tomato coupe

29,940,000,000,000 ergs sounds more impressive.

shelbyfv

Yes indeed!

pdlamb

Fair enough. But to my mind, this forum is more like a conversation than a refereed, peer reviewed journal posting or a judicial opinion site. Isn't it fair for a non-expert to start off with a general question and then refine the question during the conversation?

indyfabz

He didn’t refine the question, at least not when I posted that response. The fact remains that 500 miles is 500 miles, regardless of terrain. BTW...Look at the link I posted in another response. He basically asked what I think he was trying to ask here many years ago.

RiceAWay

if Strava uses a file generated by a wheel based speedometer/distance measurement (most common for downloaded files) the climbing does not modify the distance. If the Strava file is generated from a GPS signal that assumes 250 miles with a 35,000 this would mean that you would have ridden 250 miles on the flat and 6.6 up (and presumably down). The trig function A^2 + B^2 = C^2. So the length of the hypotenuse is 250.087 or about 2 10ths of a mile longer than 500 miles.

Climbing does not add appreciably to the length of a ride regardless of what it makes you feel like.

Riveting

I only skimmed the answers above and didn't see the answer I was looking for, but I've also pondered this question in the past, to myself. And I remember comparing various flat and hilly rides I had done, all with a PowerTap G3 hub power meter, comparing power avgs. and calories expended, and it was that ~1000' of climbing was equal to ~10 miles of flatland. So a 50 mile ride with 2,000' of climbing is like a 70 mile flat ride, though I have no empirical evidence to back that up. And a lot of bike and rider variables can sway those numbers.

Once you utilize a power meter, you'll see that a 6% hill climb at 250 watts for an hour, is the same "effort" as a flat ride at 250 watts for an hour, but just a whole lot less distance on the hill climb.

Riveting

Untrue, 35 miles is far from nothing, and is torturous hell if you're doing 350 watts the whole time, and mountains are easy if you get a great big granny gear and put out 180 watts the whole time. Without including power in these discussions, is like telling someone you went to the gym and did 20 reps on the bench press, but without mentioning how much was on the bar.

CargoDane

No, the difference being that I don't need to put out the same amount of power on the flat to go fast enough (I am not a spinner), and as such I don't actually put out the same amount of power as I do uphill.
It is only the same if you ride your bike and adjust your speed and gearing according to a power meter in order to keep the power output the same regardless of it being uphill, downhill or flat. If you just ride your bike, uphill is harder than on the flat.

The only people who care solely about power output and time, but not distance (destination) and getting there are people who do not need to be anywhere, and hence use their power meter as a measure for everything - regardless of the time to get somewhere and accumulated energy used.

Yes, same output over the same time = same accumulated energy used. But that's not how most people who use a bike for transportation rides. You can't stop halfway to your destination and pretend you're there.

Riveting

There is truth in what you say. On a pure hill climb, without any downhills, you either put out the minimal effort required to move forward and upward, or you come to a stop, and that requirement for non-stop sustained effort can be very energy depleting. Whereas flat riding allows you to stop pedaling and just coast, while you recover, or you can put out a very low amount of power and still move forward. In that respect a hill IS much harder, because it REQUIRES constant effort, whereas flat riding allows someone to slack off and recover a bit, or go as slow as they like. I've ridden 31,000 miles in the last ~6 years, and my hardest efforts (1,000+ watt sprints, and a 24 hr ride of 325 miles) were all on the flats. I've also done multiple 6,400' sustained climbs to the top of Mt Evans in CO to an elevation of 14,100', in my granny gear, at a snail's pace, while being severely depleted of oxygen, but going slow, so it was "easy". As well as riding many 1,000's of miles of commuting, sometimes at 500 watts to get some training in while I commute, and a 111 mile gravel ride with 13,500' of climbing. But when I think back on it all, the stuff I did on the flats was the most I've suffered. The gradient of the road in front of you does not dictate how hard the ride will be, that's all up to the rider.

CargoDane

Again with your time-defined sprints and trips. I don't use a bicycle to do "one hour/24H" stints. I use it to go from a to b in a timely manner. If I go to Point B that happens to be up a hill, that will be harder than going back to Point A downhill. If I go from Point A to Point C that is the same distance as my Up-hill Point B, but is on the flat, I will use less energy to get there than I did to get to Point B (the one up the hill).
However, if I put out the same amount of power up the hill as I do on the flat, it will take me a whole lot longer to get to point B (Up-the-hill).

Not everyone goes for "training sessions" of specific time periods, where your speed is ruled by meeting a set power output, but actually go places.

That is all.

Riveting

I didn't start out by doing these "stints", I was a year round commuter for a few years and just gravitated towards the stints because they made me push myself to get fitter an I enjoy the journey getting to higher levels of fitness, speed, and power. I'm not disparaging why you ride, that's up to you. But don't put out there as a blanket statement that hills are harder than the flats, it's simply not completely true. A ride is as hard as you want to make it, but if you don't, then that's fine too.

That is all.

CargoDane

It doesn't matter if you started out with those "stints" or not. You're using them as argument to somehow prove it is as easy going up hill as it going on the flat (and therefore also downhill).

That is only true if you don't actually use your bike as transportation, but merely as a time-limited/time defined exercise while outputting the same power regardless of the topography.

In those very specific set of circumstances, you are obviously right. But I use my bike for transportation, and I vary my power output.

If you need to ride 35 miles and be somewhere rather than "whenever" because you only care about "power output", then it does matter if it's uphill or not.
You're treating all cycling the same as a set time on a trainer/roller while watching a power meter.

WhyFi

So what I'm hearing you say is that he's wrong because you're lazy on the flats?

CargoDane

No, if that's what you're "hearing" you need to clear out those ears:
I am saying that I'd rather be going on the flat with a load because I can go faster with less effort than I can if I go uphill. 35 miles to destination B uphill will take me longer even with more energy output per hour than 35 miles on the flat to destination C will.

Again: Most people don't treat cycling as a mobile exercise bike going nowhere. It has nothing to do with being lazy, but all to do with the reality of actually going places. It is not merely an exercise with scenery going past.

If he is adamant, he should try riding a heavily loaded cargo bike and perhaps even with a trailer and actually go places, and be at that place before a certain time.

What he does can be acheived on an indoor trainer/rollers. So he is right, that in those very specific circumstances, it doesn't really matter as it is the same.

Riveting

I don't think I could ride to the top of Mt Evans on rollers. But I would be open to discussing how such a thing would be done, you go first...

CargoDane

What you describe in the above is not what your argument was in your previous posts. Namely; using the same output for a set amount of time. You occassionally actually going places doesn't change your argument.
I am sure you too can go to actual places. Most people on a bike can. You outputting the same amount of power over a set time is not the same. And that is what you can do on indoor roller/trainer.