Distance and Total Ascent

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
ANTONISH
Posts: 2967
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 9:49am

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by ANTONISH »

whoof wrote: 31 May 2020, 2:33pm I've ridden 60km in the Netherlands without going up a single hill on a sit up and beg into a howling head wind and it was far harder than any 60 km I could ever do in Cornwall. There's more to difficult riding than climbing.
I rode Utrecht to Vlissingen into a strong headwind - give me hills any day.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by thirdcrank »

In theory height climbed is money in the bank but it's just luck whether riding into the wind is ever recouped. It never feels like it because even riding in still air consumes energy. I think the continuous climb versus undulations is more a matter of personal taste. Think of races, where a different type of rider does well uphill compared with winners on the flat
borisface
Posts: 360
Joined: 19 Feb 2010, 3:48pm

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by borisface »

ANTONISH wrote: 1 May 2021, 4:27pm
whoof wrote: 31 May 2020, 2:33pm I've ridden 60km in the Netherlands without going up a single hill on a sit up and beg into a howling head wind and it was far harder than any 60 km I could ever do in Cornwall. There's more to difficult riding than climbing.
I rode Utrecht to Vlissingen into a strong headwind - give me hills any day.
You should try riding in Crete for the 'perfect' combination of very strong winds and mountains!
markjohnobrien
Posts: 1037
Joined: 4 Oct 2007, 8:15pm

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by markjohnobrien »

I remember riding up Hartside on the Coast to Coast and the wind was utterly vicious, unrelenting, and energy sapping. Horrible.
Raleigh Randonneur 708 (Magura hydraulic brakes); Blue Raleigh Randonneur 708 dynamo; Pearson Compass 631 tourer; Dawes One Down 631 dynamo winter bike;Raleigh Travelogue 708 tourer dynamo; Kona Sutra; Trek 920 disc Sram Force.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by mattheus »

thirdcrank wrote: 1 May 2021, 5:15pm In theory height climbed is money in the bank but it's just luck whether riding into the wind is ever recouped. It never feels like it because even riding in still air consumes energy.
I agree.
Science will confirm that if you ride a loop then a constant wind will cost you time/energy overall, whatever compass direction it is in.

For some reason (no science!) I find this more demoralizing than the extra energy to get up a hill, which is its own reward; as well as earning the "money in the bank" that you mention.

[In general steep descents cost you the most time, as you have to use the brakes more - on a long straight gentle descent you can just cruise down without using the brakes, and without expending much mental energy. If you're not braking, then the money "banked" on the climb is paying you back as much as is possible :) ]
mxg01
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 May 2018, 2:55pm

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by mxg01 »

al_yrpal wrote: 1 Jun 2020, 10:06am I get that knee trouble descending too. I did a 10 day pretty full on cycle tour of the Outer Hebrides and when we got back to my friends house at Rhu he suggested a jaunt up Ben Lomond the hard way. We both did it with ease, but.... coming down the 'tourist' track I almost never made it. Very quickly the knee pain became excruciating. I had to try to relieve it by various methods,...walking backwards, running, resting frequently, it was a nightmare. I dont know if we have any hill walkers here? Does descending knee pain get less and eventually disappear as you walk in the hills more frequently?

Al
Not sure if it improves with more frequent walking, as I've always walked in the hills. Descents hadn't ever bothered me until a few years ago. There is a time when you wonder why people use walking poles, then you buy some, then you wonder why you didn't ten years previously. Used properly, they make a massive difference with descents.
Pebble
Posts: 1934
Joined: 7 Jun 2020, 11:59pm

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by Pebble »

yes, descending while hillwalking is always far worse on the knees, the same energy is going through the knee when going up as coming down, but aided by gravity we come down far faster so that energy is going through the joint in much more violent way. Going up the energy is transmitted far slower and more controlled. And on top of all that the muscles that support and protect our knees are usually tireder and less efficient on the descent as we have just used them to propel us up to the top.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by mattheus »

