It took me *many* years to enjoy riding up hills! Like most people, I hated them... My first road bike was handed down to me as a young teen. It was an old steel racing bike with 53-42 tooth front chainrings and a 13-21 tooth cassette. I loved riding it because it felt so fast, but as soon as I got to a steep hill, I'd often need to get off and walk to the top. All along, I figured I just needed to get stronger, so I persisted with that vintage bike for years and years. But looking back, I was already super strong, I was already super light, and I was always up for a challenge. Why were hills so damn hard?! It wasn't until I truly understood mechanical advantage that I realised that hills were hard NOT because I was inadequate... but because I didn't have low enough gear ratios on my bike. 😅
Hills are harder because you're increasing the gravitational potential. Even at the same power output a hill will require more energy than flat ground. The same watts at a slower speed over a given distance means more energy. A simple way to think of it is having to maintain the same power but for a longer time (obviously harder).
At very low gear ratios I believe walking gives us the best mechanical advantage. An average person can walk at a speed of 4-5 km/h without any struggle and using muscles at comfortable rates of contraction/ relaxation cycles. I think that is why we naturally get off our bikes and walk when we see it is easier and not much slower to walk than to struggle and pedal 60 RPM to get the same speed.
Did you ever put dual speed chainring 22-36 T on front crank, and put 10 speed cassete 11-46 on the back mechanical system? 🤣🤣 its so light until you think you can climb a coconut tree 🤣🤣👌
aye. Slower speed also tends to bring in a factor of upper body fatigue from the increase in wobble to stay upright from the reduced gyroscopic force you normally have from faster moving wheels.
but going downhill, you can cover more distance by using less energy. so its like youre storing up inertia by going uphill but can use that stored energy when you go downhill
For really steep grades, where you are pedaling under 10 kph, why not just walk? There are a few benefits to doing so: 1) no more obsessing over super-wide drivetrains, 2) save your quads, 3) good opportunity to change position, stretch your legs, and work different muscle groups. I have done this on recent tours, even wearing MTB cleats. The loss in speed is small compared to the benefits, and once you factor in reduced muscle fatigue, you will probably gain mileage on the day. "Sending" big climbs can be fun, but it isn't mandatory.
i ride 40 kilometers to the steepest longest hill in my city, about a hour long 1 km climb without stopping, honestly even walking it would be difficult, and that's why i ride it 3 times a week. it's a fantastic work out that leaves me completely exhausted
I'm on my 2nd bike tour (the Alps ATM) & I push my bike sometimes. Its barely slower than riding up the steep climbs and I dont have to prove anything to anyone
Yes they are harder, even in easy gears. Because while going slow, between each pedal stroke you're slowing down a lot, which forces you to constantly accelerate, which consumes a lot of energy.
@@alexandrevaliquette3883Yes, climbing is way harder and yes you have to fight the fact that you are always slowing down. So I 100% agree with you!!!
On very steep climbs, I've found that resting my biking muscles by using my walking muscles instead is a good idea. The speed won't be too different and I'm able to speed up more when the climb ends. Depending my condition and how steep the climb is.
Well for me, biking is sport. So I'm always exited if I get out of breath by climbing a steep hill At the end it will train ur heart and someday you won't get out of breath by that climb.
The premise of this video is that it doesn't matter what speed you're going at anyway so why not just walk the bike? Just do it fast enough to hit the same power and there's no difference right!?
@@Dinty51If you're ever slow enough where balancing is an issue then you are likely not in the right gear / your bike doesn't have the right ratios. Barring the steepest of climbs any hill should be faster than walking speed.
@@RH-nk7eo that's just not true. I ride MTN bikes and there are plenty of hills where it's slower than walking and requires more effort. Even in cross country races, people get off and carry their bikes up really steep hills
Living in the Austrian alps and cycling uphill pretty much always in the lowest gear I gotta say, climbing IS harder than cycling on flat terrain. 😄 But it's actually what I'm going for. I find it harder to push myself to the limit without elevation gain. After a tough climb I feel much better. Climbing is a challenge, and a challenge is fun!!!
@@christopheroliver148 And no merging traffic, no pedestrians, no other cyclists, no dogs, cats hares, or deer, no drunk people, no overconfident show-offs, no road debris, no drive ways, no ...
Yup, most people smash it up the climb, coast the descent and hardly pedal on the flat, hence they think hills are harder. If you have a power meter try doing your next ride at the same power whether you are on a climb, flat or descent. Your perception of what is easiest and hardest will be flipped with descents being hardest to maintain power on and climbs being the easiest. Climbs aren’t harder, you’re just riding them harder.
you should because of the drag on the desent stealing speed. a hilly profile robs time from forcing over-cruise speeds on desent clarification: you should put extra power in the climb because you will need it because the desent is aero-lessefficent and presumably you wanna get to the destination at the same speed as if the effort was flat(and you could employ an optimal drag/cruise)
what do you meen with not harder ? zhen you need much more energi to climb than you ride on flat it is harder. Of course it is easy when you climb like tertle. if you ride about 25km it is ok but you will never climb a hill at the same spead. did you whatch the 'tour de france' or something like that? why they climb slowly?
One further factor to consider is higher momentum at higher speed. The power application to the pedals at speed is more like a 'tap' on the downstroke, whereas uphill, power needs to be applied more evenly all around. If you didn't apply even pressure you'd slow down between each pedal rev. Perhaps this simply means that riding uphill is different rather than harder.
Oh yeah, without click pedals it really sucks to cycle uphill very steep grades (over 20%) in very small gears because you almost stop between each push, but walking up also suchs because its so steep and you have to push your bike
60 years ago when I was a young apprentice engineer, our tutor used to tell us something very similar but in his case he was referring to using a hand held hacksaw to saw through a piece of steel 2 inches in diameter. His favourite saying was always - 'Let the saw do the work lads' Eventually we came to realise that this was true but only within certain parameters. One of these was the necessity to have already developed the muscles needed to accomplish the task comfortably. The second was to have developed the stamina needed to last out comfortably over the extended length of time needed. Despite our repeated requests though, he always declined to give us a practical demonstration.
