Hill Climbing Poll

if only there were an expert we could ask.

where is edscoble?

if only there were an expert we could ask.

where is edscoble?

he has already voted. might just close the poll...

it seems like the only way to scientifically solve this, is to test it.

so.....
gypsy hill? salters hill? central hill?

geared rider vs fixed rider and then swap over?

need a rest day or 2 between, no. or the first run will be on fresh legs... the 2nd not.

gipsy hill is a bitch. that hurt me yesterday...

The only way to solve this is a large randomised controlled trial. 300 riders, 3 bikes (one fixed, one singlespeed and one geared) with the riders randomised equally onto one of the bikes. All timed up the same climb.....

I think it is pretty safe to say geared will be faster in 99 per cent of circumstances - but for some hills fixed is more 'fun'.

For fixed you'd need a certain type of hill, and just the right ratio, etc for it to be an advantage.

So many crabon wonderbikes are just as light as a fixed that the weight difference wouldn't be an issue.

The catfood hillclimb winners are always geared now-a-days.

This is all on the presumption that you are trying - because the idea that fixed is faster than having a bail out gear works for your day to day riding.

Geared. Unless you have the absolute PERFECT ratio for the hill.

And let's face it, how often does that happen.

Assuming its a constant gradient climb, and you have the appropriate gear for said gradient. I'd say fixed everytime.

Most of the advantage comes from removing inefficiency caused by poor technique. So a talented climber may not feel much advantage at all. But us mortals, should feel it. I like the fact that your only options are to pedal or quit, keeps me focused on longer climbs.

Too many variables

Is it just one hill or many? Smooth incline or ramps? Short hill power climb or long slog

The available answers are not sufficient as the question is too vague.

You're more likely to have to go anaerobic on fixed because you can't always ease off a bit and spin for a little or sit down and spin e.t.c. So on any long climb geared all the way short and steep with the correct ratio, fixed might just about have it due to the dead spot issue but as SF points out that s kind of a bad technique issue..

You're more likely to ave to go anaerobic on fixed..

This a good point, illustrated by my blacking out on a fixed mountain climb a couple of years ago.

...if only I could have taken something to aid my oxygen supply...

Bit o' this...

Geared. Unless you have the absolute PERFECT ratio for the hill.

...and a bit o' this...

Too many variables.

Perhaps I'd get a *marginal *improvement from climbing fixed a particular hill that required one particular gear, but for the most part I'm glad of the option to change up or down depending on the terrain at any given point. Adjust to fit.

I did consider that climbing fixed might assist those whose constitutions fail before their legs do (myself included), being denied the option of an easier ride might help to push us up.

[/tuppence]

...but for some hills fixed is more 'fun'.

+1. Sometimes.

Shoulder bike, run, ftw.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180563644674

I did consider that climbing fixed might assist those whose constitutions fail before their legs do (myself included), being denied the option of an easier ride might help to push us up.

I enjoy the all or nothing approach, but I'm definitely quicker if I can shift.

Empirically, I noticed no difference pedalling up Swain's last Tuesday fixed from my usual freewheel churn (same gearing, just flipped the flop)