kuf

If you are not relatively thin, being out of the saddle is quite inefficient.

khatfull

Hey, I'm quoted in a sig! I don't know whether or not to be pissed or honored

dekindy

Sitting is more efficient than standing. Standing adds 5-10 heart beats versus seated climbing.

Larger riders tend to be more effective sitting versus standing.

Modern riders tend to climb using lower cadences and larger gears than other eras. During training when coming back from cancer and after losing weight while retaining strength, Lance adopted the more traditional high cadence style that relies on the aerobic energy system. He seems to alternate between sitting and standing but mostly sitting while drafting and standing when attacking.

Comparing Lance to Jan Ulrich in their battles I don't recall ever seeing JU stand, even on the steepest of slopes. He just dieseled his way up. I have not seen much footage of JU the year he won the TDF so I cannot comment on his climbing style earlier in his career.

To answer your question, it depends on your power to weight, strength of your aerobic system, and preferred pedaling cadence.

If you want to use the least amount of energy to accomplish a climb I believe sitting is the best choice for everybody.

umd

Blanket statements are always wrong

DaJMasta

Standing can be great, though it is less efficient than sit-and-spin. I stand most of the time myself just because I like going quick/feeling like I'm doing something and I tend to ride my geared bikes somewhat more like a fixed gear bike with a bailout.


Basically, when I started standing for climbs the benefit was obvious: you spend a lot more effort to go the same distance, but you use a different muscle set. If you're legs are conditioned, this isn't a huge issue, but if you're feeling tired or you're a bit out of shape, the switch from a legs-only muscle movement to more of a full body movement (involving your torso and arms quite heavily) can feel comparatively easier because you're legs are actually doing less work. You are still doing more work overall, and for me I tire much quicker standing, but it can feel easier in short bursts because of the shift in muscle groups that lets you take some of the pressure off your normal leg muscles.

guadzilla

I have pretty strong legs, but I suck at standing and climbing. Maybe it is a weight thing - I am around 180lb or so - and everybody does say that it is easier for heavier people to sit. But I suspect poor technique is a bigger problem here.

Anyone know some good drills for building good standing/climbing techniques?

dwc032

How come almost everytime you post its always a smart ass comment? Like above and whats considered a hill. Just anwser the guys question. You look like a very accomplished rider how about helping out the less experienced riders like myself and others instead of being such a prick!

umd

I post a lot, if you think almost everytime I post it is a smart ass comment then you aren't very observant. Anyway, I was trying to make a point about blanket statements. As for "what's a hill", it makes a big difference for the answer depending on the OP's idea of a hill.

umd

Here I am standing by the way. This was a pretty big "hill"

youcoming

I'm a big guy but have tons of power. Small steep hills, 200-500 yards up to 20% grade are climbed standing for me. I just use appropriate gearing to keep legs pumping. Long steady climbs are a mixture with about 75% seated and 25% standing. Like I said I'm a big guy but I can actually use it to my advantage as I take a lot of riders off guard when climbing. I did however last week do a ride with a contiual elevation gain for like 20k anywhere from 1% grade up to 8%. It was the first time I really felt my wieght holding me back and opened my eyes to the fact I need to loose a few. It really is choice I like to stand to close gaps fast then sit to pull away.

terrymorse 

Tioga Pass Road East, just before or after the road closure gate.

Am I correct?

umd

Nope, Pine Creek Road, from EC.

umd

Haha, I just realized you were the guy with this gem: "Who cares! He just wanted to know how many miles you can do in 90 minutes. I am a fairly new rider and have no problem doing 25-28 miles in 90 mintes. " in reposnse to my posting of my data from my furthest 90 minutes. I guess I have a stalker

terrymorse 

That was my second guess. After Wacouba Canyon, the easiest climb of EC. Sure doesn't feel easy on race day, though.

umd

It's a nice break between the two 6,000 foot climbs

z415

I like to keep my momentum and am limited by my gears (1x9 setup) so I tend to hammer down the descent, spin, carry that speed up the first half, out of saddle for the second bit and on and on and on for those, keeping a somewhat consistent speed. They are so short that my goal is to stay on the same gear that I mashed down on (my biggest is only 42x12) and staying above 20mph. When I am tired enough that it eventually gets to 42x17, it's my cue to turn back.

DenisMenchov

+1,000,000

- But for the majority of us who aren't racing, that doesn't really matter. It's nice to use a combination of both on a long climb, for me any way. For short hills I'll just sprint to the top standing. For long climbs, I'll stay in the saddle the majority of the time, and will eventually stand sometimes to get a bit of relief from just sitting so long.

