|
Post by Julio on Aug 2, 2006 13:28:30 GMT 8
Read this from a sports science journal...
"...simple analysis of the data suggests that 1 m of vertical travel on a bicycle can be considered to be equivalent to approximately 8 m of horizontal travel. Thus the equivalent distance of a route may be calculated by taking its horizontal distance component and adding eight times its vertical distance component."
"...Tentative values for the terrain or rideability index are suggested, and we argue that a distance of 1 km over good off-road terrain is equivalent to a distance of 2 km on-road, and that a distance of 1 km over poor off-road terrain is equivalent to a distance of 4 km on-road."
taken from J Sports Sci. 2005 Sep;23(9):919-25
Personally, I always felt that 1 km of off-road riding was equivalent to around 3 kilometers of road riding.
|
|
|
Post by janix on Aug 2, 2006 13:33:46 GMT 8
Personally, I always felt that 1 km of off-road riding was equivalent to around 3 kilometers of road riding. i beg to differ. on my experience, i'm faster off road and a bit slower on road. maybe it's all the fun and i'm forgetting the toughness. hehehe
|
|
|
Post by Julio on Aug 2, 2006 13:38:09 GMT 8
I didn't say anything about speed anyway, I think the article was referring to amount of effort...
|
|
ewik
Free Rider
Posts: 345
|
Post by ewik on Aug 2, 2006 13:38:56 GMT 8
me too. i enjoy off roads. hehehe
|
|
biotrix
Free Rider
dEiMoNiUm
Posts: 353
|
Post by biotrix on Aug 2, 2006 13:41:47 GMT 8
very informative trivia... ;D
|
|
|
Post by ronaldarca on Aug 2, 2006 13:46:23 GMT 8
heard this one from sir paul quoting sir tolits: "biking is not 1:1 ratio"
|
|
|
Post by janix on Aug 2, 2006 13:47:17 GMT 8
I didn't say anything about speed anyway, I think the article was referring to amount of effort... sorry. hehe
|
|
|
Post by arcireyes on Aug 2, 2006 15:50:08 GMT 8
does it mean then that:
maarat (the wall) uphill distance : 2.6 kms.* x 8 = 20.8 kms.
UP Acad Oval : 2.1 kms*/spin,
*please correct me if i had the distance erroneously, anyway presentation purpose lang naman eh.
therefore, doing maarat is equivalent to 10 UP spins.
did i get the estimates right, pasensiya na absent ako ng tinuro to eh (trans: excuse a dull-headed math student)
|
|
|
Post by Julio on Aug 2, 2006 19:42:04 GMT 8
Arci,
No, it doesn't mean that a 2.6 km uphill ride equates to 20.8 km of flat riding. As you said, the road is 2.6 km long, but that distance is not straight-up vertical. It is probably at a 20 degree angle at its greatest? Definitely not 90 degrees. So it just means that for every 1 meter increase in altitude, it's like going 8 meters on flat.
If we calculate for it, it would look like this...
According to padyakbud.com, the Filinvest gate is at an altitude of 250 meters. Let's say the bottom of the Maarat is at 25 meters. So 250-25 is 225. What you do next is add the distance traveled plus the change in altitude multiplied by 8. So 2.6 km of travel plus 0.225 x 8 equates to 4.4 kilometers!
So 1 run up maarat is equal to 2 spins in the UP oval. Doesn't seem like it though. That's because when you spin in UP, you're not going at a high-intensity, probably around 65-70%. But when you're climbing the wall, I'd say you're going 90-100% effort. So to make the efforts feel the same, try sprinting around the UP academic oval for 2 rounds at 100% effort ;D
|
|
|
Post by Alphabolt on Sept 9, 2006 0:07:05 GMT 8
Now I know why they say MTBikers are crazy nerds Good read , Idol...keep it up
|
|
|
Post by mountguitars on Sept 9, 2006 1:22:39 GMT 8
julio, that's what i thought of as well. no wonder off roaders are good candidates for tour de france bids, hehehe. not the other way around (if there's such an offroad to a tour de france that is). nice avatar by the way. i almost died doing that, hehehe. what were you bombing (mixture) by the way? plain beer or something else? folks here had to use a table to raise the hose, hehehe. sorry for the OT.
