does anybody else use the climb rate (as given by bike computers with altimeter function in feet/min or m/min) in training?
i found that for climbs between 5% and maybe 15% (which are 90% of my climbs) without “disturbing factors” like a heavy head wind or real crappy road surface this number is very constant - and keeps constantly rising as my fitness level improves.
so unlike on the flats where speed is way to much dependent of wind and road surface this could be an economy alternative to power measurement.
i think the pros use it a fair bit. He’s a pretty controversial figure but Ferrari does a lot of climb rate analysis when looking at how the Euro pros are doing on the major tours - check out the old articles on www.53x12.com and you’ll see what I mean.
This just sounds like a proxy for power, though you don’t need fancy equipment to measure it.
I once did a calculation estimating my power measured in watts, factored in my weight and the slope of the hills I was climbing, and used the results to estimate my speed on the climbs. It nailed the speed on the money. Maybe it was just errors canceling out, but I got a kick out of it.
Pro 5000+ ft/hr
Seems rather subjective - I guess we are to assume these numbers are for roads with gradients above 7-8% average. It is much easier to maintain an ascent rate of 4000+ ft/hr when the gradient is relatively benign at only 4-8% as compared to 9% and up (ouch)!
hm - my personal observation is the opposite - the steeper the hill the easier it is to hold a certain climb rate (in my case about 60 feet/min at 5%).
Arnie Baker talks about climbing rate a lot in one of his e-books. (ACE Training for Cyclists?)
30 min max climbing rates
Minimum Fitness 2000 ft/hr
Moderate Fitness 3000+ ft/hr
High Fitness 4000+ ft/hr
Pro 5000+ ft/hr
Interesting numbers. These take into account weight, which is why the best climbers are skinny little schmucks. Those of us high on the bubba scale (other than Magnus Backstedt) will be lucky to ever make 4000 ft/hr.
SebBo, your observation is correct that when it gets steeper, it is easier to hold a higher climb rate. This is because your speed is lower and a higher proportion of energy is going into fighting gravity as oppose to wind. Even at 20 kph, there is huge air resistance (otherwise pro cyclists would not bother drafting up big climbs).
I know in Europe, many cyclists go by vertical meters per hour. This is useful for them as they have lots of climbs in the 30-90 min range and the elevations are all clearly marked every 100 m you move up vertically. Most fit sport cyclists seem to be in the 1000-1200m per hour range. Tri pros might be in the 1300-1400 range. Pro cyclists can be well up to the 1600-1800 range. As a point of reference, Ventoux has 1700 m of climbing if I recall correctly and guys like Iban Mayo, Hamilton and Armstrong are in the sub 56 min range for this climb at the Dauphine.
I have the CM414 and it gives the same thing. It just doesn’t datalog it directly. I can pull the info out I guess if I want to.
On my training ride this weekend I will watch it as I climb some hills. I will be doing a few 4-5% climbs some 7-9% and and a one 10-12%. All at least a mile long so I will have to see what grades produce a faster rate for me.
<< BTW, a hill and a stopwatch are THE alternative to a power meter. And a very good way to test if your program is working or not. >>
I’m curious, cuz I do a climbing TT failry regularly as a fitness gauge - do you use the overall grade/distance of the climb (in my example: 3.8m, 5.6% avg. grade), and I guess also average cadence?
I just played w/ it, and w/out knowing my true effective frontal area (I climb mostly on the hoods, but some of the easier part I do in the bars - I used the default, 0.5), and my “Effective Pedaling Range” in degrees (I used the default)
Edited to delete self-serving material
So- does anybody have an idea of how one figgers out their effective pedaling range? Does it even matter? Or any suggestions about what to assume as a frontal area while on the hoods?
i read that world class riders can climb at a rate of about 26-28 m/min when they do an uphill time trial.
when i do that (600-700 feet, ~8-10%) i average around 20-22 m/min and due to my >>200 lbs. i am a rather weak climber and get dropped once in a while when riding hills with a group.
where do the good amateurs (cat 2-3) fit in this picture?
i read that world class riders can climb at a rate of about 26-28 m/min when they do an uphill time trial.
when i do that (600-700 feet, ~8-10%) i average around 20-22 m/min and due to my >>200 lbs. i am a rather weak climber and get dropped once in a while when riding hills with a group.
where do the good amateurs (cat 2-3) fit in this picture?
These numbers don’t mean much without other constants. 26-28m/min up a 6% grade is pretty freaky, but 26-28m/min up a 15% grade is much more human.
If you can climb at 20-22m/min for an hour up a 6-7% grade, you are an excellent climber. If you weigh nearly 100kg and climb like that, I’d think you are pro caliber. That’d put you up Mt. Palomar in under an hour (21.53m/min if my calc’s are correct), and not many people can do that.
“Good amateurs” might be classified in the 20-22m/min for an hour range, not totally sure though, especially as the word “good” is a bit vague.
i think the 26-28 m/min was referred to the climb up alpe d’huez (TT). i don’t exactly know how steep it is. after my personal experience with climb rate i only look at it if the climb gets constantly steeper that 5-7% without other significant influences like heavy headwind.
you got me wrong on my climbing abilities - i couldn’t hold 20-22 for a hour. most of the climbs in my area are about 600 feet, 8-12% - so that’s about 10-15 minutes of climbing. i don’t drop dead at the top, but probably couldn’t go on for an hour (wish i could though)
Pro 5000+ ft/hr
Seems rather subjective - I guess we are to assume these numbers are for roads with gradients above 7-8% average. It is much easier to maintain an ascent rate of 4000+ ft/hr when the gradient is relatively benign at only 4-8% as compared to 9% and up (ouch)!
I think it’s the other way around - higher climb rates are achieved on steeper grades. More of your power goes into climbing than into fighting air resistance.
Higher climb rates are also possible at sea level than at altitude. I’m racing Mt. Evans this year. Anyone know the expected drop in climb rate up at 14000ft
