well, when that "system" works, your estimated FTP is totally wrong. 1.5 to 2 times FTP is only doable for max 1-3 min, so you never get trough one third of a noteworthy climb with that - and you will not ride at a reasonable speed for the other 2 thirds. It's rather stupid to do such a high output that you are blown after a third of a segment - you always are MUCH faster when you chose an effort you can hold through the entire segment and than give all what is left to the top...
this video is pure gold. btw time trial position is really a dope. i beat my previous record on 10km , 6% avg climb with TT setup, which is 1,5 kg heavier . 9.5 kg into 11 kg. my previous time was 37.xx into 34.xx . i climbed mostly on TT position , even at 15% gradiens. i felt more comfortable and my cadence more stable. please keep up with this kind informative video...
You climbed in aero at 15% grade I’m calling BS… on a tribike at 15% gradient you definitely must be out of the saddle standing up. Even sitting on the saddle is totally out of the question and down in aero is laughable. No way you did that.
YES, i have the same problem just because my weight its around 98Kg today. I will for sure consider all aspects of positions and pace to climb hills more efectivelly.
Great vídeo, i love to make all kind of hills and for my experience, on field, i notice everything you say. But now i understand it better because of the math.... thanks and keep doing this kind of vídeos.
I'm a below average rider. Even I got a benefit from a power meter. My experience I rode faster because I held a more steady pace both on flats and up hill. Buy a cheaper bike if you can't afford a power meter.
Hey Coach Alex, thanks for a great video! Would have like to hear about heart rate in addition to power output. In a TT position your heart rate is incredibly lower (being near horizontal), as opposed to sitting up your heart rate will be 5-15 bpm higher and still again your heart rate will be 5-15 bpm higher while standing/climbing. Keep up the great work!
To be an effective communicator, you would be advised to label the axes of every graph you draw. It takes a few seconds, but it is gold for those who are new to the metrics you are discussing.
Enjoyable analysis! I would wager that aero would be more significant for "recreational" riders on a hill as they'll be on course for longer, so the time saved would be greater, provided they are not going so slowly as to make for negligible aero losses - possibly
Interesting. From my own experience, I more or less completely agree, but watching professionals climb, you see them sitting on the hoods on steep gradients. Regarding weight, there are compromise solutions like mid-section rims, which are more aero but don't have a huge weight penalty.
@@Fastfitnesstips Hi Alex! I have opened this Climb Calculator, but it seems I cannot choose any option nor input any value (like my weigh, FTP...) I look like every option is locked. Am I doing something wrong? Is this video with a calculator online?
Very interesting video. Total science behind. Totally agree with you on all aspects. And no, you don't speed too fast. Your speech speed is just fine. Alberto Contador was asked if he could change something, one thing only, in cycling during 2017. He said: Take the powermeter of the races I believe his non-technical answer has more to do with getting pro-cycling back to the guts, instincts, making the giros more exciting taking of the powemeters from the races. He said races, not training. Do you agree with him @Fastfitnesstips?
Contador is also anti-electronic shifting. I mean I understand the idea of keeping cycling "pure" but at the same time you cannot stop progress. If you want to remove power meters then let's also disallow moulded carbon frames, and innovations in rubber tire tech, etc. As long as the sport remains 100% human-powered and adheres to reasonable safely regulations, I don't see a reason to ban anything like power meters.
+Gabriel Trainer sorry I missed your post. Essentially racing and even training *sometimes* without a powermeter is important mainly so you can judge what it feels like to pace on RPE and not on the powermeter. If you only ever ride with a power meter and one day it doesn't work correctly, you are sunk! Also there are times you just don't want to see that you are under-performing but you still need to train, on those days don't use the power meter.
There is a clear difference though, as carbon frames, tire tech, e-shifting and so on does not affect decision making in the same way. In theory, computer technology could calculate how to ride with perfect efficiency throughout the whole route, making it look more like a runners race where everyone is racing more independently from each other. In reality it's different in cycling since the effects of drafting forces you to make decisions based on what others are doing, but on slower climbs, it really takes some of the combat out of it. The better the technology, the more independent and individual each climb would be. A rider wouldn't have to decide how to act when an opponent attacks on a climb, if he knows that he is riding at the calculated perfect efficiency, as long as there is limited drafting benefints.
With reference to Part 2: variable pacing. Assume there is a flat segment after going up and down the hill. Would more time be gained by putting in the additional watts on the flat segment for the same duration as was put in on the up hill? I.e. Keep constant effort going up hill, rest coming down and then attack the flats? Great videos by the way. Keep up the good work!
On the subsequent flat section try and settle into your normal pace (for example if its a 60min ride then settle back to your FTP pace). When riding solo uphill = higher effort flat = normal effort and downhill = lower effort. For exact strategy for a known course try www.bestbikesplit.com; for pacing a timetrial effort we have a big series on this coming next month (its with the editor).
I believe you need an edit at 9:10. The cyclist expending 200W going downhill is not going to go faster than the rider expending 250W going downhill, all else equal. You have written that he will take more time going downhill, which is correct, despite the higher velocity. It appears the velocity is a typo.
Could you discuss the difference between rotational weight (wheels) and static weight (bike) for hill climbing power requirements, in the context of different riding styles (i.e. standing or riding seating)? Rotational weight is said to be only beneficial when accelerating, but, as I see it, it seems that when pedaling standing (specially in very steep sections: 15%, 20%, 25%) every pedal stroke is an acceleration!? Is it? With this in mind, I usually force myself to keep mostly seated when with my heavy (aero alloy wheels)... Cheers and Thanks for the great video
Yes, I thought that, what about the moment of inertia of the wheels? I think the answer is that this is only a factor affecting acceleration, not speed.
In a true sprint, you are only accelerating (to reach a certain marker in a race). In a climb, you are both accelerating (while your cranks are in a more horizontal orientation) and decelerating (while the cranks are in a more vertical position. In an "ideal" model (one where things like small friction losses from additional tire deflection doesn't count) every additional joule of energy you put into increasing the angular momentum of a heavier wheel during the acceleration part of the pedal stroke will be "paid back" to you from the flywheel effect while you are decelerating in between accelerations. That said, heavier wheels do take a toll on a climb that's hard not to notice. Any additional weight on any part of your bike or your body is not helpful on a climb. But your wheels are the least sprung part of your entire consist. They must flex and bounce over even the tiniest bumps in the pavement. Additional weight doing that flexing and bouncing up does dissipate extra energy into heat losses both internally and in the form of the extra jarring they transmit into the frame and into your body. This is why the the wheelset should be the first thing you look to upgrade on a stock bike in most cases, and why extra weight in the wheel seems to count more than extra weight in something like, say, your body, which is the most sprung part of the whole system.
