So I have a question in reguards to climbing. Is the amount of energy different or the same when you are climbing straight up the fall line or if your traversing across it at the same % gradient?
I feel like if I'm climbing straight up the fall line it is harder than if I'm climbing the same grade only climbing across the fall line.

One thing comes to mind and that is if I am on a bike , or even down hill ski's, my falling resistance is greater if I am not totally facing up or down the fall line. Meaning on my ski the edge is keeping me from sliding down the hill to some degree. A bike tire would do the same.

I just seems to me I feel the gravatational force full on if I'm facing straight up.

You're effectively lowering the grade of the climb. You're traveling more horizontal distance per vertical distance.

Didn't major in physics, but here goes:
The more circuitous route up the hill takes more energy. That's because of the extra wind and rolling resistance from having traveled farther.

The phenomena you're describing are physiological. If you were stronger, or could work your legs efficiently at a lower cadence, the hill would be easier and faster done in a straight line. Stronger legs will take you comfortably down the fall-line too. Time to hit the gym.

Yes I understand that but I'm talking about climbing a 10% grade straight up as well as a 10% grade sideways.

If you're talking physics the "work" expended is identical. How far up are you moving that weight.

Your ski analogy is pretty lame But the effective gradient you're facing is lower when you're not riding straight up. The only two solutions are lose weight or gain strength, or both.

What are you riding in, a bowl? The gradient is clearly different if you're riding paperboy style up the road. Get a calculator out and figure it out - you're extending the "rise" part of "rise over run"

When you do the switchback thing up the road, you're only facing the steepest part during the corners. Obviously. You're probably doing about the same amount of work, but if you go straight up you need to apply pretty close to peak force the whole way; if you zigzag you apply less force for more distance.

Apologies. I did not read your first post carefully enough. Below is the point.
I understand now. You mean riding a road that goes straight up the mountain vs. riding switchbacks which are the same grade.
They're the same. The phenomenon you're describing is psychological.

You have to distinguish between work in the physics sense and work in the biomechanical sense. In the physics sense, you do the same amount of work (ignoring rolling resistance, etc). In the biomechanical sense, you do more work zig-zagging back and forth but you are doing that more work over a longer period of time and are able to do it with less power (which is work done per unit time, e.g., work per second).

You're not listening trojan. I'm talking about riding straight/ or riding crosswise up a hill at 10%.. The obvious point you are missing is that in both cases I'm riding up a hill at a ten percent.

Here's how to picture it:
You're climbing a road that points directly at the summit of a pile of earth. You stop part way to drink. A huge crew of earth movers quickly piles an even bigger (and steeper) pile of earth on one side of the road you've been riding. You resume riding. It's the same road, but it now cuts across the main slope. The physics are the same.

This is from another current thread and answers your question:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post15473390

Yes, this. Less incline, more distance. I'm not sure if that equals the same as straight up in terms of energy or overall force or the physics definition of work, but certainly the amount of force is less for one than the other. And in terms of physiology more force is more fatiguing than more work.

One hill with a 10% grade.

Basically, the amount of energy you expend to move your mass up the hill is the same regardless of the path you take (straight-up or zig-zagging).

If you are going at the same speed for both paths (straight-up or zig-zagging), the straight-up path requires a higher rate of power (power/time) than the zig-zag path. Since the zig-zag path is longer, it will take longer to get to the top (at the same speed).

That is, zig-zagging seems easier because you are putting out less power/time.

The principle is the same as levers and lengths of levers.

The other thing is that, when going straight-up, you slow down much faster than you would when zig-zagging. That means it is easier to rest by reducing power when zig-zagging. (Being able to back-off, even briefly, makes going up hill easier.)

Basically, you are comparing two 10% hills and the side-ways one is longer. Thus, obviously, the side-ways one will take more energy by the ratio of the distance travelled (if you are travelling at the same speed). If you are going the same speed, you are (basically) outputting the same power/time (which means the effort/ease is the same).

If the side-ways one appears easier, it's because you are going sideways up a 15% (or whatever) hill or because you are going slower.

Now if it's 10% include no matter what and one is a direct line between points A and B while the other is meandering around the line, with the same incline, then meandering is more work overall. You're exerting the same force, only over a longer distance.

This could be true but these things are a minor part of the energy used to get up a steep hill. For steep hills (and the speeds people are moving up them), you can ignore these small differences.

People meander because they can't go straight-up (they lack the power output). That is, people who are zig-zagging are (typically) excerting less power/time (not the same).

So, you're right. My terminology was poor.

Work = force*distance.

So, if it's 10% include no matter what, then a straight line is always shorter than anything else. Another physics fact. A straight line is the shortest distance between points A and B (no wormholes, folks!). So, if you're doing anything other than a straight line then you're going farther. So, overall work is more. Assuming the amount of force stays the same.

Now, if you maintain the amount of force, then you're going to be whipped if you don't go in a straight line.

IF the incline is NOT 10% on the longer distance then work might be the same because force decreases enough to compensate for the distance.

I'm just talking pure physics speculation here.

If you want to talk about physiology, then I would say that force is the exhausting component of work.

Is the amount of energy different or the same when you are climbing straight up the fall line or if your traversing across it at the same % gradient?

Energy is the same either way, the same as the potential energy due to the total difference in height.

Power is the rate at which you use energy, which is why you feel it is harder to climb straight up. For a given vertical distance it takes more power to climb it in a shorter time (ie, feels harder).

The angle of your tires makes no difference with regard to energy or power expended. The orientation of your body with respect to gravity also does not change the energy needed to climb.

work: don't get confused by the terminology and equations. Work in this case is the change in potential energy.

???

If you are zig-zagging up a 10% hill, you are effectively reducing the grade. That is, you are going up a longer hill at a lower grade.

Again, people zig-zag because they are not able to produce enough instantaneous energy to go straight-up. Thus, they choose to output less energy/time to go up a longer less-steep hill that takes them more time.

The total power output for both paths is the same (energy/time * time).

=================

Keep in mind that there are two understandings of power: the physics one and the "common" one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

Think of "energy" as calories and "power" as calorie burn-rate (calories consumed per minute).

Going straight-up requires the same amount of calories as zig-zagging but zig-zagging at the same speed uses a lower burn-rate but for a longer period of time.

People have different maximum burn-rates. Things feel easier when you are not near your maximum burn rate.

If the distance is the same than the energy to do both 10% hills would be the same... It doesn't matter whether it's strait up or sideways, a 10% hill is a 10% hill both ways, it's the distance that would matter. JMO not having a major in physics.

As a physicist, I'm just gonna quote myself again.

You guys are really getting caught up in the numbers, which pretty much just complicate the picture.

Read my last post - that's the post I meant to make in the first place. I was assuming that zig-zagging didn't result in a lower incline, which I admit wouldn't make sense. But that's what I thought the question was.

Believe me, I am very familiar with physics. I almost became a physicist before I decided to become a statistician. And when I say almost I mean I studied it before switching.

Yes. This is correct. The fall-line is defined as the steepest direction up/down a slope at that point. If you're not traveling on the fall line you're not on as steep a slope.

For force would the same but the distance would mean it was greater work, which is what I think you mean by energy. Because energy is the ability to do work.

You could not possibly have phrased your question in a more muddy manner.

It looks like most of us interpreted your question as Same road, same hill, different path up the road. You seem to have magically created two roads on the same hill but if they're both 10%, they're both 10%, it's just that one is longer.