Climbing. Stand or sit and spin?
I thought I'd ask this question of the heavier riders. Do you stand to climb or gear down and sit and spin. Sometimes I'm wanting to stand but can't quite seem to get the hang of it.
Thanks. |
I do both. I stand to give myself a little break from trying to grind/spin my way up the hill then sit back down after say 20-40 revolutions of the crank, repeating as needed until I'm at the top or the hill has kicked my a$$ :)
|
Originally Posted by Jac of Hearts
(Post 21022385)
I thought I'd ask this question of the heavier riders. Do you stand to climb or gear down and sit and spin. Sometimes I'm wanting to stand but can't quite seem to get the hang of it.
Thanks. Note: It is in most cases harder physically for heavier riders to stand and climb for any distance like you see some of the lightweight or middleweight serious recreational riders or the pros. (Guys like Contador, Armstrong, Pantani could stand for the longest period. Just another example of how the elite pros are in a literal class by themselves.) YMMV depending upon ability. |
Originally Posted by Jac of Hearts
(Post 21022385)
...Do you stand to climb or gear down and sit and spin...
You can train yourself to stand for longer periods. Just like anything else in cycling. |
I prefer to stand and climb, but I've been doing it this way for over 40 years. The more you do it the better you get at it.
|
At 61 kg, I'm not a "heavier rider", but I do ride up hills quite a lot.
I do most climbing in the saddle, standing only occasionally for 16-24 pedal strokes (mostly to give my butt a rest). I click up two gears when standing, to reduce the cadence. Standing is less aerobically efficient, and it does tire out your legs more, so I use it sparingly. |
A useful session in spin class is try to stand for 50% of the class. You will be a standing hill climbing monster in no time.
|
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 21022653)
I do most climbing in the saddle, standing only occasionally for 16-24 pedal strokes (mostly to give my butt a rest). I click up two gears when standing, to reduce the cadence.
Standing is less aerobically efficient, and it does tire out your legs more, so I use it sparingly. |
Originally Posted by BengalCat
(Post 21022502)
For sustained climbing, most of your time should usually be seated and using the best gear cadence combo. Standing is good for short periods on longer climbs to change up muscle group work or can be good when you hit an especially large jump or increase in a grade that is steep but short.
Note: It is in most cases harder physically for heavier riders to stand and climb for any distance like you see some of the lightweight or middleweight serious recreational riders or the pros. (Guys like Contador, Armstrong, Pantani could stand for the longest period. Just another example of how the elite pros are in a literal class by themselves.) YMMV depending upon ability. With low weight you're not wasting much energy when it moves around climbing out of the saddle. https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2010/0...-or-stand.html Body mass. The lower your body mass the more advantageous it is to stand on a climb. The greater your mass the better off you’ll be staying seated. One quick and simple way to come up with your body mass is to divide your weight in pounds (1kg = 2.2lbs) by your height in inches (1cm = 0.4in). So if you weigh 154 pounds (70kg) and you are 72 inches (180cm) tall your “mass” is 2.13 (154 / 72 = 2.13). I’ve found that for males the best climbers are at less than 2.0. These folks should stand a lot (think of Marco Pantani). Men in the range of 2.0 to 2.3 tend to alternate between standing and sitting a lot (for example, Lance Armstrong). Those men at 2.3 to 2.5 are best advised to sit a lot (like Miguel Indurain). Folks over 2.5 usually avoid hills. Women should use a scale which is about 0.2 lbs/in less (for example, under 1.8 are climbers). |
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt
(Post 21022746)
Alberto Contador won the Tour at 136 pounds. Pantani was almost half a clydestale at 126. Armstrong was a more normal 165, but sat more than those guys and had the best doping program on the planet.
