions would color the results. :wink5: 

A cyclist may _feel_ more connected using clipless pedals, but IMO/E there's no reason why they're _required_ to enable a cyclist to smooth the pedal stroke and maintain even power through it. The main reason being, cyclists don't really pull up, and that's basically all that differs when using clipless pedals (assuming a well designed shoe used with platforms/ clips and straps.

If, when using platforms, your feet are sliding/ moving around and/ or speed fluctuates, it's because power isn't being applied evenly and/ or there's a form deficiency - which can occur _with_ clipless pedals. Equipment/ gear like clipless pedals can prove a useful tool to cyclists, but it can't compensate for bad form. 

BTW, the reason pro cyclists forgo aero wheels on climbs is because there's no aero benefit on (relatively) slow climbs, aero wheels are heavy and 'unpredictable' if crosswinds are encountered on high speed descents.


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> I would suggest you try it, but think your preconceived notions would color the results. :wink5:
> 
> A cyclist may _feel_ more connected using clipless pedals, but IMO/E there's no reason why they're _required_ to enable a cyclist to smooth the pedal stroke and maintain even power through it. The main reason being, cyclists don't really pull up, and that's basically all that differs when using clipless pedals (assuming a well designed shoe used with platforms/ clips and straps.
> 
> ...


Hence my inertia argument. If it was just a mumbo jumbo, there really wouldn't be a market for lighter wheels, at least not to the pro teams, since they have a minimum weight requirement. And a lot of teams already have to use steel cages and steel weights dropped into the seat tube to meet that requirement. If pro cyclist were really concern about safety, they would use heavy 32 spoke wheels on climbs/descents.

As far as clipless not giving you a performance advantage, I really don't know why you're arguing this point. Clipless shoes stabilize your foot for you. You don't need to use your muscles to stabilize the shoes on the pedals. That means more oxygen can be use to actually propelling the bike forward. And cyclist do pull up. At least I do, during climbs, since it's easier when you're at incline. And even if you don't pull up, simply un-weighing the pedal on the up-stroke is a performance advantage.

To each their own I guess.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

SFTifoso said:


> To each their own I guess.


Most certainly. 

And on that note, I'll leave you with this. There are a couple of side references to mtb'ing, but the essence of the author's message is, IMO/E spot-on.
http://www.bikejames.com/wp-content...edal-Myths-Building-a-Better-Pedal-Stroke.pdf


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

nhluhr said:


> If you have two riders of the same weight and going the same speed, but one of them is in a gear that forces them to pedal 20rpm while the other is pedaling 80rpm in a different gear, they are still both making the same amount of power.


I haven't read through the back and forth you're having so won't comment, but this statement would almost never hold true, because two riders would almost never have the same power output.

Also, for a variety of reasons, cyclists _do_ generate more or less torque/ power based on cadence, thus the preferences for fairly narrow ranges that many (me included) have. Some track racers spin efficiently at 110+, while some pro cyclists (Ullrich comes to mind) make their power at lower cadences.

That aspect is individual, but in respect to climbing abilities, it all comes down to strength to weight ratios. The stronger, lighter rider, wins.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> I haven't read through the back and forth you're having so won't comment, but this statement would almost never hold true, because two riders would almost never have the same power output.
> 
> 
> > Although I agree that it would be very hard to find two riders who make the same power output, your 'reason' in no way answers my example. If the two identical riders are going the same speed, they are making the same power. End of story.
> ...


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

nhluhr said:


> Although I agree that *it would be very hard to find two riders who make the same power output*, your 'reason' in no way answers my example. If the two identical riders are going the same speed, they are making the same power. End of story.


The bold statement IS my reason, and DOES answer your example. If you had added "two riders that generate the same power", I'd have agreed. But as written, your statement doesn't hold true.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> The bold statement IS my reason, and DOES answer your example. If you had added "two riders that generate the same power", I'd have agreed. But as written, your statement doesn't hold true.


I think you should revisit the statement you're responding to. In the example posed, the two riders are explicitly making the same power.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

nhluhr said:


> I think you should revisit the statement you're responding to. In the example posed, the two riders are explicitly making the same power.


Here's the statement you made:


nhluhr said:


> _If you have two riders of the same weight and going the same speed, but one of them is in a gear that forces them to pedal 20rpm while the other is pedaling 80rpm in a different gear, *they are still both making the same amount of power.*_


Based on your scenario, you _conclude_ the riders are making the same power, but that would only hold true if both _generated_ the same power. which is almost never the case. Thus my comment that (as written) it almost never holds true.

It may be that we're arguing semantics, but point being, your scenario _alone_ doesn't dictate that two riders will make the same power.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> It may be that we're arguing semantics, but point being, your scenario _alone_ doesn't dictate that two riders will make the same power.


There is no semantic issue here. I don't know how to say this without sounding insulting, but you really might want to understand what power is before you talk about it.

Power = Force x Velocity.
The force is all resistance which prevents the rider from moving forward.
The velocity is obvious.

Since both riders have the same resistance to forward movement and their velocity is the same, the power is too.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

nhluhr said:


> There is no semantic issue here. I don't know how to say this without sounding insulting, but you really might want to understand what power is before you talk about it.
> 
> Power = Force x Velocity.
> The force is all resistance which prevents the rider from moving forward.
> ...