Pebble wrote: 6 May 2021, 1:53pm yes, descending while hillwalking is always far worse on the knees, the same energy is going through the knee when going up as coming down, but aided by gravity we come down far faster so that energy is going through the joint in much more violent way. Going up the energy is transmitted far slower and more controlled. And on top of all that the muscles that support and protect our knees are usually tireder and less efficient on the descent as we have just used them to propel us up to the top.
That's why you should stop for sandwiches* at every summit to enforce some rest-n-recovery

*and a pint if it's Snowdon,

Of course this is why cycling is always superior to walking - descending is almost effort-free !!!
User avatar
andrew_s
Posts: 5795
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 9:29pm
Location: Gloucestershire

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by andrew_s »

Pebble wrote: 6 May 2021, 1:53pm yes, descending while hillwalking is always far worse on the knees, the same energy is going through the knee when going up as coming down, but aided by gravity we come down far faster so that energy is going through the joint in much more violent way. Going up the energy is transmitted far slower and more controlled. And on top of all that the muscles that support and protect our knees are usually tireder and less efficient on the descent as we have just used them to propel us up to the top.
It's not so much that the muscles are tireder, as that downhill walking is what's known as "eccentric exercise".

Normally a muscle pulls, and it gets shorter, but when resisting forced movement, they are pulling, but getting longer.
That needs training for specifically, but you don't do that sort of thing very much in normal life (especially when you're a cyclist), so you're generally not sufficiently used to it. It's reputedly much more prone to cause soreness than normal exercise.

You can find similar on a bike, if you ride fixed and try leg braking.

You do get used to walking descending in the end. I did quite a lot of walking (a "good day out" was 30 miles) before I moved down here and became a cyclist, and it didn't bother me at all then. but it doesn't take much at all now.
User avatar
Ride-sleep-repeat
Posts: 382
Joined: 24 Nov 2020, 11:58am

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by Ride-sleep-repeat »

mxg01 wrote: 6 May 2021, 12:28pm
al_yrpal wrote: 1 Jun 2020, 10:06am I get that knee trouble descending too. I did a 10 day pretty full on cycle tour of the Outer Hebrides and when we got back to my friends house at Rhu he suggested a jaunt up Ben Lomond the hard way. We both did it with ease, but.... coming down the 'tourist' track I almost never made it. Very quickly the knee pain became excruciating. I had to try to relieve it by various methods,...walking backwards, running, resting frequently, it was a nightmare. I dont know if we have any hill walkers here? Does descending knee pain get less and eventually disappear as you walk in the hills more frequently?

Al
Not sure if it improves with more frequent walking, as I've always walked in the hills. Descents hadn't ever bothered me until a few years ago. There is a time when you wonder why people use walking poles, then you buy some, then you wonder why you didn't ten years previously. Used properly, they make a massive difference with descents.
They allegedly take 40% of the strain off your knees.I use a walking staff these days and that helps also.
VinceLedge
Posts: 566
Joined: 12 Dec 2020, 9:51am

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by VinceLedge »

I saw this post and wondered what the average ascent per mile was on my local rides around the Scottish Borders, It seems reasonably hilly at 56 feet per mile! I thought it was hard work cycling here :D
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by Mick F »

56ft per mile?
Sounds like a walk in the park to me. :wink:

Out on a ride a few days ago, and did 29.8miles.
Total ascent was 3,512ft = 117.8ft per mile.

The whole of last year worked out as 102ft per mile.
Mick F. Cornwall
David2504
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Mar 2021, 5:29pm

Re: Distance and Total Ascent

Post by David2504 »

Is it not all about recovery? A big climb is normally followed by a big descent, and a chance to recover. Constantly undulating terrain up and down with steep gradients provides fewer opportunities to recover.

And also how tough any ride is highly dependent on the effort put in. Twenty miles on the flat cycled at your maximum effort could conceivably prove tougher than a measured steady effort up a big climb.
Post Reply