What makes a cyclist good at climbing?

[DaveQB]

Is weight the single biggest factor?
I am new to cycling with 20+ years of American Football experience. Very different demands physically (fast switch v slow twitch).

I find when riding with others that I am fine on flats and generally lead the way on descents but climbing I fall way off the back. In a few rides like the Bobbin Head ride, I found I yo-yo with riders who seem about similar in ability to me but are lighter. They race ahead up the climbs then I roll past them as they pedal on the descents. I am 86kg, 16% body fat and a resting HR of 42.

I am curious to discuss and garner opinions from people on this. I am not planning on trying to change my fast twitch fibres to slow twitch while I have a few years left of football in me, but I am curious about this topic.

Thanks.

[struggler]

Great question, but one that I can't answer from experience. I'm at a similar stage, new to the bike and riding with friends who mostly drop me off off the back once we hit the hills. I'm working on the principal of never missing a ride, and trying to slip a few extra hill sessions in when I can, on the premise that it's km's in the legs (with a good mix of hills) that will get me there eventually. Whilst it seems difficult to close the gap, I'm noticing improvement, which is encouraging. I also keep reminding myself that most of the others I ride with have a number of years++ in their legs and that's gotta count for something. I reckon persistence is #1. Perhaps using strava or similar will help you measure improvement... although I'm not that sophisticated yet. Good luck

[HappyHumber]

From my laymans understanding; it's all about personal power to weight ratio when fighting the tyranny of gravity

Weight is against the bigger guys going up but for them coming down; momentum, inertia and all that.

At least that's about as complicated as I'm happy to make it

[Strawburger]

A higher power to weight ratio will get you up climbs quicker. Dropping the kgs won't necessarily make you a good climber though. Being fresh at the base of a climb helps!

Oh, and climbing more and being able to repeat the efforts helps too.

[DaveQB]

Great question, but one that I can't answer from experience. I'm at a similar stage, new to the bike and riding with friends who mostly drop me off off the back once we hit the hills. I'm working on the principal of never missing a ride, and trying to slip a few extra hill sessions in when I can, on the premise that it's km's in the legs (with a good mix of hills) that will get me there eventually. Whilst it seems difficult to close the gap, I'm noticing improvement, which is encouraging. I also keep reminding myself that most of the others I ride with have a number of years++ in their legs and that's gotta count for something. I reckon persistence is #1. Perhaps using strava or similar will help you measure improvement... although I'm not that sophisticated yet. Good luck

Yes I am finding Strava great for the segments and the fact everyone is on it (other than that, it is one of the worst sites/application stack for tracking and managing rides).

I guess I am trying to dig into what else besides weight or if weight is as important as I think it is. I think changing your fast twitch fibres to slow twitch helps and that does takes years of training to do that. I remember learning that one could change from fast to slow but it was rare to change slow to fast. I also remember learning at school that the human body would not have less than 50% slow twitch but could have less than 50% fast twitch (unless you lived outside the earth's gravity field). This articles seems to say things have changed since I was at school:
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anat ... erType.htm

But there must be other factors in climbing, smoothness of the pedal stroke, better balance at the lower speeds (therefore making your more efficient), hydration?
Curious to know what people know on this.

Like I said, I am not trying to improve myself on this front at the moment.

[toolonglegs]

Forget about your muscle fibre build up... you are what you are and there isn't a lot you can do about it. Your parents decided what sort of cyclist you could be at your best... obviously you now decide how close you can get to your best.

Simply if you want to go up hills quicker then lose weight / make more power / or both. I think it really is that simple.

[SuperSix]

Epo
Hgh
Roids
Clenbuterol

[toolonglegs]

Epo
Hgh
Roids
Clenbuterol

Just added extras ... they won't make a bull a goat

[Farmer Elvis]

If you want to get good at climbing hills, climb hills....often! Then climb more hills and make sure your gearing is right

[toolonglegs]

If you want to get good at climbing hills, climb hills....often! Then climb more hills and make sure your gearing is right

I climb lots of hills ... I will never be any good at them
But I sure do enjoy them!

[gman2]

Pretty much.. climb regularly, climb hard. If you hit some 20% gradients, 10% is no longer so hard

In the last 12 months I have gone from not riding too many serious climbs to some 70,000m vertical this year. It's a tough and takes a lot of discipline, and just takes a lot of riding. Would recommend at least 8 hours a week, ramping up the amount of vertical distance each week.