Resistance is rarely the same. Power also seldom equals the same speed. As a climber, my numbers are extremely small and you'd think my pace would be lollygagging.


----------



## Eval (Nov 24, 2009)

Rule#10
It never gets easier, you just get faster.


----------



## Kopsis (Aug 1, 2012)

nhluhr said:


> Since both riders have the same resistance to forward movement and their velocity is the same, the power is too.


While absolutely true, that doesn't mean energy required to produce that power is the same. Best case, muscles are about 20% efficient. A sub-optimal cadence reduces that. So although output power may be the same, the rider at the higher cadence is likely consuming significantly less energy.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

nhluhr said:


> There is no semantic issue here. *I don't know how to say this without sounding insulting*, but you really might want to understand what power is before you talk about it.
> 
> Power = Force x Velocity.
> The force is all resistance which prevents the rider from moving forward.
> ...


I've read enough of your posts to know that most include a snarky tone, so no surprise there.

That aside, I fully understand what power is and how it's generated. What you need to understand is that there are variables that make your statement that I initially questioned, almost never true.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

First of all, stop comparing yourself to other riders. There will always be somebody who rides up hills faster than you can. 
Secondly, it takes months or even years of practice to get good on hills. By your judgement of good, you mean fast. 
Finally, it is okay to finish a hill while spinning. It doesn't matter if you're the last one up. What counts is that you finished climbing the hill. 

Don't be so tough on yourself. Enjoy the ride. Enjoy the sights.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

nhluhr -- you can quote and highlight specific lines, but *all things being equal*, a lower gear ratio requires higher cadence to generate equal power...you're ignoring the higher cadence point when you say that I'm implying changing components can automatically lead to higher power

PJ352 -- point is well made that some folks like to spin at 110 and others at 80...and they should choose gearing accordingly


----------



## testpilot (Aug 20, 2010)

Climbing well takes a combination of physics, physiology and psychology. Here's what I've learned over 30 years as a "big guy".
Physiology
1. Work at losing weight. This will come with fitness and time. It took a long time to gain that extra 25-30 lbs. It will take a long time to lose it. Diet & excercise etc., etc., etc.
2. Train your legs, heart and lungs to ride at 90 rpm continuously in the flats and rollers at a 18-20 mph pace. Shift as needed to maintain 90 rpm. A practical rpm for big guys is 90-95 rpm due to leg length & muscle mass.
3. Practice, practice, practice. When you ride alone seek out the hills. Never avoid a hill by taking a flat alternative. If you're riding with your small group of friends, take the lead and choose the hill.
4. Find a 30 minute quick ride route with a climb. Use it when you're short on time or on your "off" days.
5. Hill repeats work.
6. When on the hill, don't over-compensate by downshifting too early. 

Physics
1. As you approach the hill, downshift to a cadence of around 95 rpm. Do this 50 yards before the slope begins. This gives your legs & lungs a chance to adjust to the higher cadence. 
2. When your cadence drops to 80-85, downshift.
3. Repeat until you either find your most comfortable gear or run out of gears.


Psychology
1. This is the most important rule: Don't panic. Let the featherweights fly. You'll notice that most will attack the hill at the beginning and then peter out about 3/4 of the way up.
2. Let the hill come to you.
2. Keep your composure and cadence. Downshift as needed. Focus on your form. Stay steady.
3. Use your strength. Don't be in a rush to get into a lower gear. Let the hill come to you.
4. At the 2/3 point this is where you chase the rabbits. You're in your lowest comfortable gear. Increase your effort. Focus on one of the rabbits and try to catch them at the top.
5. At the top, you will be maxed out but satisfied you did a great climb.
6. Grab onto a wheel and recover in their draft.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

dnmoss said:


> nhluhr -- you can quote and highlight specific lines, but *all things being equal*, a lower gear ratio requires higher cadence to generate equal power...


Congratulations, you got something right.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Yukikaze said:


> Will changing from platform pedals to clipless pedals assist in climbing hills?


IME, changing to clipless pedals (or getting clips and straps for your flat pedals) will help with climbing in one small way. Being securely attached to the pedals allows you to jump out of the saddle with no danger of slipping off a pedal, even at high cadences. For me, switching back and forth between sitting and standing is an important aspect of climbing.


----------



## JoePAz (Jul 20, 2012)

dnmoss said:


> Not implying that changing gearing can help him generate more power. Was saying that due to the high weight (130kg) the power necessary for him to keep up with a little guy will require too high a cadence at a low gear ratio to be sustainable (in other words, I don't think he can spin the 34 fast enough for long enough).


This is silly... 

I also ride a mtn bike and that has super low gears. I can drop to a 22 front chain ring and 34 tooth rear and spin, spin, spin all day long. It will climb up darn near anything. The draw back is speed. At a reasonable cadence I can only go about 3-4 mph in that gear. I can also put out very little power or a lot depending on the terrain. On flat ground I will "spin out" before I can reach my max power output, but on a step climb I can max out my peak and sustained power levels in that gear. I can max out my power levels in any gear depending on terrain. What changes when I change gears is speed.

The fact is when you lower gears you lower the speed for the same cadence. Power.... Power is nearly irrelevant getting up a hill if you allow the speed to change. Power is a function of work done over time. If you let the time expand you don't need as much power. Going up a hill at 20 mph take alot more power than at 5 mph. 

