When is a hill a hill?

[ColinJ]

GB is a very strong lad Colin, I looked up some of the blokes I know who are doing 50mins for a 25, average weights between 73 and 82kg and they can only generate that kind of wattage over 5 mins. If we get to ride together I have a feeling I'm going to be pushed to hang on to his wheel, looking forward to it actually.

Sounds like (painful) fun!

I went back to the calculator and worked out that if I hit my target weight of about 80 kg and get a perfectly still day (very rare on the Cragg Vale climb - there is nearly always a SW wind on the exposed top section), I would need to sustain about 360 W to do the climb in 20 minutes which is a goal I've had ever since I started cycling up here. Some hard work would be required, but it sounds doable!

 

[GrasB]

Heh, I knew a fixed rider would call me on my definition!

And GB being a strong rider just means that what I'd consider a hill, he may sneer at.

If we ignore recovery rides for a moment, as you get stronger you simply shift the power levels up the scale. If we take a standard fast cruise on the flat then I meet a 2 mile 3% gradient I'll try to produce enough power to keep at the same speed as my flat cruise. Within reason our the relative output increase will be about the same. As you're producing 150w at a cruise & you increase your output by 50% you'll clear the gradient in 9m, however if I'm producing 250w & jump to 375w I'll clear the gradient in 6m 20s, however as for me the time of exertion is shorter I can up my output to maybe 500w meaning I clear the gradient in 5m 20s (or blow up spectacularly & need a sub-20t chainring ) . Climbing never gets easier, it just gets faster & if you're pushing hard it actually it gets harder!

 

[ColinJ]

Climbing never gets easier, it just gets faster & if you're pushing hard it actually it gets harder!

Ha ha - that's true!

I had one friend who was so much fitter then me that I never tried to stay with him up the Cragg Vale climb that I mentioned earlier, but one year I got much closer to his level and decided to see what I could do. We always used to ride together to the steepish section, mid-climb, and then he'd drop me and go on alone. On this occasion I made a big effort to stay with him up the steep bit onto the moor where the gradient eases off. Then he put the hammer down! I was glued to his wheel all the way up so he kept upping his pace to try and drop me. I had to work so hard to stay with him that I was very close to throwing up and when we got to the top, my legs were like jelly and I had blurred vision.

It was an interesting experience. I suppose it is what you time trialists do yourselves on a regular basis but I'm not sure that I'd want to work that hard every weekend ...

 

[longers]

Where have you been mate ? Hope all is hunky dorey !

Um, been at work mostly. Still going by bike, that's all I have the time or energy to do but things are hunky dory.
Ta for asking!

 

[asterix]

When the back wheel spins (standing) or you struggle to keep the front one on the floor (seated).

 

[MacB]

A hill is whatever you want to label a hill and, due to the subjective nature of this labelling, I think we need to create further categories to better enable understanding amongst differing levels of cyclist. To this end I think that a double descriptor approach is required, one for the hill and one for the cyclist passing on their subjective view. As this all gets more familiar it may be possible to just look at the cyclist descriptor to decide on whether to obtain their subjective view. This sounds very complicated but is actually quite simple:-

hill descriptors - on a scale ranging from 'might kill you' to 'you may not even know you went up it' - the interim level descriptors are variable and so too many to list, but we all get the gist

cyclist descriptors - on a scale ranging from 'Total Novice' to 'Cockwomble' - again too many interim levels to list but some noteworthy entires would be things like, 'Fatbloke', 'Mr Reasonable', 'Fixie Monster', 'I Only Have a Big Ring', 'My Slower Vehicle is a Porsche', 'Look at ME and Tremble' and my personal favourite 'I Put Out More Watts Than Battersea Powerstation'.

Taking a sample hill, familiar to us 'Southern Softies', so Ditchling Beacon you can see that if you seek information on it from the various types of cyclist then you're likely to get responses like:-

Total Novice - this might kill you
Fatbloke - get a taxi
Mr Reasonable - it's doable with low enough gears but don't be afraid to have a rest or push for a while
Look at ME and Tremble - it only starts to get hard when you're on your third consecutive run and keeping above an 80" gear
Cockwomble - that's not a hill....followed by a list of real hills that they've generally completed in top gear, having a chat all the way up and laying down power that has tour riders full of envy. Fortunately a new ruling will mean that these riders have to attach a large dildo to the front of their bikes. Making them easier to spot, easier to avoid and allowing their 'Cockwombleness' to precede them everywhere.

Just a subjective view and YMMV

 

[KateK]

dunno, we don't have them round here. We have bridges though, they're almost like very very small hills but with lots of traffic.

 

[Davidc]

Hills need a real name.

Porlock.

Did it fully loaded for touring in my yoof - couldn't do it now even if I stripped the bike down!

Although I'd say Ditchling is a bit of an awkward shape for comparing hills, what with the umpteen switchbacks, altering gradients and false summits. The other week, I'd suggested to his mightiness Sir Dellzeqq, that Turner's Hill is a better yardstick for an SI unit (or 1.6 kilometrestick to be more accurate).

Ahem - wouldn't a 914.4mm stick be more appropriate?

 

[Hip Priest]

I ride in Northumberland, where every road is a hill.

 

[Piemaster]

Probably the most ill-named road ever, I give you Mount Pleasant
Perhaps the business to the right could provide something to aid its 'elevation'

 

[lordloveaduck]

I have a Yeti at the top of mine.