Who is tougher, the person who sits climbing all hills or the person who stands?

[TrevA]

Who cares whether you climb sitting down or standing up? If you are being competitive, then it’s who gets to the top first. Frankly, that will never be me, as I’m too heavy to be a good climber, so I climb sitting down and spin up the hill. A lot depends on whether you are a spinner or a masher. I’m a spinner, tend to use lower gears and keep the pedals spinning.

I can generate a lot of power, but my power to weight ratio isn’t very good, my FTP is about 250W but that only equates to 2.5W/kg. I can put out 1300W in a sprint effort.

[Bmblbzzz]

I can put out 1300W in a sprint effort.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you a track racer, probably escaped from the old DDR? !!!

[TrevA]

I can put out 1300W in a sprint effort.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you a track racer, probably escaped from the old DDR? !!!

I am built like Chris Hoy, though not as fast as him!

[jimster99]

All I know is that when I see the TDF mountain specialists going up the Col d'Aspin faster than I can go down the Col d'Aspin they are sitting down as much as possible. Which is probably the answer.

[Jon in Sweden]

Who cares whether you climb sitting down or standing up? If you are being competitive, then it’s who gets to the top first. Frankly, that will never be me, as I’m too heavy to be a good climber, so I climb sitting down and spin up the hill. A lot depends on whether you are a spinner or a masher. I’m a spinner, tend to use lower gears and keep the pedals spinning.

I can generate a lot of power, but my power to weight ratio isn’t very good, my FTP is about 250W but that only equates to 2.5W/kg. I can put out 1300W in a sprint effort.

That's a damned impressive sprint for your FTP. I can only just exceed that (1396w is my best - I'm a terrible sprinter) and my FTP is about 415w.

No one is ever to heavy to climb. I'm 101kg and love going uphill. You get faster if you train it. Hill reps are one of the best ways to do it, for sure. I am just back from an hour of repping this afternoon. I mixed up seated and standing climbing on two different hill segments (one about 3 1/2 minutes, the other 5 1/2 to 6 minutes). New 5 min PB power of 504w, which was nice, though I do need to get that closer to 550w to account for my bulk.

To address the question from the OP, I am certainly more powerful standing, but I'm not sure how much faster I go. I gas out quicker and I'm less aero, but for getting over short, steep ramps, it's worth doing.

[TrevA]

I didn’t say I’m too heavy to climb, I’m too heavy to be a good climber - there is a difference. I’m happy to not be last up the hill, but I’ll never be first, unless I lose 25kg.

[pjclinch]

Energy used to climb a certain distance is fixed but that's not quite the same as energy used by your body to undertake this. That's going to depend on various, probably individual, factors.

It should be fixed though shouldn't it? To a certain degree because if lifting a 30kg keg up a hill that would be the same load to lift whether you ran up or shuffled up wouldn't it?

Now the person themselves are the keg sure (everyone different weights) but their keg is the same weight whether spinning or stomping.

Running vs. shuffling is probably the wrong way to look at it.

The work done will be Force x Distance, our stampy rider will typically be pushing serious force but will generally be doing it at a low pedal cadence so the distance travelled by the cranks (and the stampy rider's legs) will be relatively low. Lots of Force, not much Distance.

The spinny rider won't push so hard but will spin the cranks quicker, so less Force but more Distance.

Each one above is doing roughly the same work (e.g., 20N over 5m vs 5N over 20m both give 100 Nm) so as long as they're not working very inefficiently they'll arrive at more or less the same time, while on foot running vs shuffling is about the shuffler doing the same work as the runner over a much longer period. Because of the biomechanics of people shuffling at a very high cadence to account for the longer, more powerful strides of the runner doesn't really work: you'd probably use more energy and trip over yourself!

If you look at the likes of Pogi when he leaves everyone behind on hills with a standing acceleration his cadence (how fast the pedals are going) doesn't obviously slow off, but by standing up he can put more power in so will be turning a bigger gear at a similar cadence. It's about his ability to sustain high power outputs that makes him the best climber out there, not that he's standing up or sitting down.

Pete.

[Nearholmer]

^^^

Yep. As I said way back up thread: O Level physics.

[pjclinch]

All I know is that when I see the TDF mountain specialists going up the Col d'Aspin faster than I can go down the Col d'Aspin they are sitting down as much as possible. Which is probably the answer.

It varies. Contador loved to climb out of the seat, more TT "diesel" types like Froome tend to sit and spin, both won Grand Tours with their climbing ability. Personal physiology and preference seem to be factors.