So getting back to the issue at hand. a 28 rear cog as compared to a 23 will allow the rider better mechanical advantage. This will mean less effort to push the cranks to a given cadence. What is lost is speed. 

If the hills are "killing" then one way to counter that is with lower gears. It it may not make you and faster up the hills,but can allow you to make it to the top.

As for cadence. 

Each person has relationship between power output and cadence. Some riders can pull bigger gears and therefore turn a slower cadence, but more force per stroke. Others turn an "easier" gear faster for the same power. The idea behind gearing is to allow the ride to turn the pedals at their optimum force and rpm. This can then be matched to the terrain to achieve a certain road speed. 

Gearing in bikes works just the same as in cars and trucks.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

nhluhr said:


> Congratulations, you got something right.


which is exactly what I've said since my first post...congrats, you learned to read :thumbsup:


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

dnmoss said:


> which is exactly what I've said since my first post...congrats, you learned to read :thumbsup:


Oh well, you almost graduated. Back to high school. And you owe the taxpayers of your community the cost of your education.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

nhluhr said:


> Oh well, you almost graduated. Back to high school. And you owe the taxpayers of your community the cost of your education.


:cryin:


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

dnmoss said:


> nhluhr -- you can quote and highlight specific lines, but *all things being equal*, a lower gear ratio requires higher cadence to generate equal power...you're ignoring the higher cadence point when you say that I'm implying changing components can automatically lead to higher power
> 
> PJ352 -- point is well made that some folks like to spin at 110 and others at 80...and they should choose gearing accordingly


"All things being equal." That assumption is the problem with your original argument. In the real world, they are rarely equal. More specifically, your analysis assumes away a significant variable. At a given cadence, in a given gear, two riders will generate the same power, *If they are both exerting the same force on the pedals*. But with riders of differing ability, body type and riding style, and even with the same rider in different situations, that factor varies a great deal.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

JCavilia said:


> "All things being equal." That assumption is the problem with your original argument. In the real world, they are rarely equal. More specifically, your analysis assumes away a significant variable. At a given cadence, in a given gear, two riders will generate the same power, *If they are both exerting the same force on the pedals*. But with riders of differing ability, body type and riding style, and even with the same rider in different situations, that factor varies a great deal.


agreed...but that point is very different that saying cadence and gear ratio have no relationship to power generated, which (along with a bunch of other factors) they clearly do


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

dnmoss said:


> agreed...but that point is very different that saying cadence and gear ratio have no relationship to power generated, which (along with a bunch of other factors) they clearly do


Nobody ever said that.


----------



## Canndyman (Sep 7, 2012)

Good post testpilot, quite possibly best of thread.............


----------



## mybutthurts (Nov 19, 2012)

I am new and hills used to suck. What helped me the most was riding with someone who had WAY more experience than me. He gave me all the tricks to shifting and strategy to the climbs. Find someone to mentor you. There are also some great books to read. I read Lance's training book, I have forgotten what it was called, but it helped a great deal. I am still slow, but have come to look forward to pushing myself and seeing the improvements being made.


----------



## Yukikaze (Oct 24, 2012)

PJ352 said:


> Most certainly.
> 
> And on that note, I'll leave you with this. There are a couple of side references to mtb'ing, but the essence of the author's message is, IMO/E spot-on.
> http://www.bikejames.com/wp-content...edal-Myths-Building-a-Better-Pedal-Stroke.pdf


That bikejames.com PDF states "Flat pedals will enhance your technical skills and confidence, teach you better pedaling technique and save your knees, hips and low back."

Will using clipless pedals put that much of a strain on your knees, hips and lower back? Will those body parts deteriorate faster by using the clipless pedals?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Yukikaze said:


> That bikejames.com PDF states "Flat pedals will enhance your technical skills and confidence, teach you better pedaling technique and save your knees, hips and low back."
> 
> Will using clipless pedals put that much of a strain on your knees, hips and lower back? Will those body parts deteriorate faster by using the clipless pedals?


When cleats are properly set up, no, I don't think that's the case at all.

While I can't speak for the author, I take his comments to mean that you don't _need_ clipless to enhance your skills or technique. Keep in mind, his comments are geared and focused towards mtb'ing, but much of what he offers (IMO) applies to road riding and the use of clipless pedal systems.

If I had to summarize, I'd say that clipless are a useful tool, but not a requirement. A cyclist can smooth their pedal stroke/ build and maintain good cadence without their use and (IMO/E) expectations on their performance enhancements are oftentimes exaggerated.


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Most certainly.
> 
> And on that note, I'll leave you with this. There are a couple of side references to mtb'ing, but the essence of the author's message is, IMO/E spot-on.
> http://www.bikejames.com/wp-content...edal-Myths-Building-a-Better-Pedal-Stroke.pdf


Just like to point out he kinda busted his own myth busting by pointing out that clipless do let you put out more power over a long period of time, which is at the essence of what road biking is.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

SFTifoso said:


> Just like to point out he kinda busted his own myth busting by pointing out that clipless do let you put out more power over a long period of time, which is at *the essence of what road biking* is.


The closest I see to your paraphrase is....
_They do let you artificially strengthen the weak link of the feet which allows you to
pedal longer before power starts to wane, which is useful for multi-hour/ multi-day
racing..._

... and that doesn't say what you said. 

