Climbing, out of the saddle.... less energy efficient?

[cyclotaur]

In practical terms, and getting back to the real world a little, my experience on say 1:20 climb in the Dandenongs (Melbourne) is interesting. Most will know the climb is about 7km at 4-5.%.

My fastest times (and my my most common comfortable times) have all been achieved in the saddle with no need to stand. I'm currently not so fit and need regular standing efforts to maintain/regain speed and rhythm simply to achieve times. quite a bit slower than my usual 24-25mins, much less the 21-22mins of my fastest times.

So when I'm fit I achieve overall better times on steady climbs by staying seated. I know from experience trying to beat my best time that I 'blow up' if I try to push with standing efforts when I'm already close to my limit being seated.

Irrespective of my relatively slow 1:20 times I suspect other riders would have a similar experience on similar or longer climbs.

Shorter climbs are a different issue as I can sometimes complete the climb before emptying my 'tank' completely through standing efforts. Eg. I go a lot better on the shorter Ridge Rd climb to Skyhigh, on which I can use standing efforts quite effectively.

[kb]

Last year while building up to 3 Peaks, I bumped into a cyclist training for the Audax Alpine Classic. We ride together from Gembrook to Launching Place through Kurth Kiln. He stood up every time the road pointed up and said he does all the climbs standing the whole time as it keeps his HR down! Not my experience but maybe some of it is just what you're used to. I figure even if there were no difference in energy production, you'll still get an aero hit (even at climbing speeds) when standing.

[g-boaf]

One of the riders who did a really fast time on the 1 in 20 mentioned that getting out of the saddle gets the lactic moving, but your legs can feel really heavy and bad for a while after it. So he did the 1 in 20 seated starting out at over 500w and doing mostly 400-450w the rest of the way.

If he is right or not, not for me to judge. I'm not that fast. But I find on longer hills I stay seated, except for short little bits where I stand.

[vosadrian]

I have vectors also.. My peak power is normally standing, as I like to have a sprint here and there. Typically standing efforts are around 10-20 seconds. If I stand when I climb, it is a very different style of standing where I am actively trying to maintain the same speed rather than accelerate and at much lower cadence.

On the HR thing.... I find that standing my HR can be lower (If I resis the urge to go faster). Actually generally at lower cadence at the same speed my HR can be lower, but my legs will hurt more. Faster cadence seated seems to move the load into the cardio system and I can maintain high HR longer than sore legs.

[g-boaf]

Lower cadence and lower heart rate is normal though, isn't it?

If my HR goes high, I grab a higher gear until it settles down. And hope the legs don't burn up. I tend to prefer staying at higher cadence, I can handle the higher heart rate for longer too, but if my legs are starting to really hurt then I'm in trouble. As long as I stay on top of the gear, I'm fine.

[cj7hawk]

Interesting stuff David,

I wonder if the force applied at BDC and TDC costs us much energy. I mean I stand on the ground without moving and apply force to the ground without moving and therefore do no work, and equally it does not cost me much energy as opposed to walking/running when I am moving (and doing work as opposed to just applying a force). I am just questioning whether supporting the weight of our bodies on the pedals as opposed tot he saddle during the TDC/BDC phase is really costing us as a loss of energy doing work? No matter what, we are always applying the force of gravity from our mass to the bike in some way.

I find that when I am climbing up a steep climb and need to stand and at the same time limit the work I am doing so I can make it to the top without stopping, I will get in the lowest gear I have and then reduce my cadence. The end result is that the bike accelerates quickly as I put my weight on the pedals after TDC to BDC, but I come to almost a stop at BDC before the other side comes over TDC and then accelerate again. The bike is accelerating and decelerating quite a bit, and I am really using my weight on the pedals between TDC and BDC to propel the bike and coasting through TDC/BDC. I am not using much energy in the coast phase but quite a bit in the power phase.

I think it depends on whether your knee is locked mostly - If your knee is straight, then the conduction of force is mostly through the bone. If your knee is bent, then the muscles burn energy maintaining tension.

So if you're going up and down like a yoyo, and standing straight up on the pedal, then you're probably not using much energy at TDC.

I don't know how that otherwise effects muscle efficiency though -

David

[silentC]

If your knee is locked, your saddle height needs adjusting!

[Kalgrm]

This is assuming the efficient "circular pedalling" is not being used. Even when standing out of the saddle, an efficient rider will be using as much of the pedal cycle as possible to avoid surges in power during the stroke.

(I'm not great at it and certainly no longer fit enough to do it for long, but circular pedalling whilst standing is the only way to maintain traction and enough power on a short, steep mountain bike climb on a loose surface.)