Interesting approach on tt vs climbing wheels. On the road however a cyclist needs to battle crosswinds. That condition would surely affect decision as regards to wheel selection.
yes, but it's just in cross winds where aero wheels give the most advantage!!! In straight headwind (or tailwind) they are not faster than box section wheels
I've had so many questions regarding why riding up hills (mtns really) is so different than riding on the flat. You answered some of them in this impressively clear and informative presentation! I think many of us sorta knew much of this, but not in the detail and not with this clarity. I look forward to taking my next long climb & applying. Maybe in the future you could address cadence vs grade? Thank you! Hope you don't mind that I took 3 of the pithy things you said and paraphrased them here. Pacing advice for short climbs - compared to steady effort (FTP perhaps), increase wattage 5% for every 1% increase in grade. Hands on tops vs hands on hoods gives 10% more power! Wow, really? & TT position gives 5% less power. Standing gives 25% more power. Really interesting! Again, this is for short climbs. On regular rides (like not a hill climb TT), it's nearly always an advantage to ride an aero wheelset rather than a climbing (lightweight) wheelset. & the faster one rides (& climbs), the more this is the case.
Hi @FastFitnessTips I understand that increasing body weight has an exponentially increasing demand on effort where the standing position is adopted. I wonder if there’s a point in body weight vs gradient vs duration vs aerodynamics in line with ones power curve where it becomes counter productive to stand because of this and if this would be a strategy worth discussing in another video? Great video, smart work! Cheers
Yes precisely there is a tipping point where sitting is best even if power is lower because of aero gains...in fact if you can manage it TT ing uphill can be even better. Assuming power is equal then a better aero position wins on any grade of hill (suprisingly) but the problem is sustained power with differ. I will try and cover this in a future video. Did you see the drafting uphill video? Check it out
Came back to this video again after a long time, and more I look at the numbers, the less sense it does make. Graph at 12:40 clearly shows, that heavier you are, the less w/kg you need to output to maintain the speed... ???
Thanks for watching. Graph at 12:40 is illustrating another more basic point that more power needed to maintain uphill speed at a higher weight. Its not meant as an exact calculation applied to a known rider. But there does seem to be a slight trend in the direction you are mentioning; however I wouldn't rubbish the whole video for a slight drift (+/-5%) in w/g vs speed.
Well, I am not dismissing the whole video (i like it a lot). But that graph is completely wrong and actually in contradiction to the general idea of the video :) It should pretty much be the same power output in W/kg for everyone, as long as we do not consider aerodynamic drag (AD). If we do, the graph would probably show minor increase in required power to weight ratio for heavier riders. Considering that when going up anything over roughly 3%, we are fighting gravity more than anything else (based on the video), impact of AD would be rather miniscule going 10%+. This is why I believe there must be some basic error in function you have used to calculate those graph, since it shows very minor tendency toward decrease of power to weight ratio required to climb hills for heavy riders, while one would expect exact opposite... slight increase, or constant ratio of power increase in relation to weight difference (if we don't consider AD at all). In reality we see a pretty huge differences in riders ability to climb hills based on their weight, but I BELIEVE (I have nothing to support this claim) that has more to do with physiology of the rider, and general fitness, than anything else. Especially not the physics behind (because there is no way to justify any big difference there). In theory we can easily compare 65kg rider with 95kg one, and assume the same fitness level (it's just one variable), but in real life, it would be much more difficult to find such couple. In general public more weight would most likely mean lower fitness level, with athletes it would indicate their are specializing in different area - climber vs sprinter. (using/training different muscle types. eg. Andre vs. Chris). If this wideo was meant to be for general public, more than for a cycling community, saying you need to output more power the heavier you are to climb hills, would be absolutely okay (well, it's true) And amaze people by how much more power would be... okay (since they most likely have no idea how much 60 watts is in a first place). But I would expect that everyone here understands that whilst true, it doesn't really mean that much, since you probably can output much more power if you weight more (and if not, it does not make any sense to compare in a first place). Anyway, I really like your videos, and the fact that you are still replying 1.5 year old video, is very cool man :)
He didn't talk at all about muscle recruitment. (Fast twitch, medium twitch, slow twitch) vs power? When talking about variable power outputs that is the most important factor as to understand how long one can hold a certain power, and how repeatable that excretion is. Since one can only fire the fast twitch fibers once a week, or thereabout, than holding that power for only one excretion like the final sprint on race day. The medium twitch fibers take about a minute to recharge after a firing. This means that you can only use those muscles once an accent unless they can recharge intermittently. There is a sweet spot at your one hour FTP, I believe. The slow twitch can run indefinitely so if you are choosing a recovery power you want to only put out what they can produce.
What this means is that you have a ratio of time vs power that one can climb at a higher power than FTP and the length of time spent climbing souls be dictated by ONLY that rate, assuming full recovery.
So as I always suspected:- attack hills so that you are fighting gravity for the shortest time and rest on the down hill because aero is going to steal the speed anyway. You also talked about the effect of weight and that's fairly obvious because you need to drag more weight uphill - However, does it also follow that a heavier rider needs to accentuate the attack/rest principle?
yes exactly the heavier the rider, the more the effect of gravity slowing him/her down on the hills see 11:55 If a heavy rider is in a race he/she needs much more effort to keep up on the hills, even though they may catch up a little on the descent (but not completely due to air resistance). The optimum strategy for a light vs heavy rider over the entire course is complex but modelled by www.bestbikesplit.com. We will feature BBS on another video in the future.
calculating your average watt performance is +- easy. The problem is, that you can try to start faster than your average und then after 5-10min fall down and hold +- your calculated performance (under pain for sure :)) which can give you an overall benefit compared to just try to hold your calculated performance for the whole distance. It s natural that you loose some % performance at the end anyway
Would I be correct in thinking that a recumbent bike rider loses 25-30% of his power because of position and gravity compared to riding upright? Love your videos, by the way!
300 watts going uphill means you're getting dropped nowadays. Sad but true. No matter what you weigh. Seems 400 is the sustainable for fit riders for short climbs, and more than 300 for longer ones
Great, but in the real world, as you climb a mountain, for example Stelvio, you start at around 900 m above sea and end at 2750 m above sea level. Your threshold will be lower at higher altitudes. How do you go about pacing for such an time trial?