Also, he goes on to say...
_... , but there is absolutely no raw "power" advantage in clipless pedals._

I posted that link because 1) it reflects much of what I've found to hold true and 2) counters many commonly held beliefs and presents it in a straightforward manner. I didn't expect it to change your mind. Rather, to have other members consider it.

FWIW, I use clipless pedals and (as I've posted) see them as a useful tool. But (also as I've mentioned), they don't appreciably improve performance, help smooth the pedal stroke or mask bad form. IME the important part of a shoe/ pedal combo is a well fitting, well designed shoe having a stiff sole for both efficient power transfer and comfort. 

Lastly, IME the _essence_ of road biking is many things, to many people.


----------



## JoePAz (Jul 20, 2012)

Yukikaze said:


> That bikejames.com PDF states "Flat pedals will enhance your technical skills and confidence, teach you better pedaling technique and save your knees, hips and low back."
> 
> Will using clipless pedals put that much of a strain on your knees, hips and lower back? Will those body parts deteriorate faster by using the clipless pedals?


I have more strain on my knees with flats. They allow my foot position to move around and then in to a bad spot. Once clipless are dialed in they and lock your feet the comfortable and powerful position. 

As for the bikejames.com article... There is some application to flats for mtn biking due to the need to quickly put a foot down and clipless can cause fear when you are starting. Road biking however is different. Falling over is much less risky since you rarely encounter terrain where you come to sudden stop. I see no downsides to clipless for road riding. Still might not be the best for your first ride, but once you are comfortable on the bike the right pedals and that stiff soled shoes that help you transfer power.

The other thing about clipless is not need to worry about a foot slipping off. I get to a high cadence light load situation this can cause my foot to get loose from flat. However with clipless they always stay attached. Plus I can put a little power in on side stroke and up stroke. Not much, but maybe 5-10% just to keep things flowing. On flats I always need to keep some down pressure to stay locked in.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

JoePAz said:


> As for the bikejames.com article... There is some application to flats for mtn biking due to the need to quickly put a foot down and clipless can cause fear when you are starting. *Road biking however is different. Falling over is much less risky since you rarely encounter terrain where you come to sudden stop. * I see no downsides to clipless for road riding. Still might not be the best for your first ride, but once you are comfortable on the bike the right pedals and that stiff soled shoes that help you transfer power.


Not arguing the obvious references to mtn biking (and have noted the same), but re: your examples (quickly putting a foot down./sudden stops) I disagree that road biking is any different. For a variety of reasons (obstacles/ road hazards) the same still applies.

As far as increased strain on the knees/ hips/ lower back, IME the pedal system doesn't really matter. Key to success is proper setup, so because a rider is locked in when using clipless, there's an increased likelihood of fit issues, thus the employment of shims/ wedges. 

This is why it's advantageous for a cyclist to get fitted along with getting a clipless pedal system installed. And after the fact, saddle height, fore/ aft should be rechecked.


----------



## dnmoss (Jun 27, 2008)

PJ352 said:


> ...Key to success is proper setup, so because a rider is locked in when using clipless, there's an increased likelihood of fit issues, thus the employment of shims/ wedges.
> 
> This is why it's advantageous for a cyclist to get fitted along with getting a clipless pedal system installed. And after the fact, saddle height, fore/ aft should be rechecked.


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

When I first switched to clipless I started having some knee pain around the outside...had a proper fitting and they made slight adjustments to the cleat angle and inserted a new arch...have not had any issues since. Also, proper cleat position can improve your pedaling efficiency...


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dnmoss said:


> :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
> 
> When I first switched to clipless I started having some knee pain around the outside...had a proper fitting and they made slight adjustments to the cleat angle and inserted a new arch...have not had any issues since. Also, proper cleat position can improve your pedaling efficiency...


*That's* a good fitter. Don't lose their name and number... :wink5:


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> The closest I see to your paraphrase is....
> _They do let you artificially strengthen the weak link of the feet which allows you to
> pedal longer before power starts to wane, which is useful for multi-hour/ multi-day
> racing..._
> ...


I think the fact that every pro uses clipless is proof enough that they do work. I don't need one guy's opinion, when the rest of the cycling world disagrees. Call it what you wan't, and you could easily say it's all in my head, but I feel more comfortable, less tired, safer, I can climb better (faster) with clipless shoes; especially the many short steep climbs I have to deal with.

100 RPM with flat pedals? No thanks.

Having to use stabilizing muscles to keep my feet on the pedal? No thanks, I would rather that oxygen go to propelling the bike forwards.

Lastly, what you described in your last sentence is essentially a clipless shoe. I don't see many commonly available athletic shoes with stiff outsoles.


----------



## Yukikaze (Oct 24, 2012)

JCavilia said:


> IME, changing to clipless pedals (or getting clips and straps for your flat pedals) will help with climbing in one small way. Being securely attached to the pedals allows you to jump out of the saddle with no danger of slipping off a pedal, even at high cadences. For me, switching back and forth between sitting and standing is an important aspect of climbing.


Interesting. I just changed to clipless pedals a few days ago, so I have to try this out next time. High cadence while standing on platforms had too much of a risk of slipping so I never dared.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I don't like the clipless vs. flats debates over on MTBR. They're kind of a rarity here, but whatever.