Yep, the gear thing was just exaggerate, obviously many cyclists, especially road cyclist, don't have low enough gears, but in general it's all a question of weight and speed, generally you tend to push harder uphill, while on the flat that doesn't happen so often
Yep, sure was a lot of twisting on his part to justify a clickbait title. How about "With correct technique gears can make hills easier to climb! (says science)"
Well hills are easier because your going slower there is less wind resistance, the extra effort you put in is turned into gravitational potential, so it's not wasted
I have two bike routes for you. You can use whatever gear range you wish. One is perfectly flat for 10km. The other climbs 1000m in the first 5km then goes all the way back down in the next 5km. The distance travelled is based off the rotation of the wheel, and not measured horizontally. If the gravitational potential energy is stored and then released for the downhill then they should be the same right? But we both know that one is quicker, and takes less power and energy to complete. In reality the gravitational potential energy is constantly pushing the cyclist back down as he tries to climb for every moment he's on a slope. 9.81m/s/s for them to overcome for the hour or so it takes to hit the peak. At the top of the hill he has gravitational potential energy to roll down the other side, yes. But it's not like some battery that stores all the power he had to put in to get up there. he might as well have teleported there. All he has is 9.8m/s/s for the 5 minutes or so it takes to get him down the other side of the hill. As for wind resistance why not go slow on the flats too- you won't lose as much to wind there either. In fact why not just sit there and do nothing? No wind resistance, no gravitational potential energy to worry about. Perfect.
Sure, if we define difficulty as just how hard you push to go up, you could simplify losses enough to claim it's not harder. However, time and distance always matter. The fact that you go a shorter distance for your energy expenditure is most people's definition of difficult. Yes, being over-geared makes it harder because you have to sustain a higher effort than you would be otherwise but once that is eliminated you *still* will have traveled a shorter distance. I see in other comments that you have deliberately removed time and distance from the equation to make your point but that really degrades the quality of the argument. You could have addressed over-gearing without forcing particular definitions of difficulty and that is a shame in my view, as there is some very good information in there.
@@mondotv4216 Higher speeds also provide an air-cooling effect on the rider. At low speeds this benefit is lost. He addressed this but didn't elaborate on how important it is.
@@Aubreykun And that's an incredibly important detail. A significant amount of the energy that's burned while exercising is lost to temperature management. It's why that bit about it taking the same energy to walk a mile as run feels so wrong. It feels wrong because it only takes into consideration the physical moving over the distance, not the effort that goes into maintaining a livable body temperature. In fact, you'd get more or less the same energy burn just taking a hot, or cold, bath as your body works to keep itself at a reasonable temperature.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Yea I double checked the data from Bicycling Science and only 25% of generated power goes to the pedals, the rest is a mix of the remaining body processes (like.. brain activity lol) and just pure heat.
Having watched the video, and having had A-level physics in high school and briefly at university, I still don't quite grasp how science says it is not harder to bike uphill. Power is a measure of energy expenditure per unit time. As you gear down going uphill, you will move less distance at the same power output. Thus, moving equidistant uphill would take longer time than on a flat surface. Total energy = Power x time. This means that the determining factor is the total time taken given constant Power output. As you spend more time going uphill = total energy expenditure is bigger. This also makes intuitive sense. Additionally, human muscles are not machines. The metabolism and chemical release of power from the muscles is to some extent time-constrained. Thus, spending more time going uphill WILL feel harder the longer it takes, even at lower power outputs. The muscles WILL break down more spending more time under constant load. Muscle recovery from long periods of stress WILL take longer. It just is, factually, objectively, scientifically, HARDER to go uphill, even with correct gear ratios, compared to going on a flat surface. I would argue that the title and content in this video is not only misleading, but actually FALSE.
I mean there's also the basic fact that you're moving from a lower elevation to a higher one which by default increases your potential energy (not sure if that's the correct English term), so you have to add more energy into the system than if you traveled horizontally. Pretty sure we can't defy the laws of physics by switching gears
I believe what he calls "harder" is the power requirement increasing. Which is a bit weird since not only he does explain the gears, - which is the main point of a mountain-bike, if not all bikes - but he assumes from the beginning that the rider puts out constant power. What DOES make it harder is that the total effort per distance increases, (unless there are downhill sections) and the fact that you have to work for a longer period of time. Both are less of a problem as fitness and experience increases, so I can only describe this video as: "Get good. You guys don't even get physics." And yes, I am triggered. I expected advise from a pro, and what i get is an explanation of gear ratios (aka kindergarden physics), a giant formula thrown into my face without explanation (I assume he is "calculating" drag and friction, which he is better off measuring, imho), and the advice to go slower and manage my effort because it's gonna take longer... F for "effort".
Well it depends on your definition of "harder". In physics, hardness has nothing to do with mechanics (it is unit of surface hardness eg Brinell, Vickers, Rockwell). In video, he assumes power output constant. In order to not exhaust yourself, you have to change gear ratios so that your optimal cadence remains same. Then: Power = (Force * Crank_length) * Cadence and thus Force = Power /(Crank_length*Cadence) = constant. Which means same amount of stress in your muscle. If you have got 1 hour to ride (after job for example) it doesn't matter if you are living in hilly area or not. The only thing that changes is distance travelled but your legs will burn the same. If your constrain is distance like you said, than it will take more time in hilly are and more energy: E=P*t (kWh). However the effort in terms of power output remains the same. For me personally, distance is irrelevant therefore I agree with the video. For those, who are 'suckers for distance' yes, it is harder to travel up hill for same amount of time and distance but that's nothing new. To be honest, It takes a lot of effort and time to fully understand physics so that noone can surprise you.
