## User Tag List

1. lol math

2. Originally Posted by Grambo
Really???? Read Dannihilator's post and my responses. What I'm taking exception to is that he can maintain that power output for 20 - 30 mins which is total BS. Here's the math using you inputs:

Gearing - 52 x 18 @ 50 RPM = 10.9MPH
Interval = 30 Mins
Distance Covered = 5.45 miles
Elevation Gain / Mile = 528 Ft
Total elevation gain over interval = 2,878 ft
Assumed Rider weight = 165 lbs
Watts required approximately 393!!!
Watts per kg = 5.25
Given this was sustained for 20 - 30 mins FTP also = 393 watts!!
Cyclist ability = Cat 1 / Domestic Pro

I'll say it again. Total effin BS. Don't start backtracking now you are the guys who said you could do this and it obviously isn't true. Pretty much any decent cyclist can punch out 400 watts for a few minutes (hell I can generate a 1000 watts for a few seconds) but delivering that kind of power over a prolonged period is a very different story.
well like i said i was too lazy to do the math, I stand corrected.

regardless you are taking some random numbers I threw out and applying them to what Danni said. I understand cycling physiology and fitness as good as anyone else around here. That's nearly 100wats more than I can produce at my FTP so clearly that doesn't apply to me. I'm also a fair bit lighter than 165lbs (145-150 at race weight), but thats besides the point.

Also he never mentioned how long these climbs are.... If they are in the ~5min range than I think we can both agree its doable.

3. My point here is that you can do long climbs with big gears at low cadence, as long as you remain under your threshold. Go ahead and adjust your calculations to determine what is reasonable for an average fit cyclist.

The biggest wild card here is duration. I seriously doubt Danni's climbs are 60,45,30 or even 20min long. They are likely <10min and highly anaerobic.

4. 50 rpm was an unfortunate random selection. Is 25 rpm and 200 watts doable for the average fit cyclist? I think that it is.

Originally Posted by TMonk
well like i said i was too lazy to do the math, I stand corrected.

regardless you are taking some random numbers I threw out and applying them to what Danni said. I understand cycling physiology and fitness as good as anyone else around here. That's nearly 100wats more than I can produce at my FTP so clearly that doesn't apply to me. I'm also a fair bit lighter than 165lbs (145-150 at race weight), but thats besides the point.

Also he never mentioned how long these climbs are.... If they are in the ~5min range than I think we can both agree its doable.

5. Originally Posted by seau grateau
nerds do.

GTFO if youre not a nerd.

6. Originally Posted by TMonk
nerds do.

GTFO if youre not a nerd.

I can prove it mathematically.

7. well ur probably right.

i do find it quite interesting, however.

does that count as caring?

8. yep, it does.

9. I care too. Not about speed, watts, thresholds, fitness benefits, etc., but only that I can get through a tough-ish middle distance fairly hilly ride with only a single compromise of a gear. I love the purity and simplicity, and the calculations not only about the single optimal gear, but also about just how much I can 'spend' on each segment of the ride and still get home with enough energy to not collapse.

10. Originally Posted by stilltooslow
I care too. Not about speed, watts, thresholds, fitness benefits, etc., but only that I can get through a tough-ish middle distance fairly hilly ride with only a single compromise of a gear. I love the purity and simplicity, and the calculations not only about the single optimal gear, but also about just how much I can 'spend' on each segment of the ride and still get home with enough energy to not collapse.
careful, you're entering nerd territory!

11. Originally Posted by TMonk
careful, you're entering nerd territory!
Aw hell, I live a great amount of my life in that territory! I'm quite comfortable there.

12. Originally Posted by Grambo
(not to mention that I'm not even sure whether a prolonged average 10% grade exists in NJ).
They do.
If you are not sure why even state that?
You're not that far from Dan, you should take a trip up and ride with him, see how much he is BSing. Hunterdon County is beautiful...and painful.

13. Originally Posted by Jared.
They do.
If you are not sure why even state that?
You're not that far from Dan, you should take a trip up and ride with him, see how much he is BSing. Hunterdon County is beautiful...and painful.
I wish I could just hand you guys a shovel so you can just keep digging deeper into BS land. You do realize there are search engines called Google, Bing etc and topography data is readily available. The highest point in Hunterdon County NJ is 1066 ft above sea level and the lowest 50 ft above sea level making the total possible elevation change in a sustained climb (no down hills) roughly 1000 ft. On a 10% grade you're climbing roughly 528 ft. per mile which equates to climbing a 1000 ft in less than two miles .... hardly a prolonged climb that would certainly take less than 30 minutes and that's assuming there is a road in Hunterdon that goes from the lowest point to the highest over ~ 2 miles which seems very unlikely. To be clear I'm sure there are short steep climbs in Hunterdon that are challenging for even a strong cyclist but the climbs are relatively short. Hunterdon is hilly but certainly not mountainous and implying that you regularly climb 10% average grades for prolonged periods of time in a 52 x 18 just isn't believable. Not saying Dan can't do it for relatively short periods but just that it is highly unlikely he can do it for long periods of time.