I feel like I actually get quite good power transfer out of a structured running shoe. That's most of them. I don't bother to use clipless pedals on my commuter, haven't for a long time. The other day, for some other reasons, I did a training ride on it; it was fine.

I do prefer clipless pedals on my "serious" bikes. Or rather, I prefer to ride in cycling shoes on my "serious" rides, and that's generally implied clipless pedals to go with them for quite a while. So I'm not anti-clipless.

I just think people give the system way too much credit. I also think people come up with some fairly bogus other scenarios for clipless pedals and cycling shoes to improve upon. Although I think it's similarly bogus to compare clipless pedals and cycling shoes to clipped pedals and cleated cycling shoes. There have been some holdouts just doing cleated cycling shoes for track at a high level until pretty recently; maybe even still. These are guys who really care about their power output.

For me, the advantages are that the shoe is a little more rigid and supports my foot in a way that helps me have better ankle and knee alignment over the course of a longer ride and that I find the pedals themselves a bit more user-friendly, especially off-road. I don't believe I'd clock a different time, even on a fairly long ride, switching between my running shoes and toe clips and clipless pedals. However, I do think my feet are more comfortable in my cycling shoes than they would be if I just wore running shoes for a longer ride. I also suspect my joints and back would still do worse by the end of a longer ride in running shoes than they do with the support stuff I've been using.

So, yes I like a purpose-built cycling shoe/pedal system. No I don't think it makes me faster. But I'm okay with that - it's not really what I expected or appreciate about it. I feel fine about valuing comfort - actually, for me, keeping my feet comfortable is a huge part of being happy and comfortable in general, whether it's riding a bike, skiing, or pushing road cases around on a concrete floor.

At the end of the day, it's not terribly expensive. The whole system can be done for under $200. Running shoes already cost over $100, and cycling shoes and pedals last a lot longer. So in the world of throwing money at cycling, this is not that bad and the return is something that's pretty real. It's just not a significant speed increase.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

SFTifoso said:


> I think the fact that every pro uses clipless is proof enough that they do work. I don't need one guy's opinion, when the rest of the cycling world disagrees. Call it what you wan't, and you could easily say it's all in my head, but I feel more comfortable, less tired, safer, I can climb better (faster) with clipless shoes; especially the many short steep climbs I have to deal with.
> 
> 100 RPM with flat pedals? No thanks.
> 
> Having to use stabilizing muscles to keep my feet on the pedal? No thanks, I would rather that oxygen go to propelling the bike forwards.


You're missing the point here. That being, _clipless are a useful tool_, but there _are _myths surrounding their use. Cyclists don't NEED clipless pedals to accomplish many things (smoothing the pedals stroke, being one example) and performance improvements/ enhancements using them are oftentimes exaggerated.

As far as 'one guys opinion', that's one source I cited, but hardly the only one that supports similar viewpoints. Seek and you will find (others).


SFTifoso said:


> Lastly, what you described in your last sentence is essentially a clipless shoe. I don't see many commonly available *athletic shoes* with stiff outsoles.


My comment relating to still soled shoes didn't mention athletic shoes, so those are your words, not mine. There are a number of recreational/ fitness shoes that can easily be used with platforms/ clips and straps.

As I've stated, I'm not out to change your viewpoint. My points have been made for others to consider. Not meant to dissuade the use of clipless pedals, rather, to temper expectations in their use and point up some facets that _can_ be accomplished without their use.


----------



## Yukikaze (Oct 24, 2012)

JoePAz said:


> I have more strain on my knees with flats. They allow my foot position to move around and then in to a bad spot. Once clipless are dialed in they and lock your feet the comfortable and powerful position.


I just went for my first quick 15mi run to test out my clipless. Once I tested out different ways of pedaling, I found that my right knee aggravation/pains I had with platform pedals went away if I just concentrate on moving my upper legs up and down and kept my knee and lower leg relaxed. I can tell this is the wrong way of pedaling, but being able to come home without the knee pain is great.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Yukikaze said:


> I just went for my first quick 15mi run to test out my clipless. Once I tested out different ways of pedaling, I found that my right knee aggravation/pains I had with platform pedals went away if I just concentrate on moving my upper legs up and down and kept my knee and lower leg relaxed. *I can tell this is the wrong way of pedaling*, but being able to come home without the knee pain is great.


On the topic of pedaling technique, you may find this interesting:
http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=1714


----------



## Yukikaze (Oct 24, 2012)

PJ352 said:


> On the topic of pedaling technique, you may find this interesting:
> VIDEO: Pedaling Technique


Thanks. Interesting tips on pedaling technique. I think I'll also try to incorporate keeping the heel slightly above toes throughout the stroke next time.

Also, he's sure riding a weird looking bike in that video.


----------



## dvang066 (Oct 20, 2012)

Conserve energy on the flats by going slower or pacing with the people you pass, then power up a hill. I used to wonder why I crapped out on the hills until I started going easy on the flats.


----------



## Franco_10 (Nov 26, 2012)

That makes absolute sense.


----------



## MagClyde_II (Nov 27, 2012)

What will not kill you will make you stronger?