No, he's right and you're perhaps misunderstanding. Power is energy expended per time, as you say. I think CYCLINGABOUT simply failed to explain what he probably thought was obvious, that you have to accept not going as far in the same time. It is obvious to anyone who's tried it, because you go slower up hills. If you switch from "per time" to "per distance" (as you did), it is "harder" in the sense that you have to expend more energy (same power for longer), but it can be "just as easy" in the moment if you slow down. The lower gear is the way to keep an ideal cadence and go slower (according to general biking theory - I also think getting into a high gear and pedaling slowly standing up is a great way to take hills). And the "increasing potential energy" objection isn't a separate problem - it's the reason it takes more energy to go the same distance in the first place. It's like saying, "Oh, and then there's GRAVITY."
I agree. I don't hate the video, but this is overly simplified and could be considered slightly insulting to anyone who's ever ridden serious hills. If hills weren't more demanding than why even go through the mountains in huge bike races like the tour de France?
I feel that. At a certain point of grade, even if I have gears left, my average 170-200w isn't fast enough to keep the bike stable. I then have to either grind it out and potentially run out of gas on a longer ride or choose to save myself by taking the walk of shame.
@@ninjasownpirates I see no shame in walking, especially uphill at low speeds when it is actually the more energy efficient thing todo. You need no extra energy to stand in place on an incline but on a bike you actually need to fight the gravity trying to roll the wheel backwards.
Yes, IMO they ARE harder! Even though you have bigger torque, climbing a hill doesn't store your intertia like riding on a flat. You lose a lot more speed between the strokes (Just like the pistons at top and bottom dead center on an Internal Combustion Engine). You mentioned that you have to pedal at least 60 rpms to overcome that but when you ride on a flat road you are not required to do. The fact that you can climb the hill with the same power with lower gear and slower doesn't mean it isn't harder. You trade speed for time. As with everything on this planet when you can't put any more energy (or don't want to) into something to do it fast you can do it with less energy but slower!
If you are below 60 rpm on the flat, you're relying a lot on muscle and too little on your cardiovascular system. Training for higher cadence will make it easier to keep going for days & days. I ride short cranks (150mm and 155mm, for multiple reasons), on normal rides I stick to about 90 rpm average. Max effort you'll find me at 110-115 for up to about 2 hours.
I think that by "harder", he means that your heart rate will be higher and you'll be gasping for breath.. I do cycling for fun and to reach scenic places and mountain tops, I'm willing to camp over night and/or take several breaks to get to my destination, so time is not of high priority in my case
when riding up hill you start accumulating potential energy. this effort you put in climbing is converted to potential energy (that's how they call it in physics) , later this stored energy can be converted to kinetic energy by riding down hill somewhere. There is absolutely no loss in going uphill. (note: only if you go up hill on wheels, not so if you do it by walking, if you walk your loss in potential energy is big)
@@absolute___zero Wrong. Due to drag being non-linear, on the descent, you never completely regain in kinetic energy what you stored as potential energy on the climb.
Something else you might want to know, there is a "sweet spot" when out of the saddle leaning forward that makes your legs straight on the pedals so it's the same as walking uphill. If you find this sweet spot, you can ride up easily as long as you are fit enough to walk up a hill at a steady pace.
Hills are not hard to ride, they are hard to ride fast. I agree with most things you said, I had my second bike with triple chainrings (44-32-22) and 11-32 cassete and never find a climb I couldn't go up. Triple chainrings are so underrated (and cheap ;) )
I find 22-32 (front), 11-36(back) is the sweep spot. I got enough speed by 32-11 and enough climb as well, without the 3rd chainring in return I got a better looking bike and a cassette which wears more even.
I've been saying this for years. Not every cyclist is trying to go as fast as they possible can or are ultra fit "amateur professionals". Some of us just want to go for a ride and enjoy it. In my case, I like touring. I don't see ONE single reason why I should prefer 2x or 1x. Gosh, If I could have 4x I would.
Except in hot conditions where you lack the breeze for cooling. Which he explained well. I was in Wales recently bikepacking in the heatwave. The backroads are so steep. Was harder as I was hot. Love Wales, and plenty of streams to cool off in which can be a bonus in hilly terrain.
i know what you mean, it's the law of diminishing returns. Sometimes it is quicker to get off and push the thing. You can get gears so low that despite legs going around like mad you can fall off the bike.
slower, and therefor take longer, and are therefore harder. Besides most of us probably don't have the gear ratio to account for 10-15% to make it feel like flat.
@@andrewnorris5415 I have plenty of gears. My lowest is 22 tooth front and 34 rear so that isn't an issue. But I saw the heat issue on a Great Vic bike ride. We were climbing up to Beechworth and had a slight tail wind. The day was warm but not too hot. Low 30C temperatures. But the slight tail wind meant that relative to the bikes there was ZERO breeze. Many suffered from heat stress. In some cases they weren't fit to start the next day. I had experienced the conditions before so at some time I decided to stop, sit in the shade and have a drink. Fully refreshed I continued without ill effects.
Being a distance runner helps me with the hills for sure. There's no soft pedaling or coasting when you're running so the idea of a sustained effort over the course of a long period of time is something I've trained for off the bike.
Most people ride uphill with more power than on the flats. The vid suggests going slower though this is not emphasised. If you do not increase your power and cadence stays the same maths will tell you, you need to be going much slower uphill.
Exactly, when he's showing a calculator you can see he goes from 27kph on flat down to 5kph on 10% grade. It's not emphasized enough indeed. As a lazy leisure twice-a-year cyclist I find maintaining 27kph on flat just as hard as cycling up 10% grade, which kinda confirms the point.
@@Laf-Adventures If it's a dumb topic what does that say about the majority of cyclists who take hills way too hard? I prefer to think of it as an advanced topic 😀
Very interesting and quite in line with what I’ve always felt. The cut off for me would be around 14-17% grades as you really start to feel gravity trying to pull you down, making it feel like you are battling gravity instead of just keeping the bike going. This actually makes them a lot more rewarding than slogging up an endless climb that’s a lot mellower, I’d prefer a short 20+ degree climb over a long 10% one any day.
