Originally Posted by
Drew Eckhardt
Spending energy on a climb itself will always be faster than trying to carry speed into it.
...
Not true on the right rollers on a fix gear. When I hit those, I go easy on the descent until just before the bottom, then spin as fast as I can, hit the hill with all the speed I can and basically go crazy to keep that speed as far up the hill as I can. When I finally lose the speed, I settle in to grunting up the rest in that big gear. it's hard. Enough rollers and I hit the point where I cannot do this any longer. The remaining miles are forgettable (yeah I wish!).
Now the much bigger "rollers" of the Oregon coast highway are simply not fun. My approach above gets me about 20% up the hill. I rode Reedsport to Brookings on the 2016 Cycle Oregon. Wasn't fun. Had the option to return on Highway 1 or go inland, climbing several thousand feet, then descending back to the highway just short of Gold Beach, our camp. I had gears (flip-flop hub and a cog wrench) but stopping to change meant a from-a-standstill climb, then having to stop at the top to flip the wheel back. But on the inland climb, I only had to do this three times in 20+ miles. That was some of the nicest riding of the week
I won't argue your point that it may be more energy efficient to take your approach, but riding fix gear, there are other concerns. We have to look at the big picture of resources. Calorie reserves, muscle reserves; both aerobic and anaerobic, and other details like our crotches (if we do not stop and change gears for downhills). If we do stop, that comes with costs also. Lost time, cool down and usually the need to do this again when that hill (up or down) is over.
The roller hill approach I described above is wonderful for all the changes in types of effort. While it works, it is fast and fun. High RPM, high power and full deep breathing is wonderfully cleansing. And it's a blast flying past the geared riders who are selecting the proper gear for the sensible climb.
Ben