----------



## Project (Jul 11, 2012)

"...That's why many of the good climbers in the pro peleton look like prepubescent girls, 'cause it takes a tiny f---er to go uphill quick..."

Had me rolling on the floor.


----------



## VKW (Jul 26, 2009)

nhluhr said:


> There is no semantic issue here. I don't know how to say this without sounding insulting, but you really might want to understand what power is before you talk about it.
> 
> Power = Force x Velocity.
> The force is all resistance which prevents the rider from moving forward.
> ...


I will have to agree with nhluhr. Theoretically, taking all variables out (weight, aerodynamics, wind, grade, etc.) other than cadence and gearing, if both riders are going the same speed, they are exerting the same power. If you have ever ridden a bike with a power meter, you would know that you can keep a constant power with different gearing by changing your cadence. In simplistic terms Torque X RPM = Power. This would of course be wrong if the variables were different but I agree that nhluhr's statement implies all things being equal except cadence and gearing. 

I also think I understand what dnmoss is trying to say. Maybe dnmoss is trying to say a larger rider would benefit from larger gearing because they have the strength to exert a higher torque to match the watts/kg of a smaller rider at a lower gearing up a hill. And that a lower gearing would require him to spin unreasonable fast and thus he cannot make up the power difference to match watts/kg by spinning fast at a lower gearing. Thus, he can never exert the same watts/kg without getting higher gearing. This would be true.

However, the gearing in a standard crank you would likely be using up a hill if you were a high torque guy would likely exist on a compact crank. At worst, the highest gear ratio the compact setup would lack is the 53 x 12 combination gear ratio on a standard. I don't think anybody would be using that gear combination up a hill. *Thus, I don't think having a compact setup is an issue at all.*


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

Climbing is all about power to weight, at 285 pounds you would need a ridiculous amount of power to be a good climber. At 6 5 210-230 would be a good weight. Just keep riding and riding and eventually you will get stronger and lighter. One more thing, most big people I know like to climb with with big gears at a low cadence.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

Warpdatframe said:


> Climbing is all about power to weight, at 285 pounds you would need a ridiculous amount of power to be a good climber. At 6 5 210-230 would be a good weight. Just keep riding and riding and eventually you will get stronger and lighter. One more thing, most big people I know like to climb with with big gears at a low cadence.


Are you sure this isn't just because they ran out of lower gears?


----------



## Flac Vest (Jul 16, 2012)

9W9W said:


> Are you sure this isn't just because they ran out of lower gears?


More muscle = easier to turn a big gear. 

I'm about 160, and I tend to turn a higher RPM than most. Watching the random race on youtube, you can easily see bigger guys turn a slower gear than smaller guys on a flat.


----------



## princekp (Nov 20, 2012)

*Just what I Needed*



testpilot said:


> Climbing well takes a combination of physics, physiology and psychology. Here's what I've learned over 30 years as a "big guy".
> .


Thanks, Test Pilot. Your post was worth reading 4 pages of physics theory to get to. Informative and inspiring. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

9W9W said:


> Are you sure this isn't just because they ran out of lower gears?


No they shift into their big ring and drop to 60-70 cadence. The people I'm talking about are also cat 2 riders.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Warpdatframe said:


> No they shift into their big ring and drop to 60-70 cadence. The people I'm talking about are also cat 2 riders.


Maybe they'd be cat 1's if they upped their cadence. That would serve to build their endurance and smooth the pedal stroke. Not to mention it minimizes stress on the knees and lessens the odds of injury.

Wanna learn how to climb? Watch the pro's. Spinners dominate. But yes, climbing is all about power to weight. No getting around that.


----------



## JoePAz (Jul 20, 2012)

Warpdatframe said:


> No they shift into their big ring and drop to 60-70 cadence. The people I'm talking about are also cat 2 riders.


If you want to be fast on the bike you need to understand your personal peak power output style. This means you need to figure out what is your personal best cadence to create max power. Max power in terms of short duration peak, and also longer duration rides. 

If you can create a power peak at 50 rpm and big gear that may be great, but can you do that for 5 minutes at time? Or for 30 minutes? This is the kind of information you need to know to determine how you need to attack hills.

One way to get this max power vs cadence thing is to ride gym trainer. These bikes are not perfect, but if it has speed, cadence and resistance level you can find you sweet spot. Simply hop on and pedal. Play around with resistance levels and what how your speed increases or decreased. See what your cadence is for a sustained effort. I have found that at 90-95 rpm I can run a high resistance and make my best speed. If I go up in resistance I can't turn that over very fast and despite the extra force the calculated speed drops. Now I don't trust the absolute speed the bike says, but I do feel it works to compare.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

JoePAz said:


> If you want to be fast on the bike you need to understand your personal peak power output style. This means you need to figure out what is your personal best cadence to create max power. Max power in terms of short duration peak, and also longer duration rides.
> 
> If you can create a power peak at 50 rpm and big gear that may be great, but can you do that for 5 minutes at time? Or for 30 minutes? This is the kind of information you need to know to determine how you need to attack hills.


Exactly.

Plus, hills are rarely uniform in gradient or pace. On top of a high pace, it's often also about the accelerations. Attacking or responding to attacks is very difficult when over geared.


