Today's Bike Ride

[Hank]

But isn't it just the same? Unless you're out of the saddle, you're just turning the pedals the same when you're doing a long hill as when you're chasing down a breakaway on the flat. It's all about power output (in watts - thanks MrB). Why would a rider have a higher power output when at 12% than on the flat?

Drugs? Or maybe the question isn't realistic, would two people of identical height/weight/power perform differently?

[Gambatte]

did you always ask them their weight

Of course I do.
And if this was not enough, I don't trust their weight statement so I force them to stand on the scale I always carry when I'm out cycling.

[noel]

With me it's definitely weight. I'm about 61kg, and have fell running legs. As a largely non-cyclist, I'm OK at hills but am rubbish on the flat where power is the issue (not so much power:weight). I regularly can't keep up with fat(ter) blokes on the flat.

[felltrumpet]

Cool. I didn't know this.
See if you can answer this, I always wonder....
Say two decent cyclist A and B are same height, weight, strength and endurance. What makes one a better climber than the other, and the other better on the flat...????????

Of the random strangers I meet on the road nobody beats me on a climb. Everybody beat me on the flat. Well, not true of course but I hope it still gives the idea...

I was mulling this over yesterday riding from school to the pub (40km loop) with a colleague and we both blasted up a small shallow climb. He was in the big ring, out of the saddle; I was in the small on the drops. We matched each other til halfway and he blew.
We generally match each other on the flat, running, climbing, mountaineering etc... and are similar weights. But I can destroy him on any climb. Is it mental or physical - do I have the ability to ‘hurt’ more?

[felltrumpet]

I was mulling this over yesterday riding from school to the pub (40km loop) with a colleague and we both blasted up a small shallow climb. He was in the big ring, out of the saddle; I was in the small on the drops. We matched each other til halfway and he blew.
We generally match each other on the flat, running, climbing, mountaineering etc... and are similar weights. But I can destroy him on any climb. Is it mental or physical - do I have the ability to ‘hurt’ more?

His is the lighter, newer, ‘faster’ bike!

[Gambatte]

On the psychology...

I'm very slow on the flat, and I'm "very fast" on the climbs.
But it's also true that on the flat I never ever ever push hard. I just don't feel like it, keep thinking "why the heck should I bother, it's boring useless valueless flat after all". On the contrary, I never rode a climb where I gave it less than 100%, I always think I must push hard for its own sake, just too bloody exciting.

Why? I don't really know, but it comes very natural.

[Graham Breeze]

[QUOTE=felltrumpet;674434]..He was in the big ring.../QUOTE]

Ah the big ring!

When Riis won the Tour he got his mechanic to take his big, "big ring" off (presumably at least a 53) and replace it with a smaller "big ring" so he appeared to be riding strongly up the mountains still "on the big ring". It convinced Indurain that Riis was superlatively strong* that day.

As I often say, this climbing business - it's all in the head.

(* the other help Riis had was injecting a pint or so of EPO into his veins but I am sure that was of only marginal assistance ).

[Graham Breeze]

Talking of big rings, Dr Hutch has a story about Sean Yates - a hard man of British cycling - who never used a small ring in the UK because there was no climb steep enough.

On day Hutch went riding with Sean and queried that he was on the small ring.

"Count the teeth" said Sean.

It turned out his "small ring" was a 52 teeth and his "big ring" was a 60.

(That one's for Fellbeast. )

[Llani Boy]

Missing my evening fix of Orla already

[Fellbeast]

It turned out his "small ring" was a 52 teeth and his "big ring" was a 60.

(That one's for Fellbeast. )

Like pretty much every post on this thread, I didn't understand any of the jargon so I had to google an understanding first. Rings I now understand is what you call the front cogs while the back rings are actually called cogs

I also googled what rings and cogs my bike has - my front 'rings' are 46 and 30 while my rear cogs are 11-34t. I'm still not quite sure what that last 't' means....

I also understand how the gear ratios work (dividing the ring by the cog) but, going back to your bloke with the big 'ring' Graham, what about his cog sizes??