Good video thanks. I wonder looking at Chris Froome's weight, the climb where he used a power meter in the Vuelta Espana recently v Quintana, and his time taken on the climb, can his FTP be worked out? When I am on a moderate climb I visualise Froome and that is him mostly in the sitting up position on the bars or hoods a la Mont Ventoux. My standing power, as described in the video, is short but I haven't really trained for that position whereas I have seen Contador stand for long periods up climbs so this can be improved. I wonder what is the best exercise to improve standing? I would imagine a leg extension on a bench type exercise.
firstly it is a personal matter, some can better climb standing than others, as is the cadence - some have a preference for high cadence more than others. And than it's hard, hard training... in training Alberto is riding standing for 20-30 min... try that 😄 And than there is one more aspect: Froome is much taller than Contador, so when he stands, his frontal area improves more than Albertos
why not have on the drops as a position rather than TT position. I would have been interested to see this difference compared to the other normal road bar positions. Let;s face it it worked for Indurain in the mountains.
I would add that BMI or body mass index is the most important factor in determining how well a person can climb. If BMI say 10% is achieved through a combination of diet and proper training, the results are staggering. This however is not easy to do.
BMI is not important - PWR is!!! If you significantly lower your BMI you often loose power, mostly more power loss than weight loss (in %). The important thing is power to weight ratio!
This is somewhat correct if you don't eat right, you will loose muscle mass instead of fat. BMI is the way to gauge whether your choice and amount of food is getting you proper results. Without going into detail, a 40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 30% fat by calorie diet is a good starting point. Another salient point is that you should train your body to burn fat for fuel. This diet helps with that.
Very interesting video, with a lot of good points! I'm riding with PM since 3 months and have been changing my approach to my local mountains already. I have a comment on section 2 though with the variable pacing strategy. Now if you go 250 on the climb and 250 on the downhill, your average wattage will naturally be 250. However you will always spend more time on the climb even if you are doing it with 300. So if you increase wattage on the climb and decrease it for the same amount on the downhill (300/200), your average wattage for the whole ride will be higher (maybe 275) and the faster time not all that surprising. What happens if you calculated a steady climb and downhill (275/275) with this new higher average wattage?
yes good point, the average power over a climb and descent will be = (time climbing x power climbing + time descending x power descending)/(total time)....but by pushing 300w uphill and 200w downhill (in your example) this will still be faster than holding a constant watts of 275.
That might well be, but I assume that the difference would not be so striking....Would it actually be the same effect if you went into a headwind, and then having a tailwind in an ITT?
yes its basically the same effect: if you are going into a headwind then you should up the power. Here's a head-scratcher, what about a tailwind uphill then a turn then a headwind downhill?! In that situation differences would be even more equalized!
Fantastic video! Never seen numbers on the position versus grade before. I ride elite category and consider myself a climber. W/Kg 6.0 for 10 mins 390w @ 64.5kg. How would the position versus grade look for me? I tend to use TT bars on anything up to and including 7%! For anything 8%+ I'd always go on the hoods, with perhaps the odd 30 secs standing for the steeper pitches. I was following the principle in the last graph you showed in that aerodynamics in general beat lightweight for my power numbers for grades up until 7% - but I can see I'm not necessarily correct to do this. How do headwinds/tailwinds affect this? I guess a tailwind would allow for more upright positions at a given grade. Thanks
hi try to follow the links in the video to work out your own stats. In general for a more powerful rider like you, you are going faster than others up steeper grades so aerodynamics come into play even at high grades. In short you are probably correct to ride TT up lower grades because you are likely going over 20kph. Over 20kph aero is really important
Very informative and interesting, but how do you pace yourself if you don't use a power meter? There are few flat sections where I live (Taiwan), so most of my riding is in the mountains, and hard as hell. Any advice, PLEASE!
Buy a cheaper bike and a power meter. The difference between a cheap "heavy" bike and a expensive light bike is often a kilo or two. The bike weight is only a few percentage of the total weight of rider and bike. A power meter allows you to know exactly how fast you can go without burning out your muscles.
Do you know of a program that finds the most efficient power output for a rider on a given ride? like inputting your power curve and the gradients in the ride, then the program balances the amount of power you should output at given points of the ride to make you go as fast as possible?
Excuse my ignorance, but, how does electronic shifting progress cycling.....what benefits come from installing a more complicated system that requires batteries and is ipso facto less reliable than cable?
Because if you ride in the rain, dirt and grit you often will experience shifting problems. The electrical shifting self adjust and shift perfectly all through the race.
When talking about the optimum strategy for riding up a consant gradient hill you seem to be assuming that the best strategy is to ride at a constant power. Is that what you're doing, and if so why is that a justified assumption? Why is that a better strategy than, say gradually decreasing power on the way up, or gradually increasing?
interesting question. Did you see 10:05 I talked about varying power according to the grade of the hill. However you are talking about fixed grade...long climbs right? In which case....the problem with gradually decreasing power on the way up is that you grind to a halt on longer climbs......the problem with gradually increasing power is that at some point you exceed your ability to hold that power for the length of the climb. Whilst you are correct the optimal strategy might not be 100% constant depending on what follows the hill climb....it is a fairly safe assumption that constant power during a long constant grade climb will be the best fit for most riders.
Thanks for replying. Yes, I'm talking about a fixed grade, and using a power curve that neither becomes impossible to maintain, nor slows to zero. --- I was thinkling more about this. I think in a situation of a fixed grade, long climb, then constant power being the best tactic is a direct consequence of wind resistance varying by a power of velocity greater than 1 (it varies by velocity squared I think, but it's only important that it's greater than 1). The rider is spending energy in two ways as they go up the hill, doing work against gravity and against air resitance (ignoring mechanical wastes etc.)The work done against gravity is the same independent of speed, but the work against air resistence goes up with speed.If v0 is the (constant) velocity the rider would travel when riding a constant power (and therefore constant velocity) strategy, then any other strategy must have them spending some time above and sometime below v0. I think any time they spend above v0 is less 'efficient' than the time they spend below. Any gain they make by travelling >v0 is more than cancelled out by the loss from travelling
btw, is there something like "flat power" and "uphill power" (and maybe home trainer power)? Do these two differ? As was suggested many times, usually along the lines of ability to generate more power uphill.