That last piece of advice was so on point "Ease up and measure your effort". I try to stop myself panicking on a hill and just take it easy. I'm not a racing cyclist, just a tourer. And I'm totally going to use your tools for measuring max output etc. Thanks
Ha, except going up a hill I have to work against gravity, regardless of the gear or mechanical advantage. You gain potential energy every meter you climb at the rate of E=mgh. Every 100kg you move up 100m costs you 98kJ regardless of what gear you use or what shirt you wear.
The video completely ignores the aspect of time. Yes you need way less force going up a hill but you have to keep inputting the needed power (in his example 150W) for a longer time -> so you use a lot of more energy whilst still applying the same force.
He'd probably argue that 1) on flat you are mostly working against air resistance and rolling resistance, and those losses may be reduced while going slower up a hill and 2) that you get that energy back in kinetic energy going downhill. Of course that would be rubbish since you can't usually accelerate freely downhill and recoup the energy loss. Using the brakes so that you don't crash going down hill means you throw away your kinetic energy as heat. Furthermore air resistance increases as the cube of velocity, so the faster you going downhill the more energy you waste in air resistance. The best case is you go up a shallow grade with wind at your back and go downhill on a long straight (so brakes aren't used) at a shallow grade (so you don't go too fast and create too much air resistance).
@@Dave_the_Dave Air resistance increases as the square of velocity, but the power you need to maintain a certain speed increases with the velocity cubed, as you multiply the air resistance with the velocity.
Applying 150watts on a flat is no different to applying 150watts on a hill. If your output is 150watts, your effort will be same regardless. It doenst matter if you are gaining potential energy, your legs dont care. It is the power output.
Me: *sees 3km 12% hill and getting happy to mash the singlespeed road bike up there. Sometimes psychological effect is stronger than anything else. You just have to learn liking it.
I ride fixed 48x18. 8% max. 3% common. Very flat around here, but you do learn to pace yourself. Riding slower uphill requires less Torque. Let the hill come to you. Downhill requires the opposite. Torque will be low, but rpms high. You will start to feel comfortable around both extremes and with a steady effort. Cardio and muscular. Constantly shifting energy systems. There is a limit of gearing though when you will roll backwards regardless of fitness.
@@davidburgess741 i ride fixed too! My fav spot is 3.77km long with an elevation of only 109 meters. Would be a good 2.5-3% if it didn't have a single 6-700 meter long almost flat part. 46/15, going up to 49/13 soon! Fixie climbs are some of the most rewarding feelings ⚡
There’s a lot of good info here! But when you show the grade//speed//power//cadence you prove the opposite of your statement that hills are not harder. When you increase the incline but keep the power & cadence the same, your speed went from 28 to 24. This shows that to go the same distance it will take a longer output of the specified power & cadence. Or to go at the same speed it will take more power/cadence. In other words, it’s harder. I’m all for demystifying hills and gears and encouraging people to try them and shed their intimidation though, and I appreciate that from the video :)
I also love riding up hills and agree with your video arguments. Furthermore, riding uphill you get to appreciate better nature around you and listen and smell better as wel, when cycle touring. Going down feels nice, but everything happens too fast.
Applying the same theory, would it not be easier to ride flat ground in the same gear used to climb the incline then? So then in turn, it actually would be easier to ride flat ground, using a lower gear of course, instead of riding up an incline in that same gear? This video makes absolutely zero sense. We all know it's easier to pedal when in a lower gear. Basically all that was said is if you encounter a hill, down shift to a lower gear...
You are completely overlooking several facts: -Using a lower gear causes more energy losses to the drivetrain. -Riding slower decreases the stability of the bike, meaning you expend more energy staying upright. -Going uphill takes more energy because you need to fight gravity. As such, even if you are using the same ammount of power while riding uphill as you would on a flat, you are still using much more effort while going significantly slower, and you are also expending much more energy for the same distance.
The change of position on the bike is one of the big differences. Gravity pulls you down differently, relative to how the bike is angled. Takes effort to hold the position. Need a bike with climb-friendly geo to counter this. Lack of airflow due to lower speeds is the other hard to avoid issue, as you've covered.
There aren't enough gears (in present groupsets) to put out 150 watts on a 18% incline, and still have enough forward momentum to stay upright. Science.
Forward momentum isn't what keeps a cyclist upright. Science. But seriously, you're right. At some point it isn't about gears or technology anymore. Steep enough incline and 150W won't provide enough power to lift a human weighting enough to produce 150W at any reasonable speed. Even if you had an immeasurably light bike, no extra supplies, no drag etc. What threshold incline that is, exactly, depends on your definition of "at a reasonable speed".
@@ewicky "Forward momentum isn't what keeps a cyclist upright. Science." You should use better scientific sources then, because that's absolutely what keeps it upright! Not enough forward momentum, no gyroscopic precession and the stabilizing reaction created by the off-axis front wheel isn't fast enough to counteract the tilt!
@@nic12344 Claiming I'm wrong, telling me to use better sources, but not citing any of your own... Oh, the hypocrisy. If you want to convince me I'm wrong by saying I don't use good enough sources, then point me in the right direction please.
I've long maintained that hills aren't any harder than flats, as long as you use the right gear. The peoplem is that people don't want to go slow. They key is to realize the proper measure of your progress is time, not distance. With the goal of maintaining a constant cadence at a constant power output, every minute of cycling is as hard as every other minute, regardless of the grade. Of course, it depends on the bike's gearing. Even touring bikes, which should have really low gearing, often have gears that are way higher than they should be. My goal is always to be able to stay in my seat and never change my level of effort. Sure, it can be frustrating to see that low mph, but that's life.