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

In hilly races that have several loops of a main climb, I tend to spin up them in the highest cadence possible for the first few go arounds, and then mash up them for the final run. When I mash at the beginning, I tend to lose a lot of my power toward the end of the race. At least for me, higher cadence early = more opportunity to push a bigger gear later.

During training, I do a fair amount of out-of-the-saddle work in the off season where I'm climbing up a 30 or 40 minute climb in a 39x17. I'm just doing this to work my core, and also because that much time out of the saddle at once really tends to overwork your system and later make those quick little 30 second and 1 minute out of the saddle efforts more manageable. 

Oddly, even though I feel like I'm absolutely crawling for the amount of effort I'm putting out when I mash, when I later look at my Strava, I'm usually faster out-of-the-saddle. During the finishing climb of the race, I want to be confident that I can hop out of the saddle for accelerations or steep pitches when needed and not worry that such an effort is going to make me pop.


----------



## testpilot (Aug 20, 2010)

JoePAz said:


> If you want to be fast on the bike you need to understand your personal peak power output style. This means you need to figure out what is your personal best cadence to create max power. Max power in terms of short duration peak, and also longer duration rides.
> 
> If you can create a power peak at 50 rpm and big gear that may be great, but can you do that for 5 minutes at time? Or for 30 minutes? This is the kind of information you need to know to determine how you need to attack hills.
> 
> One way to get this max power vs cadence thing is to ride gym trainer. These bikes are not perfect, but if it has speed, cadence and resistance level you can find you sweet spot. Simply hop on and pedal. Play around with resistance levels and what how your speed increases or decreased. See what your cadence is for a sustained effort. I have found that at 90-95 rpm I can run a high resistance and make my best speed. If I go up in resistance I can't turn that over very fast and despite the extra force the calculated speed drops. Now I don't trust the absolute speed the bike says, but I do feel it works to compare.


What Joe is trying to say is "Mass times acceleration due to gravity times height divided by the time it takes to lift the object to the given height gives the rate of doing work or power."


----------



## testpilot (Aug 20, 2010)

The best way to get good at hills is to do hills. Period.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

spade2you said:


> Attacking or responding to attacks is very difficult when over geared.


That statement conjures up memories of this...
2001 L'Alpe-d'Huez - Lance Armstrong gives Jan Ullrich "The Look" - YouTube


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

JoePAz said:


> If you want to be fast on the bike you need to understand your personal peak power output style. This means you need to figure out what is your personal best cadence to create max power. Max power in terms of short duration peak, and also longer duration rides.


A loose analogy, but not dissimilar to gasoline engines. Horsepower (and gearing) dictates top speed, while torque and gearing dictate speed of accelerations.


----------



## new2rd (Aug 8, 2010)

I love hills and although I'm not that good at them, I can go at tempo all day long faster than I couild go at threshold last year. Just go up, up, and up. Time and experience will make you faster.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> That statement conjures up memories of this...
> 2001 L'Alpe-d'Huez - Lance Armstrong gives Jan Ullrich "The Look" - YouTube


Most definitely. Despite all the drama, that was one heck of a moment in cycling!


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

JCavilia said:


> IME, changing to clipless pedals (or getting clips and straps for your flat pedals) will help with climbing in one small way. Being securely attached to the pedals allows you to jump out of the saddle with no danger of slipping off a pedal, even at high cadences. For me, switching back and forth between sitting and standing is an important aspect of climbing.


Very good point. Especially when you're tired at the end of your ride, and your legs might not be all that stable.


----------



## TheSlug74 (Aug 20, 2012)

new2rd said:


> I love hills and although I'm not that good at them, I can go at tempo all day long faster than I couild go at threshold last year. Just go up, up, and up. Time and experience will make you faster.


Totally agree. Like the OP, I have only been road cycling for a short time (a few months). Over the first few months I was consistent in my sheduled training and I was soon able to attack hills with a huge smile on my face where I had previously almost cried looking at them when I first started riding.

As a novice, kms have meant improvements and (with appropriate cadence, technique and consistent training) have brought immense joy (the pain hasn't gone away ) to my cycling. My fear and hesitation turned into a sadistic sort of pleasure where the mental and physical torture became addictive.....maybe I am just a fruitcake?

On a negative note, due to an illness involving the hospiatlisation of my wife, numerous hospital visits and neuro-surgeon meetings, I have not been to ride in a month! Although treatment will involve a couple of years, things look to be improving on that front, so I oiled up the trusty steed and took her out on her first outing in a month. Results.... A 15% increase in the time taken (or deacrease in avg speed) over the same 80 km loop under very similar conditions (I keep note of wind speed, direction etc) so it is a pretty accurate result....

Advise (even as a relatively novice rider)....keep riding, and try not to take large breaks from it. The legs turn to jelly pretty soon......

Keep riding those hills consistently, and you will eventually laugh all the way up (even through the intense pain barrier.....) 

Hope this helps...

Cheers,
TheSlug74


----------



## marinman39 (Dec 25, 2012)

Probably the gearing. Yes, you weigh a lot, but as I also have somewhat of a handicap in terms of your typical road rider (my age, 62), I have made gearing adjustments. I once used a 10-28 mountain bike cassette because there are lots of very steep road hills near where I live, but switched to triple-ring in front when I turned 58. It made a huge difference. Though I am naturally getting a bit slower on long hill climbs, I can still make it through 4,000 feet of climbing in a day. With stock gearing, I simply wouldn't make it. If you lose weight, you can always skip the lowest gears.


