I'm more worried about the amount of vertical than the altitude (famous last words). The Col De Galibier is the highest point in the TDF at a little under 9,000, and while I'm sure the altitude there had to have affected how fast I climbed, I couldn't attribute anything to the altitude.

I did see the "3 day acclimitization is the worst" bit in a research paper available on line. I'll see if I can find it.

If I had the time, and any realistic shot to be seriously competitive, I'd come out 2 weeks early.

However given that my goal is to survive and ride a time that isn't humiliating, I think that you're right that training is going to be more important.

I think your head is in the right place on that.

If you were already a highly trained pro climbing god, I could see trying to gain additional advantage in dealing with altitude. But for the rest of us joes, the sheer amount of climbing is the biggest problem. Altitude, dehydration, etc. etc. are all just ankle-biters :)

I have not ridden in the Everest challenge, but did cycle in and around this area this summer. I live at sea level here in San Diego and did not have any issues climbing up to 10,000. However, a buddy and I rode our mountain bikes up to the top of White Mountain (over 14,000) and I ended up getting sick.

I agree with others that have posted above. I think you will be fine with the altitude up to 10,000. Both rides only climb to this elevation and the climbing is actually between 4 and 10k.

Getting your legs ready to climb on the second day (after such a brutal first day) is the real challenge in this event.

Surprisingly, when I completed both days in 2005, the second day came much easier. I felt so lousy after the first day, that I almost didn't start. Once I got warmed up, I felt much better and rode better the second day.

Right...that's my point....everything is pretty much under 10k feet. Ideally you'd want to spend a week or more so that your body would adapt and perform at nearly the same level as it would at sea level....but, 3-4 days is more than adequate, certainly much moreso than going from sea level to 7k+ feet and trying to do a high aerobic sport. Even 1-2 days would be "ok", but obviously not the most ideal scenario. I can go from sea level to 6,288 feet in one day (have done it many, many times) climbing Mt. Washington, and other than sucking a bit of wind at the top, I have no other issues.

Do some research on climbers who ascend Mt. McKinley (20,320 feet)....the climb starts at around 7,500 feet, and there's a long walk in before things start going more vertical. That climb takes most parties 3+ weeks to climb (24 mile hike each way if you go up the tourist route). Many parties will sometimes camp out where they get dropped off, and others will hike in a few miles to the first camp, which is still under 10k feet....but since you need so much gear to climb the damn mountain (carring 100+ pounds of gear for each person is the norm), it's usually done in stages.....so in essence, you climb the mountain twice :). Also, this has the added benefit of "train high, sleep low", since the groups will build a cache for their extra gear higher up the mountain, and then return back down to their camp to sleep and so their bodies can adapt to the elevation they just came from.

Just a little useless triva for ya.

Um, yeah, I wasn't really arguing with you, dude.

merlinextralight, do you have a target finish time in mind for the EC? Have you done the math based on other rides you have done and come up with a realistic number?

Yeah I know...I just don't get the whole 3-days-is-bad thing in regards to acclimatizing. If it were over 10k feet, then yeah...might be a bit rough, since you really need to do it in stages, ESPECIALLY if you go over 14k feet. But....at 7k feet, I can't see how it would be all that "bad", speaking from personal experience.

At any rate, 29,000 feet of climbing in 2 days is nutty. I'd be doing that in a 50x34 compact w/ an 11-32 cassette.

Yeah, I don't know where that comes from, either. Several of my riding buddies have come up with this same nugget, but I've yet to read anything that substantiates it -- especially for altitudes below 10,000 as you suggest.

I've climbed (mountaineering/hiking, not cycling) a number of 13ers and 14ers out here and it doesn't seem to matter whether I've been "at altitude" for a day or a week or several weeks in advance -- it's always challenging :o

I would like to see the report merlin mentions, if he can find it.

Actually, the phrase (and the science) is "sleep high, train low."