@@christianschmitt2409 obviously. nobody is saying you don't need more energy for the same distance uphill than on a flat. but once you get your gearing right, so that you can comfortably ride uphill it really becomes a philosophical question as to what is hard or harder. the point of this video is that often hills feel harder even too hard because of inadequate gears.
@@simonstucki I appreciate the overall message of this video. Even for lower grades, getting used to going into lower gears and letting myself bike slower definitely helps to not burn myself out. And more likely to actually go into higher gears on the way back vs resting while gliding down.
Good video thanks! One other way of looking at your last point is that psychologically, you approach a climb at a higher speed and then feel the need to maintain that speed up the climb which results in excess effort and rapid exhaustion. Accepting that you slow down a lot on climbs is vital to maintain a steady sustainable effort.
There are some advantages to mountain riding. The road twists and winds around making it more interesting (e.g. rather than a long flat road where you can see kms ahead). Often the road is more scenic. There is normally more shade and trees. You are out of the wind. It can be cooler as you gain altitude. The traffic is less and slower. Finally, what goes up must go down. There is usually a nice downhill stretch to coast down.
I found that I was actually able to pedal harder and longer after I switched from 175mm to 170 mm cranks. There is more to the equation than just calculating the mechanical advantage of the cranks.
Yeah, it would make sense if you think as each push as a mini one legged squat. You can squat more when your squats are more shallow, and a shorter crank makes for shallower squats
Don't forget zig-zagging (where safe). You did it in part of this video but did not mention it directly? It effectively is like using a lower gear. I find it fun too.
@@frankfeng6199 yeah because when zigzagging you don't follow the road parallel and thus don't have the same incline as the road. But you need longer to get up the hill. E.g. Zigzagging on a 12% inlince and by doing it doubling the distance -> 6% incline. Overall it takes the same energy to get up there, but less force -> it seems easier
@@thenamen935 i was once zigzagging a 20% percent climb. The hardest part was actually starting when you for example put your foot down. It felt like i was falling backwards.
Once you've lost your speed, it'll be harder to recover(which is ought to happen because it is harder to rest with lower power output as gravity is against you thus requiring a certain amount of speed, else you will loose balance uphill). And recovering your speed requires a lot more energy uphill than on flat roads.
If you need rest, you either need to train more (inexperienced riders often pause pedaling) or you're going too hard. Or both. I'm already teaching my kid this: If it feels easy NOW, don't go faster! It'll become harder once you get further up the hill. Relax, maintain your cadence and if you can't, don't power up but gear down.
He's talking about using super low gears to go Walking Speed up a hill .So might as well walk the bike..Use different muscles and different kind of exercise for a bit. lol
Thanks for this video, it has changed how I approach hill riding and allowed me to go much further on hilly rides. Making sure you keep a constant cadence is the key.
#4 -balance -I've always felt this is the main aspect. Poor balance exponentially exhausts the rider. This includes increased inefficiency in steering. Seems to me that wobbly steering greatly increases actual tire travel. For example, imagine I travel one mile whereas my tires travel two miles, the difference being a straight line versus sine wave. o_0
We were walking our 3 small dogs just this morning and I told my husband this exact truth about our ancient, eyeless and suffering from dementia Shitzu, Hootie! He casts back and forth across our path as the rest of us are walking straight. I told my husband that Hootie must surely be covering twice as much ground because his path is longer. (Hootie also spins periodically just for good measure.) And despite his advanced age, usually "sled dogs" the whole way, too. He's ALWAYS in his high torque power gear! But back to your comment of poor balance being exhausting.....I'll second that!!!
I have actually found pedaling in sprints with maximum effort while turning the handlebars back and forth like mtb and bmx racers do actually improves efficiency
Thank you so much, I just found out that I can cycle through walls...thank you for teaching me the ultimate technique...I am currently working on cycling through ceilings, pls do make another tutorial like this explaining how to cycle through ceilings
so it turns out that it requires a bit of brain thought when I see a hill. I always used to freak out on even the slightest hill but now I feel quite confident about it now that I have educated myself after watching your video. I especially like the fact that if I drop down a gear or 2, I am still creating the same power output as if I kept on the same tough gear. Overall, it is a highly motivational video that you have created.
Not a professional rider I am, and yet - can you give a rest to your legs (0 rpm) on the uphill as you could do it on the flat? Uphills never are easier
I don't care how low a gear, how slow, or how much convincing myself psychologically I do, by the time I get to the crest of a fairly long hill, my legs are screaming for mercy. I haven't experienced that on flats but once, when I stupidly decided doing an 80 mile ride instead of the planned 15 miles, with only one energy bar and 2 water bottles was a good idea. So, regardless of watts, physics, vsrious cassettes. etc., riding hills is harder than riding flats. Your results may vary...
Okay so to break down what he's saying: You should be in a low enough gear on a hill such that you're expending the same amount of energy on the hill as on flat ground over *time.* He is not saying it takes the same amount of energy to climb the same distance of a hill as to ride on flat ground. It should just not really be more effort in a given time to climb compared to flat ground. If the lowest gear on your bike does not provide this equalization of effort, there's one of 3 problems 1. The hill is too steep 2. Your gears dont go low enough 3. You're too weak (git gud) You cannot change the steepness of a hill, but there are ways to improve the other 2 problems.
You just make total sense. It is great for us mortals who get told to try emulate the pros when it comes to hill climbing with high cadences. 60 seems reasonable for me I will try it on zwift.
Haha right? Where's this dude come up with this nonsense. Remember 3rd grade science class? And how it takes more work to move an object up an incline than it does on a level surface? This dude is lying and the sad part is he believes he is correct. He knows better than thousands of years of some of the greatest minds ever. Some guy that rides bicycles for a living, thinks he's knows better than everyone else lol. I bet he's the kind of rider that rides right in the road and impedes traffic for no reason at all. The kind that will ride in the street and put motorists in unsafe situations while there is a dedicated bike path off the side of the road.