I definitely can feel my heart rate go up when standing for longer periods on a climb.

Any ways, whatever gets you up that hill more comfortably..do it.

Grumpy McTrumpy

for some reason this thread sets off my BSometer..


not sure exactly where

SteelCan

I'd give that pric* a pass on this one. :-) They way I read it, umd was actually quite a bit self-effacing in his metaphoric reply.

Magnificent image. (and I'm not talking about your ass)

DaveSSS 

I compared one of my best 2-mile climbing efforts from last year to one I did this week. Last year I did the same interval pedaling seated with an an average power output of 4W/Kg at an average cadence of 87. My latest was done standing with a 10% greater power output of 4.4W/Kg, with an average cadence of 63. The average heart rates were 176 when seated and 174 when standing. Average speed went up from 12.3 to 13.6 mph.

What this shows is that it is possible to go faster and put out more power without raising your average heart rate, when standing, even when you're old (56). The trick is proper technique.

SteelCan

you are likely in better condition than last year. To make the leap to the another conclusion (from the data you are using) is (respectfully) flawed.
Look at it this way, you got better. :-)

umd

With this stupid thread in mind today I did some experiments while climbing. I could effectively "rest" by standing and drop my HR although my power did go down very slightly. I could stand and keep my power constant and raise my HR a few beats, but my perception of effort decreased. In the past I have been able to keep my HR steady while standing and not drop my power but I was too thrashed today from the group ride prior to have any reasonable form.

DaveSSS 

Quite honestly, I don't think I could do that same interval at better than 4W/Kg seated, right now, but I might get a chance this coming week when the latest bad weather clears. I did a seated interval a month or so ago, following a couple of local racers and did about the same 4W/kg, but they were setting the pace. I've been riding this same route for the last 6 years and I have a pretty good feel for what I can and can't do, most of the time. At my age, I don't have a lot of good days when I feel like a really hard 2-mile effort.

All data and conclusions are flawed to some degree. The general idea proposed by some is that pedaling standing always involves a greater effort and higher heart rates to achieve a greater speed. I think that I've proven that's not always the case. I've never ridden a 4.4w/Kg interval before and I really wasn't even making an all out effort. I didn't use my hear rate monitor display either. Just did a pace that I felt like I could maintain. It's coincidental that my average heart rates were so close.

Everyone's fitness changes from day to day, so you could argue that all power meter data is flawed and worthless. At my age, if I see figures that are not getting lower, it's a good thing. If you're not my age or older, when you get there you will find that significant improvements from one year to the next are rare. What's more common is a gradual decline in performance, every year.

terrymorse 

So what definition of efficiency is significant? I like the efficiency that makes you faster. What technique will make you fastest over an extended climb, standing or seated?

The counterintuitive answer appears to be... Yes, it will!

I remember reading a study several years ago in which a group of cyclists were timed on a climb, with the following variations:

A. Seated the entire time,
B. Standing the entire time,
C. Letting the cyclist choose when to stand and when to sit.

The fastest times were made under variation C, when the cyclists mixed it up at their discretion.

grolby

So incorrect that I hardly even know where to start. This gets repeated a lot by historical ignoramuses who don't actually have any knowledge of what equipment was available, historically. If they did know, they wouldn't repeat this little myth.

Modern road bikes are generally equipped with lower gearing than at any time in the history of cycling. This has been true for every single era of cycling throughout history. In the 70's and 80's, road bikes almost never had small chainrings of less than 42 teeth (and often 44 or 45) and never had cogs any bigger than 24. The derailers simply couldn't handle bigger cogs than that, and in any case it was necessary to sacrifice a wide range of gears in order to keep them reasonably close together. It gets even worse the further you go back in history. Racers in the first 30 or more years of the Tour de France could only ride fixed-gear bicycles, so they had one gear for going on the flats or downhill and one for going up. And the gear for going up couldn't be that much smaller than the one for the flats.

You're over generalizing from the tendency of gears used on the flats to have become larger over time. This is more or less true, but even this hasn't really changed a lot since about the 50's, when turning as big a gear as possible was fairly fashionable. The major difference now is that we have higher gears available than a 52x14; if they had had higher gears then, there's no doubt that they would have been used. The same is undoubtedly true for earlier eras than that, once you take into account differences in style due to changes in the length of races and quality of roads.

The point is, though, that to claim that roadies now are climbing with higher gears and lower cadences than they did in the past is flatly ignorant. It's utterly false. It's the confident assertion of a know-nothing.