|
|
|
Post by randiezbee on Sept 13, 2006 16:14:46 GMT 8
i kinda feel that also.... ;D
|
|
oenone
Free Rider
kapoy ug tadyak
Posts: 266
|
Post by oenone on Oct 28, 2006 10:24:08 GMT 8
here in davao we hve a 7km vertical road which means 7 x 8 is 56 kms.
whoppee
|
|
miks
Bike Commuter
Posts: 63
|
Post by miks on Oct 28, 2006 21:23:39 GMT 8
a "vertical road" is just a wall (90deg, perpendicular to the ground)
|
|
|
Post by byteblues on Oct 29, 2006 17:17:12 GMT 8
i think cycling becomes an "impact" sport when you go off road....on a road bike...try doing a spin on our usual road condition...vibration can coz wear both on the bike and the rider...ratio depends...100 km flat road = 400 km flat when ur pulling more power than usual or u have a heavier bike...it's ur heart+lungs who will decide
|
|
|
Post by icecold on Oct 30, 2006 13:54:13 GMT 8
"...simple analysis of the data suggests that 1 m of vertical travel on a bicycle can be considered to be equivalent to approximately 8 m of horizontal travel. Thus the equivalent distance of a route may be calculated by taking its horizontal distance component and adding eight times its vertical distance component." 1 m of vertical travel = 8 m of horizontal travel ...on a bike. That's probably one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I don't mean the figure but rather how they made that calculation. Or even thought of making such a calculation. Not pretending to be an expert on the topic but allow me to humor a bit by pretending to be one... with the use of some sarcasm. And mind you, I'm not completely serious with it. So don't forget to smile once in a while if I started to sound absurd myself. And... I'm in no way mocking the threadstarter. ;D So let me elaborate my case. 1 m of vertical travel, is that against gravity or towards gravity? But of course, it's gonna be against gravity, otherwise, 1 m of vertical travel is a blink of an eye of no force exerted while a 20m of vertical travel towards gravity pull would be a 1 whole second of pure adrenaline force exerted enough to make one pee on his baggy shorts. Probably even send you peeing for another 10 seconds more. That's assuming you actually survive that vertical travel. So it's against gravity and here's the catch... What was the average weight of the subject used to arrived at the 1m vt = 8m ht calculation? If memory serves me right, my college physics did somewhat conclude that the force needed to send a object in the opposite direction of gravity pull is directly proportional to the weight of the object. Cawabanga! This theory actually affirms the calculation is on the right track. But... I'm just speculating, just imagine a 200lb guy ascending a rope that is hung at 90 degrees, he's having a much harder time than a 150lb guy doing the same thing. Were you able to imagine that? Now, imagine the same 2 guys riding their bikes up a building's wall. It's really up to you if you want to tie a rope on this two bikers to help them cover 1 meter of vertical travel. Get my point? How many bikers would be able to travel vertically up? Better yet, think of a stupid government who would actually built a vertical road. That means, there's really no data to serve as basis for the simple analysis. Another point is, not everyone exerts the same amount of force on different level of inclination. As an example, my buddy is stronger than I am when it comes to "inclined" road. But when it comes to "level" road, he eats my dust. If we used me and my buddy and 1m vt = 8m ht. Then, it might actually resulted in: icecold: 1m vt = 10m ht buddy: 1m vt = 6m ht Because the force I exerted for a 1m vertical travel is simply more than that of my buddy. But my buddy needs to exert more force to cover 8m ht to equal the force I excerted for ht. And there's also issues such as cycling shorts or baggy shorts, knobby or sleek tires, or helmets or no helmets, or water-bottles or camelbacks, or... you get the point, time to giggle. Personally, " ...simple analysis of the data suggests that..." what that magazine quoted was too simple to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Oct 30, 2006 14:50:40 GMT 8
icecold, this is the way i see it...the energy required to move a 25lbs box 10 meters up a 30 degree incline will not vary depending on who will be pushing it...if your buddy can do it without breaking a sweat and you on the other hand will be drowning in your own sweat doesnt mean a thing when it comes to measuring the energy used...mas hirap ka lang. (btw,thats why we train) maybe its a little more complicated when it comes to bike since you have to ride it..i.e. riders weight...all other things equal..it should be as simple as that. just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Julio on Oct 30, 2006 15:29:37 GMT 8
Icecold... Haha! I think the article may have confused you as I could not really see the connection of your argument to the original post. I guess you may have to read the whole article as what I posted was just an excerpt.
