Originally Posted by Sincitycycler

...is that in general ( there are exceptions, or course), they don't climb very well, even though they are lightweight. Anybody else notice this on aggressive club rides?

Originally Posted by Sincitycycler

...is that in general ( there are exceptions, or course), they don't climb very well, even though they are lightweight. Anybody else notice this on aggressive club rides?

We had an 80 mile almost century this morning in Vegas (Tour of Summerlin) and while riding with the one of the men's Master's (45+) teams in front, I noticed that these fit triathalon-type women go pretty fast on the flats, but as soon as we hit a drag or a sustained 5-6% climb, it's like they hit a wall.

It kind of amazes me because these girls are in shape, maybe 120-130 lbs, yet they look like 250 lb. males Clydes when they hit a big drag.

Kind of confused on this because in my mind, I kind of assume that every who is that light is automatically a strong climber.

$0.02

Originally Posted by mellowdave

this is absurd.

No wonder roadies cant get l*id..

Originally Posted by EURO

Rubbish;

1. Bodyweight is more important than power output
2. THERE IS NO TECHNIQUE TO CLIMBING

Originally Posted by Ozrider

In Gainesville there are hills? In fact, in Florida, there are hills? I think the highest elevation is like 20 feet.

Originally Posted by patentcad

I may look like a dork in my bike weenie getup but once I put on street clothes I'm a lot fitter looking than most of the other guys my age. The ones with the beer bellies.

Originally Posted by patentcad

Roadies CAN get laid. But they have to stop riding their bikes for a while. The ratio of men to women in cycling is about 2000 to 1. If you hadn't noticed.

I may look like a dork in my bike weenie getup but once I put on street clothes I'm a lot fitter looking than most of the other guys my age. The ones with the beer bellies.

Originally Posted by HILL SLUG

I'd like to see a guy give birth...talk about pain a suffering

Then again....us girls realize some things are better slow

Originally Posted by C4Byke

and if you wanna top chemo, try cutting your own head off with a chainsaw...

Originally Posted by EURO

Rubbish;

1. Bodyweight is more important than power output

Originally Posted by AlanS

Not true, genius.

Climbing speed (neglecting aero and frictional effects) is proportional to the power-to-weight ratio. First discovered by Isaac Newton (who was one of the top 1000 physicists in the UK).

Originally Posted by mollusk

While we have no mountains, we do have some hills. The Horrible Hundred Century has 3700' of climbing.

Originally Posted by mollusk

While we have no mountains, we do have some hills. The Horrible Hundred Century has 3700' of climbing.

Originally Posted by BillyD

Hate to shoot down your theory, Sin, but I know two maybe three girls who are at least as good a climber as me, my GF and two of her biking buddies.

My GF can stay with me on my best days, and on my lazy days she has no mercy. I can live with it because on HER lazy days I make sure I get her back . . . male ego and all, you know what I mean.

My GF's friend is short, about 5'2". I don't know what she weighs, but she has these huge thighs which exhibit no definition at all. They're just blobs, so to speak. I would put my money on her against any man I know. She will kick my @$$ on any hill, and yours too, any day of your choosing.

I had heard that she lives on this tough hill so anytime she bikes she has to finish up on this hill. Just this past winter for the first time I went to a party at this friend's house and I finally got to experience this hill . . . in a car! Now I know why she's such a strong climber. F'ggetaboudit!!! I would move!!

Originally Posted by matagi

You need to bear in mind that the muscle mass to bodyweight ratio is generally less in females compared to males of the same weight.

Also, if these were women who looked like they do tris, maybe they were using their tri bikes which are usually higher geared and therefore not suitable for climbing hills. I had this experience on a recent charity ride, on the flats I was passed by this extremely fit looking woman who made me look like I was pedalling backwards, but as soon as we hit a hill I sailed past her like she was pedalling backwards Her bike had a corn-cob cluster, mine has gearing that can practically climb trees - I'm sure if her gearing had been slightly different, she would have powered up the hills and become a dot in the distance.

We watched a road race on local television recently ... all the women competing were world class cyclists and there was one section in the race where the bulk of them got off their bikes and WALKED up the hill - only a handful actually managed to cycle up the hill and they were barely faster than the people walking. Obviously, this was a function of gearing but put a male cyclist of the same weight and fitness on a similarly geared bike, and he would have had no problem with that hill.

Originally Posted by ElJamoquio

Is this riding up the same 5' "hill" 740 times? (just kidding).

I have to ask - are you *from* Florida? People here in Michigan drive two or three hours to go to a 'mountain' to ski that has a smaller elevation drop than the minor hill my parents live on in Western PA.

I not trying to insult you or anything - there's definitely no hills here in Michigan, either; but I think the highest elevation in Florida is about 350 or so feet above sea level. What's the max delta elevation in one climb on that ride?

Originally Posted by markwebb

My li'l sis is 44 years old weighs 100 lbs soaking wet runs marathons and can smoke the OP on any hill - I guarantee it. Her legs are ripped. I just think the OP is hangin' with poser biker babes.

Originally Posted by Sincitycycler

You realize that if your GF reads your post about her blobby physiology, she gonna slap your azz around to next week!