I expected more seriously analysis: I had practical task-to win on mtb uphill championship. The race started on 200m asl and finnished on 800m asl, lenght was 6.5 km, surface was dry and hard ground/dirt.The slope was changing by lenght:It starts with slope more than average with u turns (300m), then a little down(300m), steep uphill with 15-18% slope(600m), then average slope (rest of track but on every 100-200m was some steep slope) but 1km before finnish was almost flat part(800m) and last 200m is little more than average slope. Main question was what power managment to took: 1. all track with same ( max) power, 2.to go on steeper slope with higher power and on smaller slope with lower power or 3. to go with higher power on smaller slope and smaller power on higher slope. I tested all 3 and best result was to go with higher power on smaller slope and rest on higher slope, because higher slope mostly was short but smaller slope was longer so if I go with little more than max power on small slope I coul gain more ( -time) than loose on steep slope when will rest and because flat part is at end if come tyred I could not go fast if . Less expirienced drivers came tyred on flat part they and drived as was high slope. I told this to one average guy and he drived 1.5 minutes faster than usually. Yes I won, time was 26:31 and by every kg i was faster 45 seconds. First race was 31 minutes with 12kg bike, last was 26:31 with 8 kg bike( in meantime I became some stronger)
If you are riding for time, downhill is generally for recovery but not freewheeling. If the downhill is short, ride downhill at the same difference in watts below your FTP that you rode uphill above your FTP.
@@Fastfitnesstips Awesome thanks! I'm assuming you could formularise this for air resistance in general from your formula for the Watts per %gradient? As in it would it work for head wind vs. tail wind? I'm assuming the effect of wind speed on rider speed is not linear. Also wouldn't the watts increase per ‰ gradient (as in the formula you mention) increase overall for stronger riders?
@@guswong7067 yes there are two factors aero drag increasing with speed (roughly squared) and ambient wind. We have a calculator for both of these factors, and yes neither is a simple linear equation! re stronger riders, stronger riders = those with higher sustained power, so don't quite understand your qq on this.
@@Fastfitnesstips Yeah i guess I had two questions. Firstly I was wondering whether the intuition to push higher Watts uphill because it takes longer also applied to headwind sections. (assuming no drafting) Secondly I was wondering whether your suggestion of 10 Watts per 1 percent gradient change at 250 scaled linearly. So at 375 Watts would you do 15 Watts extra uphill and 15 less downhill? Adding a third point here sorry :) . I think the headwind tailwind question is very interesting in general. Maybe even worth a video? Coz I can't get my head around it haha. How does the speed to power graph work in this case (assuming flat ground so? I'm assuming tailwind flattens the graph while headwinds steepens it? Does this mean its actually could be worth it to increase Watts on a tailwind section rather than a headwind?? (coz you'll get more speed for an equivalent wattage? But then headwind sections last longer? Am I picturing the graph wrongly? ) Honestly if you've done any excel modelling of this stuff or anything I'd be pretty fascinated. Thanks
Yeah Im just an old fart of a lady who like to learn the tech. And it's been proven from MIT studies that the students there don't like it fast and learn less when fast. But I still love all your vids
Can you do a presentation on how much a human body on a bike contributes to air resistance. I think these aero bikes are a scam and their effect is over-stated since most of the wind resistance is from the human body. The bike probably contributes to less than 30% of the overall wind resistance. (Just a guess).
Quite true. The CDA of rider and bike is typically around 0.33 but for the bike alone 0.07-0.08. This means the bike (and wheels) contribute a quarter to the drag. The rider and clothing and helmet about three quarters. If you go to an aero bike the CDA is about 0.065 so then the bike contributed 20% and the rider 80%.
in any case money is better invested in really good fitting (aero-) kit and aero helmed - much cheaper and more effective than an aero bike... but don't look as cool like those aero bikes 😎
Yes, that second "energy" in the sentece is "gravity", sorry. I don't think is a very fortunate comment: If you needed to climb a wall (infinite slope) you would only need to overcome gravity. Hard, but not exponential.
Exponential in terms of different rider weight. Meaning a heavier rider has to work more hard to combat gravity than a lighter rider has to compared to when there is little gradiant. Took me a minute to get!
DONE! Just under the video.....click the little round gear icon > playback speed > 0.75. www.tutorialgeek.net/2015/04/how-to-change-playback-speed-of-youtube.html
Thank you so much! your video is very informative and i'll try my best to watch again and again and again until such time that I could understand what's all you sayin.
I just spin up at a nice fast cadence. If you dont have the endurance / power to get up the hill , you are facked , this post is utter bollox as the person who is better than you will beat you up the hill
Hey guys please sign up to the FFT newsletter/list: bit.ly/fftnewsletter; and contribute to our bikefit dataset: bit.ly/bikefitdata
My system involves doing 1.5 to 2 times my FTP on the first third, then wobbling up the last 2/3 in constant danger of falling over. Try it.
well, when that "system" works, your estimated FTP is totally wrong. 1.5 to 2 times FTP is only doable for max 1-3 min, so you never get trough one third of a noteworthy climb with that - and you will not ride at a reasonable speed for the other 2 thirds. It's rather stupid to do such a high output that you are blown after a third of a segment - you always are MUCH faster when you chose an effort you can hold through the entire segment and than give all what is left to the top...
Thanks, Rain Man.
That is one of the funniest comments I have ever read on the internet.
couldn't agree more!!!
I agree, there's always more inside you to push up rather than pacing the climb - the thing is you will be hurting.
this video is pure gold.
btw
time trial position is really a dope. i beat my previous record on 10km , 6% avg climb with TT setup, which is 1,5 kg heavier . 9.5 kg into 11 kg.
my previous time was 37.xx into 34.xx .
i climbed mostly on TT position , even at 15% gradiens. i felt more comfortable and my cadence more stable.
please keep up with this kind informative video...
You climbed in aero at 15% grade I’m calling BS… on a tribike at 15% gradient you definitely must be out of the saddle standing up. Even sitting on the saddle is totally out of the question and down in aero is laughable. No way you did that.
Great video. Explains why at over 100 kg I struggle on the hills.
YES, i have the same problem just because my weight its around 98Kg today. I will for sure consider all aspects of positions and pace to climb hills more efectivelly.
You are the best cycling youtuber. Thank you so much for the fact and data based content!
You really know your stuff. I'm just beginning to learn about power in cycling. Thanks for sharing this info. It really helps.
please adjust the aperture setting...i cant see anything on the board
@Alien On a Bike coz you're an alien...
Great vídeo, i love to make all kind of hills and for my experience, on field, i notice everything you say. But now i understand it better because of the math.... thanks and keep doing this kind of vídeos.
I'm not into competitive cycling but this video gave me an idea of how to sustain ride on a very long uphill.
Really enjoyed the video. Has me working my numbers out. Thanks for your time
Absolute gold. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
That was very enlightening. Thanks
Very interesting stuff. When I finally get a power meter soon I think this will all make even more sense.
I'm a below average rider. Even I got a benefit from a power meter. My experience I rode faster because I held a more steady pace both on flats and up hill. Buy a cheaper bike if you can't afford a power meter.