--Steve

I live at 2500' in NC and routinely ride to 6000'. The year I did the Triple ByPass in Colorado I tried to maximize my time at 5-6000' but in the end I'm not sure it made much difference. I spent the week before the ride in Redstone at 7200' doing rides up to 9000'. The first day we rode up McClure Pass I though I was stuck in mud. And that's how I felt for most of the TBP. Though the first and last climbs up to 11,400 and 10,600 weren't to bad, the climb to Loveland Pass was tough. Mainly what I felt was a loss of power and a lowering of my LT HR. At home my LT is about 173 while at elevation it seemed to drop to the mid 150s. Perhaps with time it would come back up but I didn't have a month to spend before the ride at high elevation. So if you train by power and you know your FT is say 300 watts at a low elevation, it may only be 250 watts at 8-10k' (or maybe less). I think that is why gearing is so important on a ride like the EC.

Why not 48 x 36 x 26 with 11 - 34. With that gearing you have covered all bases....

48 x 11 is similar to 52 x 12 for descending...

And climbing 26 X 34...Well can you stay upright???

I ask because I built a climbing bike with that gearing for some races here in the East and the Everest Challenge really intrigues me...

Not in the mountaineering sense. You die if you do that. The "sleep high, train low" phrase suits cyclists well, since they are dealing with much lower altitudes....AND, they're not trying to acclimatize in a few days to a given altitude. If you're training for performance gains, then long-term things such as an altitude tent makes sense.

Haven't really gotten that far. I've done Six Gap in around 6:30. L' Etape de Tour in 2005 (stage 16 that year) in 7:20. (111 miles 11,000 vertical silver medal, top third) Finished 10th in the first Brasstown BaldBuster (but there were only 150 people signed up).

So I'd say my past performances would have me struggling to hang on the back of the Masters 45 group, but I hope to be a lot lighter by Septemember, but even then my goal is going to be finish and be respectable.

Actually the whole idea is pretty stupid for a big guy from Florida who at his best is a decent crit rider and sprinter.

I haven't done Six Gap, but I have done Mitchell. When I look at the best finish times of the EC and Mitchell it seems like EC takes a little longer. However I think that maybe Justin England, who won Mitchell last year, might be better than the winner of the first day of the EC. Regardless, I can get a feeling for the effort needed when I compare my time at Mitchell and how that compares to the EC. The problem lies the next day when all I had to do was a short, flat one hour recovery ride and not another 13K of climbing. It's an interesting goal to work towards.

Why not start out with the LOTOJA race in Sept? :)

That's only like 8,500 feet of climbing in 206 miles.

'Tis better to have tried in vain,
Sincerely striving for a goal,
Than to have lived upon the plain
An idle and a timid soul.

'Tis better to have fought and spent
Your courage missing all applause,
Than to have lived in smug content
And never ventured for a cause.

For he who tries and fails may be
The founder of a better day;
Though never his the victory,
From him shall others learn the way.

I was thinking that it was a way to either lose weight or die trying. But yours is a lot more elegant.

Only 8500 feet of gain? That is too easy. The weekend before EC come do the HooDoo with me!!! (I am doing it as part of a 2 man team, but it will still be ~250 miles and 15,000 in gain)

Be forewarned that the 45+ group has the guy who won it overall two years ago. Damn fast group.

If I do it this year I'm happy to swap pulls and make both our lives easier if it works out.

This is sort of a noob question, but I've never had the opportunity to do a really long, sustained climb. The big hills anywhere I've lived have been about 400-450 ft. vertical, and so, are over in ten minutes or so.

On the long, extended climbs shown on this route, wouldn't you want to set up your bike so that you would do the bulk of the climbing with pretty much the same cadence and intensity that you use for fast rides on the flat?

Sure, I'd love to keep my cadence between 100-120 rpm, like when I ride fast on the flats :rolleyes: But it's not going to happen, by the end of this ride, I'm happy to keep my cadence between 60-80rpm.

It would be nice if you could do that, but on long (and steep) climbs, it's simply not practical (might not even be possible, even with super-low gearing). For long, average-grade climbs, the most comfortable cadence for me is around 70, maybe 80 if it's on the less steep side. On some of the stuff in the Everest Challenge I was barely to be able to maintain 50, and actually ended up just stopping in a few places at the end of the first day.

It's difficult to estimate the difficulty of this ride just by looking at the profiles. You will gain some appreciation for it by reading OC Roadie's report from a year or 2 ago. And of course, actually riding it provides the best insight.

ok, guys now you're scaring me.