Tolits, your statement about how the energy required to move something may be a little bit flawed. I would think the "work performed" would be the same, no matter the effort put into it since Work = Force x Distance, assuming the speed at what is was done is the same.
but the energy requirement will be different for each individual. People differ in how economical they are. Just like in cars... it will take more energy (gas consumed) for a dump truck to go up the wall as like say compared to a toyota corolla. It's basically the same with people and cyclists. Different cyclists have different economies and not all the energy goes into work performed. Most of it, in fact around 75-85% goes is lost to heat production to maintain homeostasis and only 15-25% of the total energy you expend goes into actually moving the bike. So a more economical cyclist (or heat acclimatised one) will exert less total effort (in calories or kilojoules) to cycle a given distance.
shite, I felt that answer was so nerdy.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Oct 30, 2006 15:58:40 GMT 8
hmm..."work performed"...that's exactly it...you have a point there idol...i hate physics
|
|
|
Post by icecold on Oct 30, 2006 16:54:36 GMT 8
Ben Dover, the sample was, my buddy breezes by on inclined but lags behind on level ground while I'm the opposite. If it was simply about me sweating more on incline, then I conceed. But it's like a 4X4 truck can move faster off-road but lags behind behind a Porche on paved road. While a Porsche is the opposite. The question is, does both 4x4 truck and Porsche exert the same power on both off-road and road run? Meaning, 1m = 8m is not necessarily correct for both 4x4 truck and Porsche. @idol, no I'm not confused. Like I posted, I was injecting some humor and was not completely serious about it. But at the same time, it does provide some question to the credibility of the quote. Of course, I am in no way questioning you.
|
|
|
Post by Julio on Oct 30, 2006 17:45:34 GMT 8
Icecold... the abstract I read most likely published just the "average" of all the cyclists they tested. I haven't read the whole article but I will when I go back to the library. So let's say they had 10 or 100 subjects, of course the equivalents will differ from person to person but I guess 8 km was the average or estimate. The more subjects of course in the study, the more power and credibility it would have.
In addition, if you read the original post, it says there 1km of off-road cycling is equal to "4km" of on-road cycling... not 8... there's a difference in equivalents for uphill and off-road cycling
|
|
|
Post by arcireyes on Oct 30, 2006 18:37:55 GMT 8
peepz,
i think that there's a lot of confusion going on here (me being one of the confused) as a result of the term "vertical travel" not being clear enough. @what degree is that vertical travel being mentioned/used as reference in the equation 1M of "vertical travel" is equivalent to 8M of horizontal travel.
in relation to bicycling, isn't it (if my memory still serves me right) that climbs are rated according to its level of steepness (just like how they do it in the TdF).
but based on actual cycling experience:
1. practicing on uphills (i.e. maarat wall, etc.) gives better endurance/stamina compared to practicing on flatroads.
2. climbing the wall makes one more laspag as compared to just doing UP spins.
this post is made to express a personal opinion and is not intended to add up to the confusion of this thread.