Cheers,
Graeme

[vosadrian]

Lower cadence and lower heart rate is normal though, isn't it?

If my HR goes high, I grab a higher gear until it settles down. And hope the legs don't burn up. I tend to prefer staying at higher cadence, I can handle the higher heart rate for longer too, but if my legs are starting to really hurt then I'm in trouble. As long as I stay on top of the gear, I'm fine.

That is my experience. I find I perform best at 95-100 cadence and can have my HR sit very high (average 180) for a fair while (20 minutes) if pushing it. If I lower the cadence, the HR goes down, but legs burn up and I go slower. If I go above about 105 cadence for a longer period I start bouncing off the free hub ratchet as I cannot keep a constant torque against the pedals.

[cj7hawk]

This is assuming the efficient "circular pedalling" is not being used. Even when standing out of the saddle, an efficient rider will be using as much of the pedal cycle as possible to avoid surges in power during the stroke.

(I'm not great at it and certainly no longer fit enough to do it for long, but circular pedalling whilst standing is the only way to maintain traction and enough power on a short, steep mountain bike climb on a loose surface.)

Cheers,
Graeme

If you look at few circular-pedaling crank-angle vs force charts, there's still significant issues while standing. It would contribute a much higher overall force though - but still doesn't address energy loss at TDC and BDC.

Regards
David

[Calvin27]

I rekon there is too much talk of bio-mechanics here. The overwhelming limitation to efficiency is the engine - or the body.

I find the off saddle more energy efficient which is why most people burst off the saddle to scale small climbs. But the reality is we can't sustain this so efficiency is out the window.

We really have to look at efficiency from a whole of systems perspective. It's kind of like saying the peak efficiency of a car is at 7000rpm. That's good and all, but if the radiator cannot keep up with heat rejection, it's pointless.

[silentC]

I think when people refer to efficiency the chief consideration is sustainability.

You can get to the top of a hill pretty quickly off the saddle, and for shortish climbs I will always prefer that to sitting down and spinning a lower gear. Another guy I ride with has an average cadence >90 and he does not lift his bum off the seat ever. He can beat me up a hill if we are both sitting but I can leave him behind if I stand up. However if I try to do that over a 2 or 3km climb I will blow up and he will catch me anyway. My preferred tactic for catching that particular guy is to sit on his tail up the hill and then sprint past him to the top. Only way I can do it.

If you sit back and pace yourself on a low gear, you can go all day. That is sustainable and I guess by extension you would consider that to be efficient, because you are minimising your energy expenditure and therefore increasing the length of time you can do it. But I have to be in a patient mood or distracted by conversation to do that.

If you are only going up one hill, it doesn't really matter how much energy you use and out of the saddle is, for me, the fastest way to get there. Personally I hate hills and can't wait to get to the top of them. But if there are many hills or long climbs, sitting is the only sustainable method for me.

[zill]

It's clear that riding out of the saddle in the trainer on a big gear is easier than riding out of the saddle on the road whether climbing or not. Given that it is easier to generate more power when out of the saddle, this means one is able to get a higher 20 minute power riding out of the saddle on a trainer.

How so? I take it by that you are doing 20 minutes out of the saddle the entire time you are riding on a trainer?

You must be about the only one.

Might be due to the trainer. I use the kinetic rock and roll which is designed for riding out of the saddle.

Yes, do entire 20 min out of the saddle. Wouldn't like to imagine my 20min power in the saddle on that trainer. Would do much better on a cassette mounted trainer in the saddle.

[zill]

Personally I hate hills and can't wait to get to the top of them. But if there are many hills or long climbs, sitting is the only sustainable method for me.

No one likes hills but it's usually only on the hills that you can drop people and that feeling of dropping others more than compensates the hard effort output.

[silentC]

What I mean is that I often attack the hills when what I should do is sit back in a lower gear and save the effort for near the top. If you can get near the crest without stuffing yourself, then you can knock it up 2 or 3 gears 20 metres or so from the top and sprint away. I've been able to do that a few times because I am learning to hold back. Most hills are steeper at the bottom and level out as they crest. If you get up there and your legs are jelly, there's not much you can do. But if you have saved a bit, then you can push a bigger gear and run away while everyone else is recovering.

[Dave-in-LK]

I'm not in you're leagu guys but for the last 3 years I've been trying to stay seated but sit very upright ...really upright so I have have fingers stretched a bit and they just rest on the bars. Let the upper body relax too.

