DaveLeeNC

The issue of standing vs. sitting at low speeds (implying climbing) is from all that I can tell doing internet research (for better or worse) not resolved. Yet this would seem to me to be an answerable question via experimental data. Once you get into climbs that (for mere mortal bikers like me) yield speeds of say 11mph or less (limited aero implications) there should be an answer.

But doing reading of this issue via Google/Bing/PicYourSearchEngine you find

1) Tons of opinions with no substantiating facts (doesn't mean they are wrong) stating that (given unlimited gearing) standing is inefficient

2) The VERY occasional scientific study (e.g. https://www.active.com/a3_articles/8c...33e5c/1?page=2) that finds no real difference.

This seems to me to be a very important issue that should have a definitive answer. But where is it?

Thanks.

dave

Homebrew01

Answer: It depends

gl98115

Expanded Answer: It depends on the individual.

DaveLeeNC

Although this isn't the point of my question, this still begs the question "depends on what".

IMHO, this is not well established in the cycling world (as in there in no broadly accepted agreement). But (again IMHO) there should be a broadly accepted agreement as this should be answerable via equipment that is readily available to the more elite cycling teams, equipment manufacturers, etc.

dave

loimpact

I am absolutely astonished at how Contador stands so much when he climbs. He almost never sits down. (Compare this to other riders who almost never stand up). And moreover, Contador makes it look effortless!!

Heck, remember this year's TDF??? The dude broke his leg & when he got back on, he starts jumping up & down on it!! The dude was blasting by people like they were standing still!!! He blew thru dozens before he finally gave up the ghost!!

And I have to measure my standing VERY carefully. Too much, too soon & lactic acid will END my climb!! For the most part I'm 95% sitting. There are a couple local hills I climb.....one that's just a few degrees that I'll stand on to pass but it's only about 1/8 mile long (and it still hurts like a $!$!) and another that's extremely steep but also short & I can sit down shortly thereafter.

Again.....Contador = ridiculously amazing "stand up" climber.

DaveLeeNC

See post #4 .

dave

the engine

This is the undeniable definitive best answer ... further debate is hogwash!

big chainring 

I don't really think about it. Stand, sit, whatever. Experimental Data**********? I just ride and whatever gets me up a hill, who cares. I ride so as not to think, just do.

datlas 

Correct.

johnny99

Depends on the individual and the length/steepness of the climb and how fast you are trying to climb.

gl98115

Not all questions are currently answerable.

Goriot

Both!
I remember reading a climbing guide a while ago and it recommended getting into an easier gear and build reserves while maintaining speed, at the start of the hill, work into your current gear, shift as necessary but stay in a gear where standing is possible, only after exhausting standing do I sit back down and shift to the last one or two easier gears left.
I tend to find a lot of power by "pulling up" quite a bit in the few pedal strokes prior to standing up.

fstshrk

I alternate between standing and sitting at anything over 10% grade. Unless I am riding my touring bike (which has 30F/34R gearing), I will stand climbing over 15% grade.

My knees won't take grinding at 50-55 cadence at a 15%+ grade.

DaveLeeNC

I agree. This one should be at least 'addressable' in terms better than I have been able to find.

dave

jon c. 

Can it not be inefficient while still being faster?

hueyhoolihan

gathering data from various sources is not necessary. just ride your bike up hills. you will find out soon enough what's best for you.

people that couldn't determine the most efficient way of doing something, especially physical activities, have been weeded out of the gene pool thousands of years ago.

totalnewbie

i am curious about this issue as well, though I am not sure if my question is exactly the same that the OP asked. If standing yields a higher wattage than sitting (820W vs 650W per the study OP linked to, a 25% jump), there must be a trade-off in that it doesn't last as long, right? (like sprinting vs jogging, hare vs tortoise, fast twitch vs slow twitch, etc.) Yet it simply baffles me when I see Contador (and I think Horner was similar too in last year's vuelta) rode standing almost all the way on a climb. Could these guys have much more energy reserve (like 25% more reserve) than the others? I don't think so. Could these guys have a different physiological makeup such that the muscles they use standing up don't drain the energy as fast as the wattage difference dictates? Possible but it's like telling me that a guy could actually run backwards faster than run forward.... hard to grasp. Maybe it's the technique - these guys' techniques are so much better than the others such that the efficiency loss is much less than the others (again, 25%?) I don't know, but I really enjoy watching contador climb, watching from the back his shoulders, spine, hips all move in such a smooth motion, like a snake swimming through water.

bubbagrannygear

both - seems to me that standing and sitting would engage slightly different muscles so by switching from one to the other mid climb you can get "fresher" muscles involved

bikepro

Everyone has their own climbing style. You can either shift to a lower gear and spin, climb out of the saddle, or a combination of both. For longer, gradual climbs, I normally stay seated and spin a lower gear. On a short hill, I frequently stay in the same hear and stand. On longer rides, its good to stand occasionally to use different muscle groups. You just need to find what works best for you.

Voodoo76

I always thought "conventional wisdom" in the cycling world was that in general smaller riders are more efficient standing than bigger riders. With exceptions to the rule of course. Agree you would think with both Power and HR (the price paid for power) so widely available there would have been quite a bit of study done on this.

kbarch

Surely it depends on the person, the bike, and the situation.
"It depends" may sound glib, but one can easily imagine that the situation really is too complex to analyze and generalize with any level of confidence. Even controlling for bike and situation, from one person to another you've got highly variable anatomies and forms of development. Combine that with variations in the relationship between anatomies and frame geometries and the maths get complicated real quick.

Now I'm wondering how to achieve souplesse out of the saddle....

cafzali

To me, this is far and away the best answer. Put simply, you use different muscles when standing versus sitting. Most feel climbing is inherently more efficiently done when sitting. However, on steep climbs, many people find standing temporarily provides a bit of needed relief.

big john

You can't tell someone they will climb better sitting or standing. Some can stand for miles and some can't.
I climbed a 9 mile long canyon with a friend who stood the entire way. I also rode 10 miles of slight uphill with a pro racer and he never sat down once.
There are also those who never stand.

StanSeven

The one thing not mentioned is standing and sitting use different muscle groups. So people revert to their strengths.

Edit - didn't see the last few posts after I got distracted with something before responding.

superslomo

I can't personally sustain the effort of climbing standing for very long. I do it to change pace a bit, switch things up when parts of me are getting tired, but when I'm really blown, I can't muster pushing the "nitro button" and getting out of the saddle, I just haven't got that effort in my lungs/heart/legs etc. If I'm pretty bushed, I'll get out of the saddle at a stoplight or on a short hill just to bump the speed up a bit to a reasonable pace that I can hopefully push for a bit, and then sit again. I can grind out a while longer sitting, but it becomes a bit of an act of will eventually as well.