... snip ... OMG. That is sick sick sick. Hilarious, but sick. :50: Keep up the good work my man, keep up the good work! |
I heard of an AIS study on this and seated was the most efficient. BUT seated means nice relaxed upper body, eliminate the tension, especially in the shoulders, and hands resting lightly on the tops of the bars, not even really gripping them. All this to save critical small amounts of energy to put into the climbing.
|
I've always stood but this year I've been sitting. Sitting seems way harder for me. Maybe I'm not gearing low enough.
|
It really depends on how strong and painfree I feel. When I was younger I stood for most of the hills until I couldn't stand anymore, then I sat and spun. Now I gear down and spin.
|
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt
(Post 21022746)
<snip>I’ve found that for males the best climbers are at less than 2.0. These folks should stand a lot (think of Marco Pantani). Men in the range of 2.0 to 2.3 tend to alternate between standing and sitting a lot (for example, Lance Armstrong). Those men at 2.3 to 2.5 are best advised to sit a lot (like Miguel Indurain). Folks over 2.5 usually avoid hills. Women should use a scale which is about 0.2 lbs/in less (for example, under 1.8 are climbers)<snip>
In response to the OP's query, mostly sitting, as one would imagine from a 2.86. But I can stand for periods of several minutes without too much difficulty. Going up the hill is hard. Standing up doesn't make it appreciably more difficult. |
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
(Post 21022930)
As a guy sitting over here at (checks calculator) 2.86 on this particular day, this is actually kinda uplifting. Because now I have a bonafide excuse for those days I deliberately set out to ascend less than 1,000ft in a day.
In response to the OP's query, mostly sitting, as one would imagine from a 2.86. But I can stand for periods of several minutes without too much difficulty. Going up the hill is hard. Standing up doesn't make it appreciably more difficult. On the question, I mostly sit unless I can't handle the torque. I've noticed I go much faster when seated, however. |
Originally Posted by drewguy
(Post 21028150)
Yeah, so basically he seems to be saying Clydes should avoid hills. Pretty hard to do most places . . .
On the question, I mostly sit unless I can't handle the torque. I've noticed I go much faster when seated, however. |
I am just under 200lb and have a routine of anticipatory gearing up and down to take the hills without standing. I only stand when starting in line with cars. Usually catches the one behind me off guard....
|
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt
(Post 21022746)
Armstrong was a more normal 165, but sat more than those guys and had the best doping program on the planet.
|
I never stand when climbing on my touring bike. I alternate on "road" riding climbs.
Funny aside...During my recent tour in MT and ID I was climbing Thompson Pass from ID back into MT. It's roughly 9.2 miles from where I started it. The first several miles are gentle, then it gets steep. The final 5 miles average 7.1%. The final two miles average 7.7%, and the ruling grade is over 11%. I hit the steep section and am having a devil of a time. Barely moving, and all lover the road. After a couple of miles I have a face palm moment. I couldn't remember shifting into my smallest chainring. Looked down and, sure enough, I was still in the middle ring I had been cruising long in during the gentle section. |
Originally Posted by BengalCat
(Post 21022502)
For sustained climbing, most of your time should usually be seated and using the best gear cadence combo. Standing is good for short periods on longer climbs to change up muscle group work or can be good when you hit an especially large jump or increase in a grade that is steep but short.
Originally Posted by BengalCat
(Post 21022502)
Note: It is in most cases harder physically for heavier riders to stand and climb for any distance like you see some of the lightweight or middleweight serious recreational riders or the pros. (Guys like Contador, Armstrong, Pantani could stand for the longest period. Just another example of how the elite pros are in a literal class by themselves.)
Originally Posted by BengalCat
(Post 21022502)
YMMV depending upon ability.
Originally Posted by ZIPP2001
(Post 21022633)
I prefer to stand and climb, but I've been doing it this way for over 40 years. The more you do it the better you get at it.