@@mikeznel6048 sad thing is we don’t even need science to determine that this video is bogus. Experience on the bike will tell you that hills are definitely harder.
He uses power spent as a metric of difficulty, that is how hard you have to push on the pedals to move, which is a pretty sensible metric if you are not concerned by the total distance covered over a given period of time, or how drained you feel after covering a set distance. And by this metric going downhill is easier than the flat or going uphill, as it should be. If you plan to commute by bike that is however not a complete metric, as those two factors have to be taken into consideration.
going downhill should be hard work. if it isnt, your gears are not high enough. you just need a big enough chain ring to allow you to be as knackered going down a hill as when climbing it.
Hi guys honestly the guy in the comments who says to hop off the bike and walk up the hill must be crazy because you see it comes down to simple science and positioning as the gondola is always much easier i highly recommend it
@@chrisprice5806 Yeah, but then you're doing so much more work when you're overgeared. Also, a fixed gear is only minimally more efficient than the equivalent gear on a bike with derailleurs thanks to modern tech
Nah, you can't see that the video creator is cunningly clever manipulation - notice he doesn't discuss gravity or having sufficient gearing for the grade/pitch and length of the climb you're going to be riding. My street is 2 miles long at over 15% pitch.... where I live is on a popular route to the beach - every weekend turned to Riders walking up the hill on their road bikes and mountain bikes because didn't have enough gear on your bike. Your comment about fixies is ignorant
Volks, this is SOO WRONG!!! 😄🤓 let me explain as an engineer... All explained principles about force are right, BUT you are ignoring the constant gravitational force wich translates into a constant force which pulls you downhill. This is as wrong as saying cycling fast is as hard as cycling slow when you use the right gears. If you ignore increasing rolling and aero resistance this is true BUT that those forces increase drastically with rising velocity. The whole matter has to be explained in mechanical WORK and ENERGY not FORCE! . When you work against a constant or even increasing force you need constant acceleration to keep same speed to compensate the constant downwards acceleration g. Sounds wrong for non Physicians but it is true. The other way to explain this is that physically you do not perform any mechanic work wehen you ride in the flat. After riding uphill you have a much bigger potential energy level due to the hight you are at afterwards. So the thesis is only right if you slow down while riding uphill which is only possible for like 10 meters until you reach min speed if you crunch the numbers. In reverse you are accelerating constantly while riding downhill without any work until rolling and aero resistance rise to the same value as the effective downhill force generated by the gravitational force. So YES .... riding UPHILL is much HARDER than rinding in the FLAT!!!! 😄🚀
🙏finally someone who knows what they're talking about. I cringed so much in this video. Some next pseudo science tryna say the say power input and cadence will give the same speed which is just incorrect. Not a single word about GPE. Clown video
Honestly I'm severely disappointed. I understand RU-vid nowadays is all about "YOU'RE WRONG AND HERE'S WHY", but this is just blatantly....stupid...Force is only one part of the hardness equation. It's like saying cycling at 200w for 1 second is harder than cycling at 150w for 10 hours. It's obviously not. You put in more work when cycling uphill, thus its harder. In the article on his website he goes a bit deeper on the issue of moving slower but still doesnt acknowledge the fact that going slower means cycling for longer whis in turns means that you're doing more work.
@@dotdotdot_6271 Well going slower doesn't mean in any words cycling longer. It falls on a perspective of view. There is a difference between riding a certain amount of time or certain amount of distance. The letter ofc needs more energy.
@@vb5396 I am mechanical engineer and I agree with the video. I don't know why do you think that he neglected friction and air resistance. He doesn't work with distance travelled therefore he doesn't need to calculate velocity from kinematic equations. I would assume that as a engineer you would know, that energy depends on time and power, where both of you can meassure (stopwatch and powermetre). You have totally dumbed your comment by saying "When you work against a constant or even increasing force you need CONSTANT ACCELERATION TO KEEP SAME SPEED to compensate the constant downwards acceleration g", which is not true because acceleration is a = dv/dt thus you need difference of velocity along difference of time and you stated opposite. You can't just convert all forces into acceleration either.
That also applies to changing gears or gear ratios. Most setups for gearing in hills will be widely spaced, so a change in gears is going to be felt in work waste radiation, or heat. Which is the usual measure of effort for someone who has no trouble breathing.
Also cycling down hills is harder than cycling on the flat. Cycling down hills slows you down a lot because of gravity you see. Cycling down hills doesn't allow you to really get going, down hill slows you down a lot. Low gears are the best way to compensate for the drag of cycling down hills.
I know you pointed out balance but there’s so much energy being spent on balancing that it can get exhausting on rough terrain, especially where you have to carefully pick your lines. It’s like bench pressing a bar or using dumbbells. I read that you can bench press 20% more weight with a bar vs. dumbells. Also, if you’ve ever rode rollers for the first time, you know how it’s almost a full body workout because of all the micro adjustments to stay balanced.
@@PersonaN007Grata oooh ok..... So ummm I think I've seen it.... It consists of three cylindrical rollers? 2 for rear wheel and 1 for the front wheel? I looked it up. It looks scary to me.
@@ishanghosh6604 Yea that’s it. It’s connected with a giant rubber band so that the front wheel spins. The diameter of the rollers will determine the resistance. Generally, it feels like you’re constantly riding into a headwind or slight uphill so it’s a great workout. There’s somewhat of a learning curve but it’s so much more “natural” feeling than a trainer.
These days I walk my bike up steep hills. I have nothing to prove. On those occasions when I do try to tackle a hill I'm not aiming for an equivalent to a level ride. I'm after a comparable effort to walking. One tip about running out of breath? Easing up is good advice of course but when your gasping for air, big exhales will do as much or more for you than big inhales.
Hm, I thought this video is about how to conquer hills with existing not-so-low gears, but it just boils down to conclusion that we need ultra low gears to do that. Ok ...
Paralysis by analysis. At the end “ok I admit hills are not as easy as flats”. Making something extremely technical to give yourself gravitas. Hills are a challenge. Fact.