14. Originally Posted by Grambo
I wish I could just hand you guys a shovel so you can just keep digging deeper into BS land. You do realize there are search engines called Google, Bing etc and topography data is readily available. The highest point in Hunterdon County NJ is 1066 ft above sea level and the lowest 50 ft above sea level making the total possible elevation change in a sustained climb (no down hills) roughly 1000 ft. On a 10% grade you're climbing roughly 528 ft. per mile which equates to climbing a 1000 ft in less than two miles .... hardly a prolonged climb that would certainly take less than 30 minutes and that's assuming there is a road in Hunterdon that goes from the lowest point to the highest over ~ 2 miles which seems very unlikely. To be clear I'm sure there are short steep climbs in Hunterdon that are challenging for even a strong cyclist but the climbs are relatively short. Hunterdon is hilly but certainly not mountainous and implying that you regularly climb 10% average grades for prolonged periods of time in a 52 x 18 just isn't believable. Not saying Dan can't do it for relatively short periods but just that it is highly unlikely he can do it for long periods of time.

15. I climbed Mt Everest on 55x11, only took an hour.

16. baller status

17. I now love this thread.

Here's a handy dandy chart that relates watts, gear-inches, and cadence (inside the box) for 165 lbs of cyclist+bicycle on a 10% grade.

Personally I think about 30 rpm is as low as I can go without falling over (some power meters won't even display power at cadence that low). Ergo, you need an FTP of about 250, and a barrel full of self control, to climb a 10% grade for a half hour with 80 gear inches. Any reasonably fit cyclist should be able to put out that much power, but I wouldn't underplay the difficulty of maintaining enough self control to keep the cadence low enough not to blow up. Even 40 rpm jacks up the wattage required to over 300.

18. Grambo you, like I, consider "prolonged" to signify something that is long enough (>20min) to signify a largely aerobic effort. This attitude is typical among competitive cyclists, whether your discipline is road, mountain, track... whatever.

This is SS/FG. Not everyone is an endurance cyclist around here, or better yet participates in these sub-cultures, and as such they may use the word "prolonged" differently.

There is no doubt in my mind that Dannihlator can climb every hill in New Jersey on his bike.

/perspectivebro

19. How did 52x18 get into the equation? I run 50x18.

Actually he's spot on with the topography, timed myself today on a climb that lasts about 1_1/2 miles which I take a lot, took me about 25 minutes to get to the top, but the grade changes throughout it and has an easing off about 1/2 up that allows for some rest and getting ready for the next harder section. Ludlow station took me 45 minutes the last time I did it.

Ludlow, I haven't done since before the crash which I haven't been quite the same since then.

There are a couple of climbs that I won't try again or never will try. Breakneck out in Vernon, and fiddler's elbow in warren county, that was the only time I have ever given up on and called for a ride home, made a ton of mistakes that day.

20. I don't know how fast Dan climbs, and I don't know where he rides besides NJ. But here is my own personal dose of reality.

I have been riding long distances all over the place on a fixed gear for years. I have definitely spent over 30 minutes climbing grades of 7-10% on plenty of occasions. But *** the reason it takes 30 minutes to climb it is due to NOT cranking out anything near 300 watts ***. Over the years I have figured out how to get into a comfortable, sustainable rhythm at 20 RPM or less. And not anaerobic - I can carry on a conversation just fine, should there happen to be anyone else climbing that slow. It looks like hell, but it gets the job done.

Cranking out 20 RPMs or less is its own particular skill, as I said before. And it is not fast. But that makes it entirely possible to spend 30 minutes climbing a 750-ft climb. 750 ft in 2 mi is a 7% grade; if you go 4 mph, it will take half an hour.

21. Originally Posted by Grambo
I wish I could just hand you guys a shovel so you can just keep digging deeper into BS land. You do realize there are search engines called Google, Bing etc and topography data is readily available. The highest point in Hunterdon County NJ is 1066 ft above sea level and the lowest 50 ft above sea level making the total possible elevation change in a sustained climb (no down hills) roughly 1000 ft. On a 10% grade you're climbing roughly 528 ft. per mile which equates to climbing a 1000 ft in less than two miles .... hardly a prolonged climb that would certainly take less than 30 minutes and that's assuming there is a road in Hunterdon that goes from the lowest point to the highest over ~ 2 miles which seems very unlikely. To be clear I'm sure there are short steep climbs in Hunterdon that are challenging for even a strong cyclist but the climbs are relatively short. Hunterdon is hilly but certainly not mountainous and implying that you regularly climb 10% average grades for prolonged periods of time in a 52 x 18 just isn't believable. Not saying Dan can't do it for relatively short periods but just that it is highly unlikely he can do it for long periods of time.
We can Google, too, of course. One of the folks you called BS on rides long distances with plenty of sustained 7%+ grades on her fixed-gear:

http://www.dillpicklegear.com/appala...ss-1000k-2012/

What are your palmares on fixed-gear climbing?

22. http://roberts-1.com/b/u/nj/hills/ seems to confirm Dan's estimates of the grades.

23. Originally Posted by globecanvas
Personally I think about 30 rpm is as low as I can go without falling over
So if you are on a geared bike and you don't pedal you fall over?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•