Then develope a nice steady cadence. I was always a stander but since turning 40 I found this method better and more energy efficient - for me. It also allows me to breath better taking in more oxygen ...look I don't know if that's true but it feels like

It's weird but for me it's working and I'm climbing much better

[silentC]

look I don't know if that's true but it feels like

It is. What you describe is exactly how a lot of people who know what they are talking about recommend you climb.

[Dave-in-LK]

I didn't take cycling up until 30 but I played a lot of other sports at reasonably high level ....I can usually figure out energy efficiency.

That said what works well for one won't work well for another.

I found by standing that a lost enegwry with body movement ...shoulders and arms. Whereas staying seat but upright

Now I Might be slightly quicker in some hills standing up but the energy list meant I lost that gain on the flat or the descent or at the end of the ride ...say last ten Km

[cj7hawk]

Am important consideration here is that we can't figure out from any of our senses whether what we're doing is energy efficient - We only know roughly how much effort we're putting into something - Humans need an external reference to know if what they have achieved is efficient.

For example, a person pushing a trolley gently does a lot more work than someone trying to push over a building. In fact, anyone doing about anything does a lot more work than someone trying to push over a building.

Except the person attempting to push a building over ( and not getting anywhere ) isn't aware that they aren't being very efficient, because all they know is that they are putting in a lot of effort. As a result, such an activity as zero percent efficiency.

Efficiency isn't something you can tell by feedback to your senses. It's something that has to be measured and understood, and it's based on distances actually moved over time. As I mentioned earlier - a crank is only 63% efficient in one direction if the force on the crank is constant. When you climb out of the saddle, this inefficiency is in play 100% of the time. It doesn't matter if you pedal using some special technique - at best, you will only convert the force from your mass into torque at 63% efficiency. You can add other sources of force, sure, but you can never get rid of that inefficiency in the primary source of force.

If you sit down, you eliminate that source of inefficiency - though you may well introduce others. Still, it's a big inefficiency, so it's probably the single biggest contributor to the difference between seating and standing.

I can draw up some diagrams to illustrate this if it helps anyone?

Regards
David

[vosadrian]

I am not sure I agree with your take on gravity on our mass being a big source of inefficiency David. Our weight needs to be supported at all times whether we sit or stand. If we sit it is going through the saddle and doing nothing to move us forward. When we stand we tend to use the dead time at TDC/BDC to rock the bike from side to side. Either way we move through BDC/TDC without much positive work being done. I think your analysis based on mass is a small part of the efficiency equation. Riders put a lot more force than their mass onto the pedals when putting in an effort and counter this force by pulling up on the opposite pedal to stop their mass lifting.

I do agree with your assessment of efficiency being measured as opposed to felt... but really... does efficiency matter? What matters is the level of effort required by the rider, and whether it is maintainable for the duration of the climb and whether it leaves you more/less fatigued after the climb. If this is related to actual energy efficiency I don't know. Perhaps a rider is better served to be less energy efficient, but to use muscles that are better prepared for more work instead of being more energy efficient and using muscles that fatigue quickly? This may elevate the HR more, but if the cardio system is up to that, it may be a better outcome for the rider.

[cyclotaur]

For those of us who are old enough to remember, there were few options but to stand, at least intermittently, when climbing decent hills in the days before compact cranks and 28/30/32t cassettes.

Only pros, whippets and/or generally classy riders can manage standing climbing on higher gears for any length of time.

For most of us, I say thank goodness for modern lightweight bikes and gears that enable us to tackle big climbs largely from the saddle. These allow us to complete big climbs without exhausting ourselves or cooking our legs for the rest of a longish ride.

Riding is so much fun that I'm glad I can do big rides with big climbs every now and then. Riding 'efficiently' is the crucial thing that allows me to complete (not COMPETE) such rides.

I rode with an underprepared mate last year up Buffalo in the AAC140. I was comfortably seated in low gear the whole time, whereas he was forced out of the saddle quite regularly to maintain cadence. Good fitness allows you to ride more efficiently which allows you to ride further/higher etc ...but it's a chicken and egg thing.

[Dave-in-LK]

Agree

I have been swimming a lot to build up lung capacity when I can't ride

Half an hour high intensity swimming taking few breaths really helped my cycling

I'm a bigger rider at 86-87 kg but fitness is ok. Goal weight 80kg. I was 105kg 18 months ago.

What I noticed was tempo and finding it on hill and not spending all my tickets too early on the climb and blowing up half way up the hill - you have to know what you're can and can't do, ride smart and as you get fitter you can climb better. I found standing wasted so much energy for me, I now only stand to give the back or legs a stretch for a few strokes then sit again in the upright position.

It comes down to power to weight ration also.