But that’s the point, they’re not trying for efficiency. Some of those guys can climb in the saddle things we could never approach. They can also stay out of the saddle while climbing for a length of time that would kill us. The teams also have domestiques whose job it is to sacrifice themselves, possibly even to the point of failure, to give their lead rider an advantage. And they ride every day, with teams of masseuses and sports therapists to help them recover each day after killing themselves. What they do is ideal for the TdF, but not directly applicable to sport riders.
A good rule of thumb is to keep your RPMs between 60 and 80. Going to fast is very inefficient, going to slow risks injury and makes uphill quite difficult. You adjust the gears to the right level to keep you spinning the right rate. If you have a bike computer that measures cadence that can really help you judge what is a good pace.
You should remain seated in a higher/easier gear and spin at a high cadence - it’s the Lance way!
That’s what a friend of mine told me today…
60 is too low a cadence, most people are risking knee problems at that rate. 90-110 is optimal for most though it will take practice to be smooth at those RPMs.
There are a few riders who can handle a low cadence.
Lower/easier gear.
Define a “hill”. Is it 200 yards of 20 degree climb or is it 10 miles of 8 degree climb?
Standing is like sprinting. All-out for a short distance.
Sitting is like distance running. Pace yourself, conserve your energy for the long haul.
“Any hill”? Common, try climbing the Teton pass without sitting down.
Also, the grades of hills change. You may spin through the 8 degree areas then when you get into the 15 degrees climb you get out of the saddle to make a push. It is all determined by the situation.
It’s like making love, some like it rough and fast, some like it smooth and slow. For the best experience you had better know your situation and adapt to it.
I spend a lot of time in pedals (don’t have a car). IMHO, the trade-off is fairly straightforward. Standing is faster, sitting is more efficient. Remember, the main advatage of a bicycle is that the machine supports your weight, so an amazing percentage of your effort is delivered to the drive train (90% is the figure I’ve usually seen). Standing brings more power to the equation, but much of that is now supporting your weight. As others have said, for short spurts, the trade-off may be worth it. For long hauls, though, sit down, gear down and grind it out.
It’s more efficient if you can sit, but I find that as it get steep enough, being in a gear low enough to be able to peddle makes the bike much too slow to keep upright and in those cases there’s nothing you can do but stand or walk the bike.
A quote from a serious biker friend of mine:
“The only time it’s necessary to stand up is if you’ve really slowed down and need to get on top of the gear. Standing up is less efficient, but it can allow you to accelerate. Lance stood up yesterday when he needed to catch up with Contador et al.”
Beyond the available force, standing allows a form of dynamic propulsion when done properly. If the bike is steered (“thrown”) from side to side properly timed with the riders CG rising and falling, then a net forward thrust is produced. This is the same as propelling a skateboard with grapevine technique, and similar to the dutch roll motion of a speed skater. To be most effective, the bike should have the shortest possible wheel base, and the wheels should have the minimum moment of inertia…tandems need not apply.
Standing also allows the rider to more effectivly pull upward on the bars, which is balanced by increased force on the pedals, so even the arms can get in on the action.
I’m only adding this to illuminate some of the physics involved. The above responses are correct in that the amount of power produced by standing will exhaust the rider in short order. It is best to think of standing like a “passing gear” in a car.
Practice is the answer to this. If I can balance a tandem in a 24/34 gear (~20 gear inches) at 3 mph, pretty much anything should be doable on a half bike… heck, trials riders balance nicely at zero speed.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned getting off and walking the bike up hill. I find for certain steep hills that is most efficient for me – but then see my name. YMMV
Because that’s like saying that the most fuel-efficient way to drive your car is to not drive it. Plus, while it may be easiest it’s not at all efficient, because walking (even while not pushing a bike) is less efficient than cycling.
To repeat things just in case anyone is listening: a lot depends on your bike (its type, its size, its tuning). The positions of the seat, the pedals, the handlebar all affect the efficiency of either the seated and the standing position. To illustrate the point, I’ll give the two most elementary examples. If you have the seat too low, you will want to stand up a lot. If you have cruiser-type handlebars or a too-big bike, you’ll find standing difficult.
Tour de France bikes are incredibly optimized. And they’re optimized for sitting. Moreover, when TdF’rs stand they have to be very conscious of aerodynamics, hunching over as much as ever. I imagine it’s very different from the way any of you stand and I imagine it’s very uncomfortable and actually not much more powerful. So yeah, careful with comparisons. But who knows, maybe you all ride the same type of road bike. I know I don’t.
Uh, no. At climbing speeds, aerodynamics don’t make a huge difference and are not a big concern when a rider decides to stand.
Perhaps you are thinking about the time trial bikes. The road bikes they use are not much (if any) different than what a amateur racer might use.
Doesn’t some law of physics apply here?
If we’re talking about efficiency as energy spent then it doesn’t matter how you get there, the amount of energy spent will always be the same.
The only things that vary are time/distance/force.
More energy can be wasted (by throwing the bike side to side for example) when climbing out of the saddle, but it’s faster. Raising and lowering your whole body can also result in using more energy that isn’t going directly into climbing the hill. But as long as you can produce enough energy to maintain that it may be faster.
So if were looking for most efficient in terms of “energy spent” and not time then we’re probably looking at a method that favors an energy efficient posture.
Absolutely. And I’m guessing that would be on a recumbent bike.
What Kevbo said. With practice, you can hold a bicycle in balance at any speed. Three mph? Heck, I can hold balance at a speed too low to register on my speedometer. But, then, my bike is geared low, I’ve had lots of practice and I ain’t in no hurry. Not an everyday thing, but I can do it and have. And, well, I have this credo that I may never walk the bike. IMHO, once you permit some hills to be too steep, more and more of them become so. My rule, as mentioned, is to gear down and just grind it out.