Over on the mountain bikes, Pauline Ferrand-Prévot climbs in relatively low gears out of the seat, Puck Pieterse tends to spin: one's the Olympic champion, the other is world champion, both are pretty good at it!

Pete.

[cyclop]

I,m curious to find out your definition of "tough" in terms of cycling "tough ?My definition might be Tommy Godwin.....champion prewar cyclist.....holder of the world one year cycling record in 1939.....just over 75000 miles which stood until 2005 ish.He,d be cycling thru, the start of WW II,during he blackout.....this,d be one of my my definitions of "tough".Every cycling discipline during every era throws up legendary cylists .To pick gearing as a hallmark of toughness is an irrelevantcy in my opinion.

[Pebble]

Who is tougher, the person who sits climbing all hills or the person who stands?

I sit till my sitting muscle tire, then I stand until that muscle group tires, by which time my sitting ones have recovered. (repeat 3x and if still not at the top - stop, get off and pretend to take some photos)

If I was really tough - I would have a giant Pick-Up truck for hill climbing, lots of Tattos and an XL Bully staring out of the passenger window. My monster truck would be adorned with stickers expressing my love for Trump/Farage/Reform and Brexit, may be one for anti-vax and climate change denial - and it would have to have some anti cycling stickers, they would be a must

[cycle tramp]

Who is tougher, the person who sits climbing all hills or the person who stands?

I sit till my sitting muscle tire, then I stand until that muscle group tires, by which time my sitting ones have recovered. (repeat 3x and if still not at the top - stop, get off and pretend to take some photos)

If I was really tough - I would have a giant Pick-Up truck for hill climbing, lots of Tattos and an XL Bully staring out of the passenger window. My monster truck would be adorned with stickers expressing my love for Trump/Farage/Reform and Brexit, may be one for anti-vax and climate change denial - and it would have to have some anti cycling stickers, they would be a must

[hamster]

Some interesting points.

Sitting, it is generally agreed there, is always more efficient if you have enough low gears to take on the hill. So therefore having low enough gears to tackle any hill while seated is, if those posters are correct, not a fool's errand as many here have chastised me for and in fact the most efficient way!

Whether it is less macho/alpha/manly to do what is most efficient is another matter...

Firstly there isn't much sports science research that supports either sitting or standing - it's inconclusive about efficiency. What's fastest is a whole different question.

When you consider efficiency, that is the total energy expended for the gain. Travel at 1mph up the hill and you will have minimal losses from air drag: so more efficient. In fact riding everywhere at 1 mph will dramatically reduce your energy expenditure overcoming wind resistance. As a result you will be more efficient. But you will be out there a long time.

What we have been trying to tell you, repeatedly, is that most people don't see a great need for gears lower than about 20". If you spend any kind of time out on your bike you will get fitter and as a result the need for extremely low gears is reduced.
Touring with a heavily loaded bike is of course different.

Have fun riding, if you want to ride everywhere very slowly, then enjoy.

[rareposter]

Some interesting points.

Sitting, it is generally agreed there, is always more efficient if you have enough low gears to take on the hill. So therefore having low enough gears to tackle any hill while seated is, if those posters are correct, not a fool's errand as many here have chastised me for and in fact the most efficient way!

Whether it is less macho/alpha/manly to do what is most efficient is another matter...

In terms of efficiency though, suppose I want to get to the top of a hill in the most time-efficient manner possible? That'll be different from the most energy-efficient way possible...
I mean, if I drive a car at the fuel-efficient speed of 50mph for 150 miles, it'll take 3hrs. If I drive at the speed limit of 70mph, it'll take 2hrs, 8 minutes. It'll use more fuel (inefficient) but save 52 minutes of time (efficient).

Macho doesn't come into it...

[Nearholmer]

Indeed.

I’m by no means super-fit, just reasonably fit for my age (65yo), and although I cycle frequently, I do n’t rack-up huge mileages, a lot of what I do being slow and bumpy off-road, and …..

The only times I regret not having lower than 24” on my main bikes is when I go loaded into notably hilly areas, or when I go unloaded into very steep/long hills off-road (South Downs Way; High Weald; Derbyshire etc).

I now do have a bike with 20”, and if I borrow my son’s 29er, that has 17.5”. I think the 20” is going to be welcome for loaded riding in The Weald etc, but the 17.5” is frankly too low to be of practical use; it’s just annoying to ride!

I’m going to re-gear one of my main bikes at some point, and the idea that is forming is to go for a range 20” to 100”, using either Deore or (if I save-up a lot!) Rohloff, and I honestly think that is about the range needed for 99% of purposes, mixing road and off-road, maybe 18” to 90” if a very high proportion of rides are very hilly off-road.