Great video! I've been enjoying all your videos and this one helped fill in some gaps for me. Thanks!
What a nice video, this is the way I like to think about cycling, please keep it up, great work!
About to tackle a 13km climb with a 5% average grade this Sunday, I think I need all the help I can get. thanks for the video.
Hey Coach Alex, thanks for a great video! Would have like to hear about heart rate in addition to power output. In a TT position your heart rate is incredibly lower (being near horizontal), as opposed to sitting up your heart rate will be 5-15 bpm higher and still again your heart rate will be 5-15 bpm higher while standing/climbing.
Keep up the great work!
Awesome video! the amount of science that goes behind making marginal gains is really amazing
cheers thanks, I agree there is always something you can do to go faster!
Fastfitnesstips yes a two stroke engine helps lol
Fastfitnesstips yes a two stroke engine helps lol
amazing video! lots of doubts solved, thanks!
Great video... Very interesting to watch. Thanks for sharing... Keep them coming...
new video coming soon on oval vs round cranks
To be an effective communicator, you would be advised to label the axes of every graph you draw. It takes a few seconds, but it is gold for those who are new to the metrics you are discussing.
super interesting watch. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and taking the time to make this.
Enjoyable analysis! I would wager that aero would be more significant for "recreational" riders on a hill as they'll be on course for longer, so the time saved would be greater, provided they are not going so slowly as to make for negligible aero losses - possibly
Excellent video very informative.
Very interesting video. My infinite climb “this is how it feels when I tackle it😂” is a 20 km ride of an average 10 degree climb. Hell.
Great job man !!! Thumbs UP !!!
Very nice explanations - thank you!
Great video. Thanks for posting that. Really interesting
Thanks, appreciate the feedback
I also think in very mathematical way. Love this video!
Interesting. From my own experience, I more or less completely agree, but watching professionals climb, you see them sitting on the hoods on steep gradients. Regarding weight, there are compromise solutions like mid-section rims, which are more aero but don't have a huge weight penalty.
really enjoyed that video. thanks!
Superinteresting! I’ll take this to hart in my nedt triathlon; thanks! 👍 keep up the good work mate!
thanks! actually, there is a whole new version of this video coming.....with a sophisticated calculator.....try it here fft.tips/climb
@@Fastfitnesstips Hi Alex! I have opened this Climb Calculator, but it seems I cannot choose any option nor input any value (like my weigh, FTP...) I look like every option is locked. Am I doing something wrong? Is this video with a calculator online?
Very interesting video. Total science behind. Totally agree with you on all aspects. And no, you don't speed too fast. Your speech speed is just fine.
Alberto Contador was asked if he could change something, one thing only, in cycling during 2017. He said: Take the powermeter of the races
I believe his non-technical answer has more to do with getting pro-cycling back to the guts, instincts, making the giros more exciting taking of the powemeters from the races. He said races, not training. Do you agree with him @Fastfitnesstips?
Contador is also anti-electronic shifting. I mean I understand the idea of keeping cycling "pure" but at the same time you cannot stop progress. If you want to remove power meters then let's also disallow moulded carbon frames, and innovations in rubber tire tech, etc. As long as the sport remains 100% human-powered and adheres to reasonable safely regulations, I don't see a reason to ban anything like power meters.
+Gabriel Trainer sorry I missed your post. Essentially racing and even training *sometimes* without a powermeter is important mainly so you can judge what it feels like to pace on RPE and not on the powermeter. If you only ever ride with a power meter and one day it doesn't work correctly, you are sunk! Also there are times you just don't want to see that you are under-performing but you still need to train, on those days don't use the power meter.
There is a clear difference though, as carbon frames, tire tech, e-shifting and so on does not affect decision making in the same way. In theory, computer technology could calculate how to ride with perfect efficiency throughout the whole route, making it look more like a runners race where everyone is racing more independently from each other.
In reality it's different in cycling since the effects of drafting forces you to make decisions based on what others are doing, but on slower climbs, it really takes some of the combat out of it. The better the technology, the more independent and individual each climb would be.
A rider wouldn't have to decide how to act when an opponent attacks on a climb, if he knows that he is riding at the calculated perfect efficiency, as long as there is limited drafting benefints.
Contador has a valid point. Knowing the weight and power of a cyclist you can easily calculate the results of a TT or a hilly race.
With reference to Part 2: variable pacing. Assume there is a flat segment after going up and down the hill. Would more time be gained by putting in the additional watts on the flat segment for the same duration as was put in on the up hill? I.e. Keep constant effort going up hill, rest coming down and then attack the flats?
Great videos by the way. Keep up the good work!
On the subsequent flat section try and settle into your normal pace (for example if its a 60min ride then settle back to your FTP pace). When riding solo uphill = higher effort flat = normal effort and downhill = lower effort. For exact strategy for a known course try www.bestbikesplit.com; for pacing a timetrial effort we have a big series on this coming next month (its with the editor).
I believe you need an edit at 9:10. The cyclist expending 200W going downhill is not going to go faster than the rider expending 250W going downhill, all else equal. You have written that he will take more time going downhill, which is correct, despite the higher velocity. It appears the velocity is a typo.
Could you discuss the difference between rotational weight (wheels) and static weight (bike) for hill climbing power requirements, in the context of different riding styles (i.e. standing or riding seating)?
Rotational weight is said to be only beneficial when accelerating, but, as I see it, it seems that when pedaling standing (specially in very steep sections: 15%, 20%, 25%) every pedal stroke is an acceleration!? Is it?
With this in mind, I usually force myself to keep mostly seated when with my heavy (aero alloy wheels)...
Cheers and Thanks for the great video
Yes, I thought that, what about the moment of inertia of the wheels? I think the answer is that this is only a factor affecting acceleration, not speed.
In a true sprint, you are only accelerating (to reach a certain marker in a race). In a climb, you are both accelerating (while your cranks are in a more horizontal orientation) and decelerating (while the cranks are in a more vertical position. In an "ideal" model (one where things like small friction losses from additional tire deflection doesn't count) every additional joule of energy you put into increasing the angular momentum of a heavier wheel during the acceleration part of the pedal stroke will be "paid back" to you from the flywheel effect while you are decelerating in between accelerations.
That said, heavier wheels do take a toll on a climb that's hard not to notice. Any additional weight on any part of your bike or your body is not helpful on a climb. But your wheels are the least sprung part of your entire consist. They must flex and bounce over even the tiniest bumps in the pavement. Additional weight doing that flexing and bouncing up does dissipate extra energy into heat losses both internally and in the form of the extra jarring they transmit into the frame and into your body. This is why the the wheelset should be the first thing you look to upgrade on a stock bike in most cases, and why extra weight in the wheel seems to count more than extra weight in something like, say, your body, which is the most sprung part of the whole system.