Have gone from about 83kg 12-18 months ago, down to 72kg. For most climbs I'm still only in the top 25% or so, well according to Strava. If I I could lose another 5-7kg (not sure if I want to though!), and work on a few areas I reckon I could maybe get close to the top 10%, but the rest I guess is just natural genetics.

[DavidS]

Not smoking, hence my avoidance of hills!

DS

[queequeg]

Climbs never get easier, you just get faster. You get faster by doing climbs all the time.

I commute a hilly route every day. 250km a week of up/down, not long climbs, just constant rolling hills.

I attack the bigger climbs on weekends. The best satisfaction I got was the first time I powered up Bobbin Head (Turramurra) in the Big Ring, desperately trying to stay with the two whippets in front of me. Now I am the guy people try to stay with!

I am generally top 25% on most climbs, but in my club I am near the top. My big advantage is I can ride all day with hills, whereas some can only do a couple and they are done.

[DaveQB]

From my laymans understanding; it's all about personal power to weight ratio when fighting the tyranny of gravity

Weight is against the bigger guys going up but for them coming down; momentum, inertia and all that.

At least that's about as complicated as I'm happy to make it

So you think weight is the single most important aspect to climbing?
What would you rate second most important?

[macca33]

Forget about your muscle fibre build up... you are what you are and there isn't a lot you can do about it. Your parents decided what sort of cyclist you could be at your best... obviously you now decide how close you can get to your best.

Simply if you want to go up hills quicker then lose weight / make more power / or both. I think it really is that simple.

I wholeheartedly agree - power vs weight is all that matters - well, apart from a willingness to suffer somewhat!

This has been illustrated to me very noticeably since I started, of all things, using a Wahoo Kickr on Zwift. Seeing blokes who I know locally (whose weight I have a reasonably good estimate of) being able to climb using a lot less Watts than I require at similar pace, is proof that power vs weight is key.

The lighter you can get, the better you'll climb.

cheers

[Calvin27]

I'm going to just say weight is the SINGLE biggest contributor. Less weight is a better climber.

Reasoning is power is harder to get than losing weight for average joe. Most people (16% body fat) could easily drop a few kgs within a month and all of a sudden that's a huge boost to your performance. As for power, well that takes time to develop. Your legs need to condition - which takes longer, your heart and lungs need to get good (although they seem already pretty good) and then there is fuel, if there is any prolonged ride. Even if you get big power, bigger power means more stress on your body including limbs (maybe bike fit is not 100%) which adds to recovery. If you drop weight, the reverse is true.

I cannot smash my 65kg friend on the mountains. Doesn't matter how fit I get the extra 20kg is hard to gain back in power whichever way you look at it.

[NASHIE]

From my laymans understanding; it's all about personal power to weight ratio when fighting the tyranny of gravity

Weight is against the bigger guys going up but for them coming down; momentum, inertia and all that.

At least that's about as complicated as I'm happy to make it

So you think weight is the single most important aspect to climbing?
What would you rate second most important?

Rhythm...... which you get from climbing and then climbing some more. Don't get to caught up trying to hang on and just find a nice rhythm.....you will find yourself catching a few riders that go to hard to soon. I find a good song in the head, matched with breathing and tempo....and you have rhythm
And IMO you can't have your seat to far back for climbing

[Duck!]

Is weight the single biggest factor?
I am new to cycling with 20+ years of American Football experience. Very different demands physically (fast switch v slow twitch).
....(snip)....
I am not planning on trying to change my fast twitch fibres to slow twitch while I have a few years left of football in me, but I am curious about this topic.

Thanks.

Your fast vs slow twitch balance is genetic, and there's bugger all you can do about it, although there is an adaptive-type muscle fibre that can speed up or slow down with targetted training. How your muscles burn their given shot of energy is a contributor; slow fibres are more economical, so they're better suited to a sustained effort such as climbing.

Blunt answer: with your muscle makeup, you're never going to be a good climber; your body is optimised for that high intensity sprint-type output. Even as a dedicated cyclist you'd be a sprinter rather than climber. Yes, with training you will become a better climber and should eventually be able to stick with your group, but you're never going to completely turn the tables & blow them away up the hills

[kb]

And IMO you can't have your seat to far back for climbing

Does this mean no matter how far back it is, it won't be too far. Or if it's too far back you can't climb? (Bloody English)

[Gerry.M]

What everyone else has said - +
- Physical makeup - Take Thomas Voeckler for example. 174cm and 70kg - and he is an awesome climber. I'm like you, 190cm and 81kg and although I get up hills ok, I'm never fast up them, and probably never will be.
- Rhythm - I used to fail on hils as I would go all out at the start, then blowup up, then get some energy back and have another crack, then blowup again etc. Watch your cadence and keep a consistent rhythm as you can.
- Climb more hills/Climb bigger hills - I used to hate hills as I always tried to avoid them. Once I got over a few I then started to seek out more on my commute and found the more I hit them the better I got. Also bigger hills - my best times up Mt Dandenong were in the week after climbing Falls and Buffalo (Alpine Classic) as climbs like the 1in20, Wall etc just seemed short and somewhat easier compared to the High Country hills. Go out and climb some big hills then go back to your regular climb and you should see an improvement.