----------



## Higgins23 (Sep 3, 2012)

So, speaking of getting killed by hills....and since this is the beginner corner...figured I'd jump in here. My lower back kills me after struggling up a hill. I'm definitely a beginner still, so I've been blaming it on muscle weakness mainly. Any suggestions about form? Maybe I'm missing something in that area too. Thus far, I remain seated going up hills.


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

Higgins23 said:


> So, speaking of getting killed by hills....and since this is the beginner corner...figured I'd jump in here. My lower back kills me after struggling up a hill. I'm definitely a beginner still, so I've been blaming it on muscle weakness mainly. Any suggestions about form? Maybe I'm missing something in that area too. Thus far, I remain seated going up hills.


Standing from time to time just to stretch or use slightly different muscles can help you stay stronger longer.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Higgins23 said:


> So, speaking of getting killed by hills....and since this is the beginner corner...figured I'd jump in here. *My lower back kills me after struggling up a hill. I'm definitely a beginner still, so I've been blaming it on muscle weakness mainly. Any suggestions about form?* Maybe I'm missing something in that area too. Thus far, I remain seated going up hills.


My suggestions:
CYCLING PERFORMANCE TIPS -

The Best Core Exercises and Core Workouts


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

Higgins23 said:


> So, speaking of getting killed by hills....and since this is the beginner corner...figured I'd jump in here. My lower back kills me after struggling up a hill. I'm definitely a beginner still, so I've been blaming it on muscle weakness mainly. Any suggestions about form? Maybe I'm missing something in that area too. Thus far, I remain seated going up hills.


Standing can rest your core although standing for extended periods has it's own strength requirements. Therefore, experiment with alternating between standing and seated climbing.

The back is the support for the abs and vice-versa. Any type of crunches will provide strengthening for your back. Likewise, flexibility in your core is vitally important.


----------



## Higgins23 (Sep 3, 2012)

Thanks guys. Good suggestions.


----------



## YOLO (Jan 4, 2013)

Hey all, new to road biking here! Upgrade to a 2012 Specialized Allez Compact from a silly, broken Walmart mountain bike (lol), and I'm looking forward to tackling these hills!


----------



## jleeasc (Dec 1, 2012)

I've just started riding again, buying a new bike at Christmas. Where I live, we have a bike/walking track called the Swamp Rabbit Trail. It is an unused RR track that the county rec dept. took over. The old track was removed and then paved with asphalt. It is a nice, flat 17-1/2 mile run that takes you into our downtown area. When I bought my bike this is where I started. It is a nice smooth and easy track, a confidence builder.

I ventured out today to the main roads. From my neighborhood, I have a nice 4 mile section, basiclly a rectangle, with a creek bottom splitting it. When I left the house, I planned to do the loop a couple of times. I was going great until I got to the bottom(creek) and started back up. I was overconfident, in the wrong gear, and was a little agressive with my pace. Had to stop. Glad I remembered to clip out. Boy am I a newb. Tried to clip back in going up the hill. Luckily I was on the shoulder of the road so when I fell, I landed in the ditch rather than on the asphalt. Had to laugh at myself after I made sure my bike was OK. Hills suck. I'll let you know when I can make it all the way without wiping out.

Man, I'm in worse physical shape than I thought.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

jleeasc said:


> I ventured out today to the main roads... I was going great until I got to the bottom(creek) and started back up. *I was overconfident, in the wrong gear, and was a little agressive with my pace.* Had to stop. Glad I remembered to clip out. Boy am I a newb. *Tried to clip back in going up the hill.* Luckily I was on the shoulder of the road so when I fell, I landed in the ditch rather than on the asphalt. Had to laugh at myself after I made sure my bike was OK. Hills suck. I'll let you know when I can make it all the way without wiping out.
> 
> Man, I'm in worse physical shape than I thought.


That first bold section is what you learned today, so some good came of it because you'll know what _not_ to do next time. Part of overcoming hills is getting in the right gear, setting a moderate pace at the bottom, keeping cadence up/ shifting down as necessary and setting a rhythm from there.

Re: stopping mid-climb and clipping in while going *up*, here's an alternate method. Whe safe (and if feasible), cross the road (walk the bike). Facing downhill, mount, apply the brake to moderate speed, clip in and shift to a low gear. When ready (and it's safe) do a u-turn across the road and resume the climb.


----------



## jleeasc (Dec 1, 2012)

PJ352 said:


> That first bold section is what you learned today, so some good came of it because you'll know what _not_ to do next time. Part of overcoming hills is getting in the right gear, setting a moderate pace at the bottom, keeping cadence up/ shifting down as necessary and setting a rhythm from there.
> 
> Re: stopping mid-climb and clipping in while going *up*, here's an alternate method. Whe safe (and if feasible), cross the road (walk the bike). Facing downhill, mount, apply the brake to moderate speed, clip in and shift to a low gear. When ready (and it's safe) do a u-turn across the road and resume the climb.


Thanks. Suppose to be around 70 degrees this coming weekend in upstate SC. Good days to go again.


----------



## Highway 501 (Jan 6, 2013)

Want to say thanks guys I tried a few of these training tips and I can't walk but im not dead so I guess it's working.


----------