Interesting approach on tt vs climbing wheels. On the road however a cyclist needs to battle crosswinds. That condition would surely affect decision as regards to wheel selection.
yes, but it's just in cross winds where aero wheels give the most advantage!!! In straight headwind (or tailwind) they are not faster than box section wheels
Nice Video, very good info! thx
Great video!
thank you!!
Marvelous.
I've had so many questions regarding why riding up hills (mtns really) is so different than riding on the flat. You answered some of them in this impressively clear and informative presentation! I think many of us sorta knew much of this, but not in the detail and not with this clarity. I look forward to taking my next long climb & applying. Maybe in the future you could address cadence vs grade? Thank you!
Hope you don't mind that I took 3 of the pithy things you said and paraphrased them here.
Pacing advice for short climbs - compared to steady effort (FTP perhaps), increase wattage 5% for every 1% increase in grade.
Hands on tops vs hands on hoods gives 10% more power! Wow, really? & TT position gives 5% less power. Standing gives 25% more power. Really interesting! Again, this is for short climbs.
On regular rides (like not a hill climb TT), it's nearly always an advantage to ride an aero wheelset rather than a climbing (lightweight) wheelset. & the faster one rides (& climbs), the more this is the case.
Hi @FastFitnessTips I understand that increasing body weight has an exponentially increasing demand on effort where the standing position is adopted. I wonder if there’s a point in body weight vs gradient vs duration vs aerodynamics in line with ones power curve where it becomes counter productive to stand because of this and if this would be a strategy worth discussing in another video?
Great video, smart work! Cheers
Yes precisely there is a tipping point where sitting is best even if power is lower because of aero gains...in fact if you can manage it TT ing uphill can be even better. Assuming power is equal then a better aero position wins on any grade of hill (suprisingly) but the problem is sustained power with differ. I will try and cover this in a future video. Did you see the drafting uphill video? Check it out
Came back to this video again after a long time, and more I look at the numbers, the less sense it does make. Graph at 12:40 clearly shows, that heavier you are, the less w/kg you need to output to maintain the speed... ???
Thanks for watching. Graph at 12:40 is illustrating another more basic point that more power needed to maintain uphill speed at a higher weight. Its not meant as an exact calculation applied to a known rider. But there does seem to be a slight trend in the direction you are mentioning; however I wouldn't rubbish the whole video for a slight drift (+/-5%) in w/g vs speed.
Well, I am not dismissing the whole video (i like it a lot). But that graph is completely wrong and actually in contradiction to the general idea of the video :)
It should pretty much be the same power output in W/kg for everyone, as long as we do not consider aerodynamic drag (AD). If we do, the graph would probably show minor increase in required power to weight ratio for heavier riders. Considering that when going up anything over roughly 3%, we are fighting gravity more than anything else (based on the video), impact of AD would be rather miniscule going 10%+.
This is why I believe there must be some basic error in function you have used to calculate those graph, since it shows very minor tendency toward decrease of power to weight ratio required to climb hills for heavy riders, while one would expect exact opposite... slight increase, or constant ratio of power increase in relation to weight difference (if we don't consider AD at all).
In reality we see a pretty huge differences in riders ability to climb hills based on their weight, but I BELIEVE (I have nothing to support this claim) that has more to do with physiology of the rider, and general fitness, than anything else. Especially not the physics behind (because there is no way to justify any big difference there).
In theory we can easily compare 65kg rider with 95kg one, and assume the same fitness level (it's just one variable), but in real life, it would be much more difficult to find such couple.
In general public more weight would most likely mean lower fitness level, with athletes it would indicate their are specializing in different area - climber vs sprinter. (using/training different muscle types. eg. Andre vs. Chris).
If this wideo was meant to be for general public, more than for a cycling community, saying you need to output more power the heavier you are to climb hills, would be absolutely okay (well, it's true) And amaze people by how much more power would be... okay (since they most likely have no idea how much 60 watts is in a first place).
But I would expect that everyone here understands that whilst true, it doesn't really mean that much, since you probably can output much more power if you weight more (and if not, it does not make any sense to compare in a first place).
Anyway, I really like your videos, and the fact that you are still replying 1.5 year old video, is very cool man :)
He didn't talk at all about muscle recruitment. (Fast twitch, medium twitch, slow twitch) vs power? When talking about variable power outputs that is the most important factor as to understand how long one can hold a certain power, and how repeatable that excretion is. Since one can only fire the fast twitch fibers once a week, or thereabout, than holding that power for only one excretion like the final sprint on race day. The medium twitch fibers take about a minute to recharge after a firing. This means that you can only use those muscles once an accent unless they can recharge intermittently. There is a sweet spot at your one hour FTP, I believe. The slow twitch can run indefinitely so if you are choosing a recovery power you want to only put out what they can produce.
What this means is that you have a ratio of time vs power that one can climb at a higher power than FTP and the length of time spent climbing souls be dictated by ONLY that rate, assuming full recovery.
So as I always suspected:- attack hills so that you are fighting gravity for the shortest time and rest on the down hill because aero is going to steal the speed anyway. You also talked about the effect of weight and that's fairly obvious because you need to drag more weight uphill - However, does it also follow that a heavier rider needs to accentuate the attack/rest principle?
yes exactly the heavier the rider, the more the effect of gravity slowing him/her down on the hills see 11:55 If a heavy rider is in a race he/she needs much more effort to keep up on the hills, even though they may catch up a little on the descent (but not completely due to air resistance). The optimum strategy for a light vs heavy rider over the entire course is complex but modelled by www.bestbikesplit.com. We will feature BBS on another video in the future.
calculating your average watt performance is +- easy. The problem is, that you can try to start faster than your average und then after 5-10min fall down and hold +- your calculated performance (under pain for sure :)) which can give you an overall benefit compared to just try to hold your calculated performance for the whole distance. It s natural that you loose some % performance at the end anyway
Would I be correct in thinking that a recumbent bike rider loses 25-30% of his power because of position and gravity compared to riding upright? Love your videos, by the way!
300 watts going uphill means you're getting dropped nowadays. Sad but true. No matter what you weigh. Seems 400 is the sustainable for fit riders for short climbs, and more than 300 for longer ones
Great, but in the real world, as you climb a mountain, for example Stelvio, you start at around 900 m above sea and end at 2750 m above sea level. Your threshold will be lower at higher altitudes. How do you go about pacing for such an time trial?