P E A C E !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Julio on Oct 30, 2006 19:11:25 GMT 8
Arci,
vertical travel means the change in height of the road... so 50 m of vertical travel could occur over a horizontal distance of lets say 1000 meters... so that means the road elevation changed by 50 m in the 1000 m distance you covered. So this means, 1000 meters + 50m*8 = 1400 meters... so your 1000 meter travel equated to a 1400 meter effort because of the incline.
and to answer your questions based on experience:
1. Practicing on uphills pushes the intensity you are doing exercise to around 90-100% of you max so this will help in you in improving your max capacity, particulary the pumping capacity of your heart and doing moderate intensity (~70%) exercise (UP spins) improves the endurance capacity of your muscles. So yes, in a way practicing on uphills does improve stamina but you still need those long rides also as a part of your training.
2. related to no.1, climbing the wall makes you more laspag because you are going 100% for 15-20 minutes. I guarantee you, if you do the UP oval at an all-out sprint for 100% effort (no drafting!) for 15 minutes, you would feel the same as climbing the wall. But the UP acad oval is not entirely flat, one side has a slight downhill and one side has a slight uphill... but still, i challenge you to go all out on a heavy gear on the UP oval, or better yet, the QC Circle since it is much flatter than the UP oval, for a non-stop 15 minutes and let me know if it wasn't as hard as climbing the wall.
|
|
|
Post by arcireyes on Oct 30, 2006 19:24:05 GMT 8
thanks for the enlightenment sir!
|
|
|
Post by ian_rex on Oct 30, 2006 21:39:13 GMT 8
for me, i enjoy both off and on road. however, i feel that i'm more adept in off road than in pavement. that's what my rig's built for. but i cannot, exert the same effort for uphill whether on or off road. i prefer to tackle it on my own pace (-that is, moderately slow).
|
|
|
Post by icecold on Oct 31, 2006 10:48:41 GMT 8
@idol, I'm not really interested with the figure. As I posted earlier it's the concept of making the calculation. I was simply illustrating "vertical travel" as the distance between 2 points in a 90 degrees (or vertical axis). Like example, the vertical distance travelled by elevators in a building or rock climbers on a rock cliff. Such was the reason for my conclusion of absurdity. And my initial post was clearly based on that. Not that I was confused with the term but I did make it clear that I have the intention of providing some humor... I guess I failed in that department.
But really, I don't have any problems with the computation, it is just like some other calculations, calculations such as comparing the number of calories burned by a jogger and a biker. These calculation claims that for a biker to burn the same amount of calories that a jogger burns, the ratio is 1km (jog) = 10km (bike). How true is that? I'm not really interested. We're cycling or jogging because we enjoy it, how much calories we lost in doing so is secondary... sometimes it's not even part of our goal.
Cheers. ;D
|
|
oenone
Free Rider
kapoy ug tadyak
Posts: 266
|
Post by oenone on Nov 17, 2006 8:08:11 GMT 8
which is better in terms of training?
a 30 km flat cemented road or a 5 km uphill land fill.
|
|
|
Post by nell7806 on Jun 11, 2007 10:20:16 GMT 8
can we just see whats good after the trining... getting a nice slice of BBQued porkchop with the cholesterol driipin down due to heat from the grill... and A nice bottomless rootbeer float...
seriously...
before my bikes where stolen... I love to work out till my I can feel my body saying it's enough and my minds also saying a lil bit more... I think Iwill combine that 30KM flat with the 5KM uphill... but first I'll do the uphill...
doing 30KM on paved roads is also good... but wayback I used to do 45-60KM every other day with my steel bike with 2.1 tires and doin 65-70KM on my roadie...
as a testament to these...nahhh...hehehehe
|
|
|
Post by jobyoreta on Aug 22, 2007 10:58:55 GMT 8
aaaaaaaaargh!!!! My head is spinning!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by bisekletaguy on Aug 23, 2007 10:16:20 GMT 8
hihihi...this is theory in practice...if you break away in a mountain and put 1kilometer advantage over the next rider..its the equivalent of a 3kilometer breakaway in the flats...
|
|