@@Dan-yq8lf literally, this video is jus silly. Goes into pointless detail and neglects basic things like gravitational potential energy which is the primary effector in the problem with hills
@@Dan-yq8lf That's not the point he's making at all. He's really just saying that riders beat themselves up on hill climbs by outputting a much higher rate of power. With a low enough gear the rate of power can be the same as a reasonable flat speed. This is basically a somewhat scientific ode to lower gear ratios and may well help a lot of riders conquer their fear of 'impossible' climbs.
Fair enough arguments for hills. What about mountains? :) Well, I think the "soft pedalling/coasting" factor becomes the most significant attribute when climbing up a mountain or pass with +1000m elevation gain. This will usually take few hours for most riders with constant need to pedal hard. In the flat, riding often seems effortless cause legs have a chance to rest while still moving. STILL GREAT CONTENT AS USUAL!
the point of the video is that you pedal as "effortless" uphill just slower. Try pedal hard on flat the same way as you do going uphill and I guarantee your legs will burn the same. The video isn't about speed or distance travelled though, it is about power output!
I get that I can increase my gear ratio by having a super large rear cog and keeping my comfortable cadence and accepting a slower speed, but what is the gear ratio which translates to a slower speed than dismounting and walking the bike.
I'm a beginner and I did a 3000 foot (9000-12000 elevation) climb over 15 miles recently on a forest road in Colorado. I basically stayed in lowest gear on my MTB the whole time and took plenty of breaks. It was tough for sure but doable. Don't get stressed about riding at slow walking pace, just take your time and enjoy the ride and the views :)
Very good scientific explanation for geared bikes and climbing but, if one rides single-speeds, hills can and do get more challenging. You have to use your whole body in a variety of ways to maintain momentum and traction and where a downhill section appears, you get as much easy speed as you can for the next climbing section (also a great time to give your legs a brief break whilst you're spun out). Elliptical chainrings also a huge help in one's climbing momentum; no dead-spot between 12 and 3 on your pedal-stroke(!). Additionally, 'taking it easy' on longer climbs isn't always an option in S.S.-land. Standing and stomping squares, sitting and spinning, or walking are your three 'gears' uphill. Outputting max effort standing to maintain a 3 to 4 m.p.h. pace is oft the case, esp. on singletrack switchbacks, with maybe sitting lower (or slowing down slightly) over the saddle to keep rear climbing traction when on drier/looser hardpack. Lastly, have always used how my legs/lungs feel at any given moment to determine my climbing pace. You don't need a watt-meter or other data to know how to climb or generally pedal. That is roadie overcomplicating nonsense designed to suck All the fun out of a ride. Data doth not make a ride and watt-meters, strava, and any other non necessary roadie nonsense needs to be kept in the roadie genre strictly(!). I know on an instinctual level where my riding's at at any given day or moment; I don't need Hal 9000 informing me about how I'm riding...
While I do get your sentiment. All those techy shit and scientific whatnots advanced human physical achievements not realized just a few decades before. We kept breaking records left and right and its all because of those power meters, strava and etc which are all in the end, data we can use. For you, it sucks out the fun of riding. For some of us, it augments the fun because there are so many variables we can play with.
As a long-distance cyclist, can confirm. Flats with a headwind are the worst. Uphills tend to shelter you from wind and give you back most of the added energy later. Worst 8 hours of my cycling life were an 8 hour flat with 50kph headwind, 500 km into an 800k. Was praying to get to the upcoming 3000m hill.
I'll agree. When I lived in Kalamazoo, there were long stretches of flat farmland with plenty of wind fetch. I'm a bit of a twig, and it was always more work to ride there than in the roller coaster terrain back home. One day however, I had a favorable wind, and I could put it in the 53x12 and spin at 30mph for more than a few miles with virtually no effort. That was a blast.
On my 39/28 bike, I've passed people because I could climb hills while maintaining a good cadence, but I wouldn't have enough power to continue moving if I slowed down to match the speed of other people with easier years.
I think 1 point that wasn't mentioned is that on the flat, you can coast, you can peddle and let off, pedal then let off, but uphill you cannot get 1 second off without you losing all your momentum and start to go backwards or just coming to a complete stop, then it's so much harder and mentally deflating to get moving up hill again. Especially when the thought of walking is right there, and it feels like walking takes such less stress so you can get a recharge break for future energy. This is just the thoughts from a normal person that's ridden bikes in their life.
When I was 16 in 1979, I rode my Ross 5 speed every day during the summer. I lived at the top of a hill, so I always had to ride uphill when I was headed home. It became quite easy to make it all the way up the hill without breaking a sweat. My senior year in HS I leg-pressed 1200 lbs. The only problem I had was finding pants that would fit, I had to get jeans that were 2 inches too big in the waist to fit my quads. I'm 5'7" and at the time I was only 148 lbs.
@@roof30 No BS, top bar full stack of weights. I also had a full beard at 17 and my hair line was already starting to recede, so I was a bit of an early bloomer. At 17 I was getting served in any bar I walked into, (drinking age was already 21 then).
Something you didn't mention was attitude. I sold one of my old mountain bikes to a work colleague who was dreadfully out of shape. 350 pounds (160 kilos), no cycling or exercise of any kind in the previous 20 years. He was determined to lose weight and become healthier. He signed up for a group ride (200+ entrants) over a hilly 45 mile course, knowing full well he couldn't ride up the hills. But when he ran out of gears as the grade increased, he got off the bike and walked it to the top, no hurry, no complaints, no frustration or disappointment. To him, _walking the bike up the hill was every bit as much part of the trip as coasting down the other side, no better, no worse._ Finishing that ride made such an impression on his self esteem that he kept at it, and the last time I saw him he had lost more than 150 pounds.
especially roadies often have more gears for the flats with big chainrings and even their biggest ring in the cassette being smaller than their smallest chainring us mtbers often have real small chainrings and bigger gears in the cassette because... our bikes primarily face mountains not distance (and yes then there is enduro)
I don't know why, but I truly love climbs. They are hard and challenging, and finishing them gives me such a great feeling. I'm not the biggest climber in the world, but even with my limited time (family and stuff) I somehow managed to climb 20k meters in the last two months, aiming for around 100k this year. And I'm really just a hobby cyclist just enjoying the ride. The mind makes the biggest difference here.