Good video thanks. I wonder looking at Chris Froome's weight, the climb where he used a power meter in the Vuelta Espana recently v Quintana, and his time taken on the climb, can his FTP be worked out? When I am on a moderate climb I visualise Froome and that is him mostly in the sitting up position on the bars or hoods a la Mont Ventoux. My standing power, as described in the video, is short but I haven't really trained for that position whereas I have seen Contador stand for long periods up climbs so this can be improved. I wonder what is the best exercise to improve standing? I would imagine a leg extension on a bench type exercise.
firstly it is a personal matter, some can better climb standing than others, as is the cadence - some have a preference for high cadence more than others. And than it's hard, hard training... in training Alberto is riding standing for 20-30 min... try that 😄
And than there is one more aspect: Froome is much taller than Contador, so when he stands, his frontal area improves more than Albertos
why not have on the drops as a position rather than TT position. I would have been interested to see this difference compared to the other normal road bar positions. Let;s face it it worked for Indurain in the mountains.
I would add that BMI or body mass index is the most important factor in determining how well a person can climb. If BMI say 10% is achieved through a combination of diet and proper training, the results are staggering. This however is not easy to do.
BMI is not important - PWR is!!! If you significantly lower your BMI you often loose power, mostly more power loss than weight loss (in %). The important thing is power to weight ratio!
And you need the right gear !
You should also do a class on how to draw perfect circles!! Lol
This is somewhat correct if you don't eat right, you will loose muscle mass instead of fat. BMI is the way to gauge whether your choice and amount of food is getting you proper results. Without going into detail, a 40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 30% fat by calorie diet is a good starting point. Another salient point is that you should train your body to burn fat for fuel. This diet helps with that.
OORRR, you can just keep your power output at just below threshold at a gear that allows you to pedal up the grade with cadence between 80-100.
haha, that works if you are not against the clock, but if you are and you don't know the length of the climb....
Very interesting video, with a lot of good points! I'm riding with PM since 3 months and have been changing my approach to my local mountains already.
I have a comment on section 2 though with the variable pacing strategy. Now if you go 250 on the climb and 250 on the downhill, your average wattage will naturally be 250. However you will always spend more time on the climb even if you are doing it with 300. So if you increase wattage on the climb and decrease it for the same amount on the downhill (300/200), your average wattage for the whole ride will be higher (maybe 275) and the faster time not all that surprising. What happens if you calculated a steady climb and downhill (275/275) with this new higher average wattage?
yes good point, the average power over a climb and descent will be = (time climbing x power climbing + time descending x power descending)/(total time)....but by pushing 300w uphill and 200w downhill (in your example) this will still be faster than holding a constant watts of 275.
That might well be, but I assume that the difference would not be so striking....Would it actually be the same effect if you went into a headwind, and then having a tailwind in an ITT?
yes its basically the same effect: if you are going into a headwind then you should up the power. Here's a head-scratcher, what about a tailwind uphill then a turn then a headwind downhill?! In that situation differences would be even more equalized!
Fantastic video! Never seen numbers on the position versus grade before. I ride elite category and consider myself a climber. W/Kg 6.0 for 10 mins 390w @ 64.5kg. How would the position versus grade look for me? I tend to use TT bars on anything up to and including 7%! For anything 8%+ I'd always go on the hoods, with perhaps the odd 30 secs standing for the steeper pitches. I was following the principle in the last graph you showed in that aerodynamics in general beat lightweight for my power numbers for grades up until 7% - but I can see I'm not necessarily correct to do this. How do headwinds/tailwinds affect this? I guess a tailwind would allow for more upright positions at a given grade. Thanks
hi try to follow the links in the video to work out your own stats. In general for a more powerful rider like you, you are going faster than others up steeper grades so aerodynamics come into play even at high grades. In short you are probably correct to ride TT up lower grades because you are likely going over 20kph. Over 20kph aero is really important
Awesome!!
Very informative and interesting, but how do you pace yourself if you don't use a power meter? There are few flat sections where I live (Taiwan), so most of my riding is in the mountains, and hard as hell. Any advice, PLEASE!
Buy a cheaper bike and a power meter. The difference between a cheap "heavy" bike and a expensive light bike is often a kilo or two. The bike weight is only a few percentage of the total weight of rider and bike. A power meter allows you to know exactly how fast you can go without burning out your muscles.
Do you know of a program that finds the most efficient power output for a rider on a given ride? like inputting your power curve and the gradients in the ride, then the program balances the amount of power you should output at given points of the ride to make you go as fast as possible?
yes www.bestbikesplit.com is the closest to that. We are planning a video on it in the future. Its an excellent tool.
Excuse my ignorance, but, how does electronic shifting progress cycling.....what benefits come from installing a more complicated system that requires batteries and is ipso facto less reliable than cable?
Because if you ride in the rain, dirt and grit you often will experience shifting problems. The electrical shifting self adjust and shift perfectly all through the race.
When talking about the optimum strategy for riding up a consant gradient hill you seem to be assuming that the best strategy is to ride at a constant power. Is that what you're doing, and if so why is that a justified assumption?
Why is that a better strategy than, say gradually decreasing power on the way up, or gradually increasing?
interesting question. Did you see 10:05 I talked about varying power according to the grade of the hill. However you are talking about fixed grade...long climbs right? In which case....the problem with gradually decreasing power on the way up is that you grind to a halt on longer climbs......the problem with gradually increasing power is that at some point you exceed your ability to hold that power for the length of the climb. Whilst you are correct the optimal strategy might not be 100% constant depending on what follows the hill climb....it is a fairly safe assumption that constant power during a long constant grade climb will be the best fit for most riders.
Thanks for replying.
Yes, I'm talking about a fixed grade, and using a power curve that neither becomes impossible to maintain, nor slows to zero.
---
I was thinkling more about this. I think in a situation of a fixed grade, long climb, then constant power being the best tactic is a direct consequence of wind resistance varying by a power of velocity greater than 1 (it varies by velocity squared I think, but it's only important that it's greater than 1).
The rider is spending energy in two ways as they go up the hill, doing work against gravity and against air resitance (ignoring mechanical wastes etc.)The work done against gravity is the same independent of speed, but the work against air resistence goes up with speed.If v0 is the (constant) velocity the rider would travel when riding a constant power (and therefore constant velocity) strategy, then any other strategy must have them spending some time above and sometime below v0.
I think any time they spend above v0 is less 'efficient' than the time they spend below. Any gain they make by travelling >v0 is more than cancelled out by the loss from travelling
Tank's
btw, is there something like "flat power" and "uphill power" (and maybe home trainer power)? Do these two differ? As was suggested many times, usually along the lines of ability to generate more power uphill.
yes indeed they are different....we are working on this video shortly to explain.