[mtb1011]

they talk about a Time Trial being a race of truth, I reckon knocking off a climb like Mt Hothamj or Mt Donna is such a great personal achievement that that is where you really find yourself as a cyclist.

as others have said its power to weight, and you'll think your power is good because you can smash it on the flat, however you soon find you either blow up or slow down significantly on a good climb that's over say 4% and goes longer than a K. so at that point you think how long can I churn out sustainable power on this climb, your heart rate is at threshold, your cadence is text book 70-90, yet still there's guys passing you with ease or you upload to strava and see you're position 1000 of 4000.

so the steeper and/or longer the climb the more the biggest obstacle for your legs (your body and its weight) impact pedal stroke by pedal stroke until like a small toy your batteries run flat. of course impacting on this will be your pedal efficiency (spin vs grind) and to a certain extent your climbing position as a platform, your cardio, muscle endurance and your mental attitude.

but above all its power to weight and that's why the skinny guys like Contador, Froome, own the mountains, so what's your ideal climbing weight?

well what's Fabian Cancellara weigh - he's a big guy? 81kgs, that's really it for us bigger guys, there's no one heavier in the peleton who can churn out sustained power like him so to me, that's the baseline for making good power to weight.

If you've watched Adam Hansen lead he's a big unit but only 75 kgs. w ~ t f, he's a lightweight????!!!!

What about champion climbers? Chris Froome 71kgs, Alberto Contador 62kg, Bradley Wiggins 69 kg, Cadel Evans 68kg.

And finally our mate Lance, hang on, he's 75kgs yet can climb faster than pantani? Marco Pantani (57kgs).

and there's the other way to climb fast h-g-h/EPO.

so to sum up my take on being a good climber, nutrition plays an overwhelming part in preparing you to climb well or watts per kg output.
good article on climbing

[yanjarra]

i think i see the angle your coming from dave qb and its something i wonder myself. There must be a touch more to it then power to weight as i ride with a friend and we are both identical weights and dead even when on the flats at sustained threshold power(i may be slightly quicker in a sprint(1 min power)), but he leaves me pretty comfortably on climbs when we both go as hard as we can. so how does one explain that? Its a touch unscientific as neither of us have power meters so we are going by perceived effort and heart rate. Still ...i think there's more to it. When you start reading about training with power etc which i am just starting to do there are all those differant energy zones like aerobic, anaerobic, lactate threshold, vo2 max, neuromuscular etc etc...im thinking he must be stronger in one of those zones that is more critical for climbing then flats (maybe vo2 max?).....where we are more even in an energy system more critical on flats like anaerobic....i don't know....

[macca33]

Yanjarra - I reckon that then becomes a case of technique, conditioning and motivation to push oneself, making the difference.

cheers

[HappyHumber]

From my laymans understanding; it's all about personal power to weight ratio when fighting the tyranny of gravity
Weight is against the bigger guys going up but for them coming down; momentum, inertia and all that.
At least that's about as complicated as I'm happy to make it

So you think weight is the single most important aspect to climbing?
What would you rate second most important?

I repeat its the ratio of power to weight. A well seasoned and bike fit bigger dude would still generally still hypothetically beat a skinny small runt who isnt the least bit fit. If I can be that simplistic. If I must ad a second factor, it would be stamina. Keeping the power up.

I'm not the sort of person to over analyze these things. Heck, I am 105kg and still ride steel. I'm more concerned about busting spokes than I am out performing anyone else.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I repeat its the ratio of power to weight.

More fully, it's the power to weight ratio sustainable for the duration of the climb.

If the hill is more than a couple of minutes long to climb, then it's all about increasing your sustainable aerobic power, and reducing the amount of non power producing mass you are moving up hill.

On modest to steep climbs, there is an almost linear correlation between sustainable W/kg and climbing speed, since overcoming gravity dominates as the road tilts upwards, and the formula for the power/weight ratio required to increase gravitational potential energy at given rate is linear with mass and speed.