ironguides

Marco Pantani's ride up Alpe d'Huez, regardless of the chemical support he (and many others) enjoyed along the way, gives a great example of understanding climbing. To give you a better idea of Pantani's ride up Alpe d'Huez -- he was BRAKING going into the switchbacks -- heading uphill. Alpe d'Huez is moderately steep but not killer steep -- it's just over 8% on average, with the first part being the steepest (in other words, it's less steep than the average later on--but not by much!).

The record up Mont Ventoux is 56 minutes from the marble line across the road in Bedoin to the summit, set by John Vaughters in the Dauphine Libere one year. The vertical gain is 1600m (290m i nBedoin to 1909m at the summit) over 21km, but the first 3km are 3% so don't really "count" for the true climb. The meat of the matter is 1500m (5000 feet) of climbing in 18k (11.3 miles). The first 9k of that are 9% gradient.

If you want to compare power outputs, you need to know the weight of each rider's total climbing rig (body + bike). Vaughters weighed 135 lbs, for example, while Armstrong weighed 160 lbs (give or take) with my assumption that the bike weight is roughly equal. In a hypothetical situation, if they both make it up in the same time then Armstrong would have to have generated roughly the following amount of watts more than Vaughters: [ (160 - 135)/135 ] assuming friction, wind resistance etc. are all negligible or roughly equal.

This shows clearly Armstrong's superiority as an absolute cycling machine: His power to weight ratio pretty much spells victory when the mountains hit, all things else being OK (fuel, health, etc.).

If you check out the rate of climbing done in most mountain TT's or all-out ascents, you'll find that roughly 1700m - 1800m of vertical gain per hour is what the top climbers can achieve over the course of an hour (a higher rate of climbing over shorter distances). This is about what Vaughters' climb of Ventoux translates to (after you take the first 3k out and adjust 56 down to 51 minutes and 1600m down to 1500m of gain). Tyler Hamilton's 51 minute record at Mt. Washington (12k of 12%) is also roughly the same.

What does this translate to in real world terms? Well, here's a rough guide you can use to compare yourself to Tour-level climbers. Keep in mind that these guys can maintain this rate of climbing well into the truly "steep" and that us mere mortals will start to struggle much sooner as gradient increases, due to non-specific training, poor training methods, and sub-optimal power:weight ratios. Basically, the heavier and more out of shape you are, the less steep a gradient has to be for gravity to lunge up and clamp a refrigerator to your ankle.

The absolute maximal sustained rate of climbing top climbers can achieve these days is roughly 1800m vertical gain per hour. This would be a herculean effort performed once only during a tour, or in a single day event or mountain TT such as Mt. Washington.

Or, on any given gradient with wind and rolling resistance factored out, a top climber will gain 30 meters per minute! This is absolutely huge -- there is likely no one reading (or writing!) :-) this who can sustain that for more than a few minutes at best.

This rate of vertical gain equals:

15 kph for one hour at a gradient of 12%

18 kph for one hour at 10%

20 kph for one hour at 9%

22.5 kph for one hour at 8% (i.e. col de la Madone record in Armstrong's book)

25.7 kph for one hour at 7% -- Because wind resistance plays a role at this speed, 7% is not quite steep enough to achieve a maximal rate of gain.

30 kph for one hour at 6% -- Wind resistance plays a large factor at this speed, so this is a sub-optimal gradient for a top climber to achieve a maximal rate of gain over an entire hour.

45 kph for one hour at 4% (!!!) -- not likely sustainable unless with a strong tailwind, as at this speed wind and rolling resistance play a huge factor.

Keep in mind that over shorter climbs and in the pack, this 30m/minute rate of gain can jump to over 40 vertical meters per minute!

There, now you can go out and find your nearest known vertical gain and distance and truly compare yourself to the Tour climbers. Keep in mind that changing gradients, road conditions, wind, heat, fueling and so on will all effect this. Also keep in mind that if you are going to "eyeball it", most gradients are not as steep as you think they are, particularly later in the climb, and most vertical gains aren't as high as you are guessing. If you have an altimeter you can take the guesswork out of this and monitor changing gradient. It also gives you solace as your speed changes over changing gradients to know that your rate of vertical gain stays constant.

Using an altimeter, too, you can train yourself to determine your maximal aerobic vertical gain per hour and translate this into a gain per minute. Then you can tell on any climb what your sustained aerobic climbing rate should be. The less in shape you are, or the heavier, the lower the optimal gradient for achieving your maximum rate of vertical gain, too a point, since at lower gradients you will have to overcome higher wind and rolling resistance to achieve the speed required to meet your target rate of gain.

Have fun climbing, and remember: What goes up, must come down! Calculating the maximum rate of vertical descent is directly proportional to your level of bravado, foolhardiness and endorphin production!