Originally Posted by
RobbieTunes
Varies per individual, but I'm sort of in 63rickert's camp on about 12%.
7-8%, like Thunder Ridge's 13-14 mile climb, is probably faster on a bike for most people. 6-min miles were considerably slow for me as a runner, but I'm not sure I could hold them for 14 miles on an 8% grade.
My guess is, if the race were only 14 miles long, upper-level runners could do Thunder Ridge at 10mph or quicker. However, a lot of cyclists finish the ridge well under an hour. No runner will do that.
Runners can and do change stride and rate of same, but above a certain level, like cyclists, they don't vary much; they suck it up and are really thinking about something else at the time. Marathoners, at a certain speed, simply shut down the thinking process for long stretches, and let their body run on autopilot. Changes in stride don't happen unless they kind of "focus in" and make cognizant changes.
This is a great discussion. I currently cycle less miles per year than I used to run (3500-3600). I climb anywhere from 8mph to 13 mph, depending on grade, where I used to stay a bit above 10mph on all my runs. My normal stride was about 7 feet, but in a finish kick, up to 9.5. I could pick up a bike back then, and ride with my friends for 25 miles at 21+ mph, and still not think it was fun.
I have been passed on "the wall" at Dairyland Dare by a guy on Pugsley fat-tire bike, and he was smiling all the way. My quads were screaming.
But, I'm carrying 40 lbs more, and don't run a lick. That has to make a difference, I'm sure.
Then there's the mental aspect.
My advise to the OP is wear those running shoes, gauge those climbs before you get on them, and walk quickly up them, pushing the bike. You are still moving the object through the distance, so work is the same, perhaps, but you are saving specific muscle groups that may give you trouble if you don't. That's just my take on a very interesting subject.
T-Mar was a notable runner, and knows cycling, and is an engineer. I'd be very interested in his input.
If this involves math, I'm out.
I was thinking of hills where recreational cyclists are getting passed by recreational runners, and the slope of those hills would be a general limit for where it's easier to run up than bike. For most people.
The discussion about the pace and stride is interesting to me because I only learned the fast cadence style in the last year or so (I am 59 now) - mainly because I'd gotten so slow that it felt ridiculous with my accustomed stride length, and also to mitigate the jarring. Weirdly it's consistently right at 178 though I'd targeted 180, strictly on the strength of "internet advice". When I actually ran, at under 20 yrs, there was little resemblance to what I do now. I never thought about stride other than 3-stepping the hurdles, but now I have to think about everything. Mostly about whether that little pain can be ignored or is it a sign of something bad about to happen
Turning it off to run up 8% at a 6 minute pace is fascinating, but purely academic from where I'm at.
I don't know that there could be a magic formula for any given individual, since some people (dare I cite Armstrong?) could put out enough power on the bike that he could be wrenching himself up a vertical wall at a walking pace, but it seems like if you could pick an arbitrary speed, say 5 mph, you should be able to find some slope where a "normal" person with more normal power is just faster running.