I expected more seriously analysis: I had practical task-to win on mtb uphill championship.
The race started on 200m asl and finnished on 800m asl, lenght was 6.5 km, surface was dry and hard ground/dirt.The slope was changing by lenght:It starts with slope more than average with u turns (300m), then a little down(300m), steep uphill with 15-18% slope(600m), then average slope (rest of track but on every 100-200m was some steep slope) but 1km before finnish was almost flat part(800m) and last 200m is little more than average slope.
Main question was what power managment to took: 1. all track with same ( max) power, 2.to go on steeper slope with higher power and on smaller slope with lower power or 3. to go with higher power on smaller slope and smaller power on higher slope.
I tested all 3 and best result was to go with higher power on smaller slope and rest on higher slope, because higher slope mostly was short but smaller slope was longer so if I go with little more than max power on small slope I coul gain more ( -time) than loose on steep slope when will rest and because flat part is at end if come tyred I could not go fast if . Less expirienced drivers came tyred on flat part they and drived as was high slope.
I told this to one average guy and he drived 1.5 minutes faster than usually.
Yes I won, time was 26:31 and by every kg i was faster 45 seconds. First race was 31 minutes with 12kg bike, last was 26:31 with 8 kg bike( in meantime I became some stronger)
Does this work the same when the downhill doesn't immediately follow the uphill?As in should you always put in more effort going up hill
If you are riding for time, downhill is generally for recovery but not freewheeling. If the downhill is short, ride downhill at the same difference in watts below your FTP that you rode uphill above your FTP.
@@Fastfitnesstips Awesome thanks! I'm assuming you could formularise this for air resistance in general from your formula for the Watts per %gradient? As in it would it work for head wind vs. tail wind? I'm assuming the effect of wind speed on rider speed is not linear.
Also wouldn't the watts increase per ‰ gradient (as in the formula you mention) increase overall for stronger riders?
@@guswong7067 yes there are two factors aero drag increasing with speed (roughly squared) and ambient wind. We have a calculator for both of these factors, and yes neither is a simple linear equation! re stronger riders, stronger riders = those with higher sustained power, so don't quite understand your qq on this.
@@Fastfitnesstips Yeah i guess I had two questions. Firstly I was wondering whether the intuition to push higher Watts uphill because it takes longer also applied to headwind sections. (assuming no drafting)
Secondly I was wondering whether your suggestion of 10 Watts per 1 percent gradient change at 250 scaled linearly. So at 375 Watts would you do 15 Watts extra uphill and 15 less downhill?
Adding a third point here sorry :) . I think the headwind tailwind question is very interesting in general. Maybe even worth a video? Coz I can't get my head around it haha. How does the speed to power graph work in this case (assuming flat ground so? I'm assuming tailwind flattens the graph while headwinds steepens it? Does this mean its actually could be worth it to increase Watts on a tailwind section rather than a headwind?? (coz you'll get more speed for an equivalent wattage? But then headwind sections last longer? Am I picturing the graph wrongly? )
Honestly if you've done any excel modelling of this stuff or anything I'd be pretty fascinated. Thanks
@@Fastfitnesstips Bump
Struggling to see the white board. Switched of at 2 mins
Love it to Awesome
I need to purchase a TT bike that converts to a climbing bike at 6% and reduce my weight going up hill and ad more weights going downhill
What about a lightweight sub 7kg TT bike....or (if supported) how about swapping the front wheel when climbing ?
Looks like I'll end up buying a power meter after all...
wise choice
Brilliant stuff... all I have to do is lose another 10kg ;-)
...without loosing power...
Power meter ftw
I love your video's, but you speak so quickly I miss half the 411.
thanks for the feedback, keeping a fast tempo is needed for youtube's younger audience!
Yeah Im just an old fart of a lady who like to learn the tech. And it's been proven from MIT studies that the students there don't like it fast and learn less when fast. But I still love all your vids
haha point taken! hopefully you will see past my delivery and look at the content, or else use pause and repeat!
Can you do a presentation on how much a human body on a bike contributes to air resistance. I think these aero bikes are a scam and their effect is over-stated since most of the wind resistance is from the human body. The bike probably contributes to less than 30% of the overall wind resistance. (Just a guess).
Quite true. The CDA of rider and bike is typically around 0.33 but for the bike alone 0.07-0.08. This means the bike (and wheels) contribute a quarter to the drag. The rider and clothing and helmet about three quarters. If you go to an aero bike the CDA is about 0.065 so then the bike contributed 20% and the rider 80%.
in any case money is better invested in really good fitting (aero-) kit and aero helmed - much cheaper and more effective than an aero bike... but don't look as cool like those aero bikes 😎
tldw?
00:41 The amount of energy to combat energy rises exponentially as the hill gets steeper. wHAT????!!!?
That is incorrect
"gravity"
Yes, that second "energy" in the sentece is "gravity", sorry. I don't think is a very fortunate comment: If you needed to climb a wall (infinite slope) you would only need to overcome gravity. Hard, but not exponential.
you know, "exponential" became a general public average Joe fashion term for DAMN FAST... sadly, it's used also here
Exponential in terms of different rider weight. Meaning a heavier rider has to work more hard to combat gravity than a lighter rider has to compared to when there is little gradiant. Took me a minute to get!
Pantani and De Gaulle were in the hoods and standing, therefore losing power. Still, they are the best climbers ever. Isn't this interesting?
Just to clarify, Pantani position in the hoods was quite high and not really time trial, it was relaxed.
Can I ask you a favor? Can you please do this video again and speak a little bit slowly so I can understand what's all you saying about.
DONE! Just under the video.....click the little round gear icon > playback speed > 0.75. www.tutorialgeek.net/2015/04/how-to-change-playback-speed-of-youtube.html
Thank you so much! your video is very informative and i'll try my best to watch again and again and again until such time that I could understand what's all you sayin.
Lose weight gain more. Duly noted
Wow the guy in the video doing his 5 min power in a 38 minute TT is defo me👀
I just did a climb going 350w for 1m30 then dying for the last 1 minute
Basically maths
no se ve ni madr......
mtb crash ruclips.net/video/LG0hSW-tIAw/видео.html
CeramicSpeed, Shimano, Pinarello, etc. Hate this guy 🙊
I just spin up at a nice fast cadence. If you dont have the endurance / power to get up the hill , you are facked , this post is utter bollox as the person who is better than you will beat you up the hill
Buy an e bike !