|
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt
(Post 21022746)
https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2010/0...-or-stand.html
Body mass. The lower your body mass the more advantageous it is to stand on a climb. The greater your mass the better off you’ll be staying seated. One quick and simple way to come up with your body mass is to divide your weight in pounds (1kg = 2.2lbs) by your height in inches (1cm = 0.4in). So if you weigh 154 pounds (70kg) and you are 72 inches (180cm) tall your “mass” is 2.13 (154 / 72 = 2.13). I’ve found that for males the best climbers are at less than 2.0. These folks should stand a lot (think of Marco Pantani). Men in the range of 2.0 to 2.3 tend to alternate between standing and sitting a lot (for example, Lance Armstrong). Those men at 2.3 to 2.5 are best advised to sit a lot (like Miguel Indurain). Folks over 2.5 usually avoid hills. Women should use a scale which is about 0.2 lbs/in less (for example, under 1.8 are climbers). Just last week I did the Dirt Morgul near Boulder...on a mountain bike where sitting isn't usually an option...which is 14 miles with 880 feet of climbing and descending. On average, that's 62 feet/mile but only half of it is uphill so it works out to 120 feet/mile of climbing. I wasn't the fastest person out there but I wasn't the slowest, either. And most people weren't doing the whole loop. Don't tell me that fat people can't climb! I hate that word but will proudly use it when some skinny person tells me I can't climb a damned hill! Climbing...seated or standing...is about attitude and ability but it isn't about "weight". I may not climb as fast of some but I can still climb....Damnit! |
Originally Posted by indyfabz
(Post 21031417)
I never stand when climbing on my touring bike. I alternate on "road" riding climbs.
Just sayin';) |
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 21031485)
What a load of codswallop! I'm far north of 2.5 and I don't "avoid hills". I load bikes with stuff (pushing me even further from "2.5") and go ride lots of hills....sometimes to the tune of over 64,000 feet of climbing in 1100 miles (53 feet of climbing per mile on average) and 4 weeks. Other times, I've strapped a bit less of a load to the bike and done 14,000 feet of climbing over 160 miles (87 feet/mile on average) but done it on dirt. I've even done 5500 feet of climbing over 33 miles which is 170 feet/mile on average but that ride had almost no downhills. And that was done from 5000 feet to 10,000 feet.
Just last week I did the Dirt Morgul near Boulder...on a mountain bike where sitting isn't usually an option...which is 14 miles with 880 feet of climbing and descending. On average, that's 62 feet/mile but only half of it is uphill so it works out to 120 feet/mile of climbing. I wasn't the fastest person out there but I wasn't the slowest, either. And most people weren't doing the whole loop. Don't tell me that fat people can't climb! I hate that word but will proudly use it when some skinny person tells me I can't climb a damned hill! Climbing...seated or standing...is about attitude and ability but it isn't about "weight". I may not climb as fast of some but I can still climb....Damnit! |
I won’t share my number in that ratio supplied above. That said I ride hills. Not fast but I ride them.
|
Originally Posted by Jac of Hearts
(Post 21022385)
I thought I'd ask this question of the heavier riders. Do you stand to climb or gear down and sit and spin. Sometimes I'm wanting to stand but can't quite seem to get the hang of it.
Thanks. But when you stand and pedal, the dynamic changes. You still want to maintain a straight line as the bike moves down the road but you are pushing down on the pedals harder than if you are seated. What some people miss is what your arms are doing. They aren't just along for the ride. You should be pulling on the bars to give your downward push a bit more oomph. But which arm pulls where? Start with (for example) your left foot at the top of the pedal stroke. The bike should lean towards that side. The amount of lean is pretty small...probably less than 10°. As you push down with your foot, pull up with the left hand and push down with the right. This puts a bit more power to the pedal because you are pushing down on it with your body weight plus just a little bit more from your arms. It will also put the bike in the proper lean when your left foot hits the bottom of the stroke. The bike should rock back and forth gently without the bike wandering all over the road. You want to move in a straight line but also allow the bike to sway back and forth in a rather natural manner above the contact patch. You may also want to shift up a gear because you want your cadence to drop a bit. Be careful with the upshift, however. Most people use this for climbing and as the hill goes on for longer, you will naturally slow. If you are in too high a gear, it will make the climb harder than it should be and you'll slow too much. This could mean that you have to downshift. While you can downshift while standing, it takes a lot of finesse to do it properly. Usually, you just have to sit down, shift and (maybe) stand back up. But that loses a lot of momentum and it become a vicious cycle. Hope this helps. If all us Clydes get good enough at out of the saddle climbing, perhaps we can thumb our collective noses at people who say we can't climb:thumb: |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.