I've taken cycling up this year, and am always drawn to the hills. Living in Sydney, with lockdowns, I haven't done much riding out of the city, but I always go looking for hills. I did my first climb up to Katoomba (from Parramatta) a couple of weeks ago, and simply picked low enough gears that it was indeed very easy. It wasn't anywhere near as mathematical as your video, but basically the same conclusion. (But when I'm in town, I love trying to tear up the hills in high gears to build strength.)
I've experienced that, therefore the title of this video should be " while being chased by a wild animal with the intention of mauling you to death climbing hills is easy"
“Obsessing” about wide gear ratios is something I’ve never understood until I rode a modern road bike, I got an old road bike with a 7 speed and always just had to grind out steep climbs, but when I tried a 12 speed 105 I was pretty blown away at the ease of climbing. Thinking of dropping a few teeth on my small chainring just to get some better climbing gears
“Hills are not harder, than cycling on the flat” If not harder then I would argue you do not need to change gear, because you change gear then this suggests hills are harder 🤔 At some point going up a hill on my fixed gear, I have to get off and walk 😉😏🙂
@@bluceree7312 Mostly if the ground isn't suitable for biking, as the vid says! If wet/sandy/rocky/furrowed etc. But on paved roads you're better off cycling (as long as you can maintain a reasonable cadence)
Aaaaaand that's the answer. How many people push anywhere near as hard when riding on flat as riding uphill? Only people in training, if that. In practice, you don't push yourself on flats, conserving energy for the climbs. Which are harder because you have to gain elevation against gravity. Which makes the whole point of the video kinda absurd.
By watching your insanely educational videos, I feel very confident in the purchase I just made. After 10 years and 7 cancer diagnosis, I started riding to raise funds and awareness for childrens' cancer research. I learned my bike was very VERY wrong for me, and then got stopped from the riding to have a kidney removed on August 16, 2022. Then I started learning. I chose a Marin Pine Mountain 1 that has a "Granny Gear" of 18.9 gear inches! (32 crank to a 11-51 cassette) I had no clue what that even meant until your videos. I intestinally rode down and back up a hill for my test drive. Even with being out of commission for a few months, and not fully recovered from the kidney removal, the hill was conquered without killing myself. Thank YOU!
well, I often hear from people "wow, it was such a hard uphill!" and almost never "oh, I had to switch gears so would not feel dead" so title looks legit to me
Very interesting video. Love the science. When I was in Tuscany a few years ago I found if I could control my heart rate at a comfortable level I was able to climb the long (longer than I was used to) hills more easily. If my heart rate when above my comfort zone (about 150bpm for me) I just backed off a bit to lower my HR. I suppose that is similar to listening to your breathing but with an easily visible metric to guide me.
Heartrate is a perfect metric to use for pacing your ride. Sometimes I do rides with 10-12-14 hours of moving time (in one day of course); on those I just spend a bit of time to estimate where my heartrate can be on average, and I stick to that. It feels extremely slow and limiting in the beginning to back off when I go over 130 bpm (especially when other, slower riders pass!), but I'm always thankful when I'm still pedaling and fully free of cramps with over 12h and over 400 km on the clock.
Going up a hill you have gravity pulling you back, Your weight x 10. On the way down a hill gravity is your friend. Riding on a flat surface it's pretty much neutral. (Commonsense Says)
Good video, thanks, although I already agree. 1. The difficulty of balance is often a limiting factor on steepness of climbs, especiallly on rough surfaces. But if it is too steep to balance, you can often climb just as quickly pushing the bike. 2. In too many aspects of cycling, people follow blindly road racing ideas, that are for athletes. Road bikes often lack low gears, because athletes are tough! Narrow tyres make for low weight, but wider tyres are better in most other respects. Drop bars are made for maximising power while mimising wind resistance at high speeds. Not much use at touring speeds. But flat bars allow better control, simpler brake and gear controls. You can use MTB technology, where low gears and (much more effective) hydraulic brakes are well established. 3. If you want really low gears, along with high enough ones, you really need a front derailleur.
In my opinion you forgot some important think, on flat road you often mix idle with power cycling so you typically have some time for recovery, when you uphill there is no time for recovery you lost speed too fast, and this defines "harder" uphill. Maybe experienced rider could ride without recovery periods but for average rider this periods is helpful and necessary.
@@kosskrit true, I think it depends also from your physical possibility, I mean long ride without recovery period it is about finding tempo when you ride in "fatburn mode" this give you ability to be endure. So it needs some experience and physical training.
Having done lots of cycle touring, my advice would be get low-riders for the front to keep the front wheel on the ground (hot topic alert) whilst going up steep hills. The bike-packing images I have seen have shown bikes with the weight carried mostly at the rear. The bike-packing videos I've seen have featured very rough living, whereas cycle-touring with a tent is luxury in comparison. ps My touring bike often weighed 40 Kilos all up. pps tip: Sunscreen can double as a Swarfega substitute for oily hands.
Hills are NOT harder... says science... here are why hills ARE actually harder. Sorry but this was clickbait. The hills are harder plain and simple. Science agrees. Its just that they are harder....FOR A GIVEN DISTANCE. (and going downhill it swaps). All balances out in the end unless you brake
Physiologically it doesn't even out. The recovery you get from coasting down the descent will never make up for the extra energy expended going up the climb. Most efficient way to cycle would be to put in the exact same power output, whether on incline, decline or flat, however the need to brake on descents makes this impractical.