Run Run Away

Question:

I posted a query over on r.b.m, as you suggested.

rec.bicycles.racing has the same thread, as someone noted, and the following link provided there is of interest: http://tinyurl.com/34jml This view seems to indicate that a slope of 30 – 35% would be the critical point.  Are there longish stretches of such (paved) road in existence?  30% I can almost imagine; beyond that, this seems like it might more or less be in the range of a hypothetical only.

Response:

I did follow it then posted back here since I wasn’t seeing too much

30 hits on the rbm thread now.  Some interesting insights.

Response:

I myself rode my bike more then anyone and posted it on rec runner. picking up 10 cent cans to live and eat near 19 month all seasons. and in my own human opinion. Now I am saying  sports human..   I learn that people tend to lie allot. Lie last week on the new. The gov of texan and like 650 best of the best bike riders rode from houston to Dallas. or other way. 120 miles. and the news here shows a start of race.  al nice bike riding attire, and racer bikes. the best. and this man with white white and all the all said and the governor came in 11th place of all of them  and I (he) all brag like. was 12 right with him to safe all the way……These guys look like they came out of a all you can live for free 2 week vacation…….man I talk to my 19 year old boy who said before this he did 36 miles once. and for 4 days his legs were sore and hard. I post heed and hurt my back doing 192 miles in 2 weeks. I jump the 10 % week increases. and a back pack for cans. am I not race.  sure I was doing over a 100 mile a week and did a 30 miler and was sora. hurt ba ad sleep 14 hours. and these guys do 10 miles add look better then when they started the race.  hair looking clean, no strain on face. no sore bodes…. and I think to my self. I don’t evan know who the governor of Texas is.   Is this a lie.  who already put near 800 miles in this year on a bike and every were I look I anno find one other person who say what they train….. on a bike. no were I have found.  an the new guy look a me from a preview well I am not the best. this is why I live on 10 cent can. and they make millions for what they do. I never once got a thank you. well Bill aid f me me a holystone times…..:)lol.  and  3 virus whichever shu downy x for9 month.  NO Harpy superwoman throne.  and threats and attacks by cousins. sue 3 times  one time wasn’t true. Footballs for $1,000 times many.  threaten r pleated. audited twice by  so all and all. sen around local area for none real jobs. price a door allot. stop 1 or2 times awake by police, threaten on phone may times. claim barnstorming alto times. and evan bomb threat many times. tool stolen many times too. but  to date I A Unthinking 1 penne argumentative too me.     runners win.  because I don’t run… God speed all rr. Do I think a runner win.  I think  then it was I should of not. if I was right it was left, so up was right, no left was. thenwere? Thehill. No theni was yes. Why  because  i waen[t. I know this.  it takes me 16 month to get to a 100 miles a week.  but I am not the best. I see the best. they work I don't, I do 30 miles and die. THey do 12o miles and have a inerview on t.v. with no tired, pain an earn another 100 grand. for haveing a say. nd I get a billed I owe. an I WAKE up. and ride for 10 cent cans an no get paid. because I am.  what do you think is a lie.  Hell them best can jump over the moon.  try a common person an see.

Response:

But let's take a straight gravel road (probably true for paved roads too but I don't have a feeling for necessary slopes for them) and a stock bike (normal low gearing, not a special rig). I'm sure it would depend on the distance and how the start is, but I'm still certain a runner could go faster than a bike - probably in the 20-30% slope range although maybe more - at least for hard packed gravel (or pavement). I was all set to agree with you until you added those last two words:  "or pavement."  In fact, but for those two words I had said as much in my earlier post -- that on dirt or trails, it is absolutely the case that running is faster under a number of different conditions.

I think what's happening is 3 questions are being addressed, but not clearly separated. (this includes my reply to other post since I'm too tired to do 2 posts - too much rest-of-life at moment). 1. The original OP asked So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to win.

There were no stated conditions of pavement or max slope that I saw - and no distance specified. So I replied that, yea, around 20+% on dirt (not sure how much above 20%), a runner could beat a cyclist since most people (admittedly not world class) stall out somewhere in there. With world class athletes it will probably happen on a steeper slope, but I know that elite mtn runners can run on at least 40-45% slopes. And people seem to agree on this. 2. I could be wrong but I have a feeling you may have interpreted the question in terms of paved roads and the max slopes that exist there. Yes, I would agree that a cyclist would probably beat a runner - at least on the paved roads I've seen since they tend to be less than 20% and traction is less of an issue. And I think everybody agrees on this. 3. In my attempt to explain my viewpoint, I introduced the concept of pavement that might be steeper than existing roads (and why I thought I had phrased it hypothetically with regard to the pavement, since I don't really know) - say 40% or more - and suggested that the same idea as in #1 existed. Namely it gets too steep to maintain forward motion on a bike. My gut feeling is that even on pavement, the cyclist is going to be bailing before the runner, but I could be wrong. The slopes will be more similar for pavement than for dirt, for sure. Both will bail before it's 90 deg (200%, vertical wall) - unless one is Spiderman Actually, based on some of my field experiences with measured slopes, I would expect it to happen before 80-100%. Whoever can maintain forward motion after the other has bailed can obviously go faster and wins the race of unspecified distance. If it's a race of a couple miles or more, then I don't know. The reason I used gravel or hard-packed dirt is they eliminate a lot of the issues of regular dirt trails, but may actually exist in steep enough slopes where a runner would be faster than a biker. Our hard-packed gravel isn't that different from our pavement if that says something about our pavement I'm not sure that existing paved roads are steep enough for the runner to be faster than cyclist. Dot -- "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

Dot: I brought this topic over to rec.bicycles.misc, and got some informed and interesting responses, as TopCounsel suggested.  Check it out... --Dan - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - In a quick search, I wasn't able to find any information on slopes that bikers ride. I could be wrong in my thought process, but I'd need to be shown numbers since it's counter-intuitive to real life.

Response:

Dot: I brought this topic over to rec.bicycles.misc, and got some informed and interesting responses, as TopCounsel suggested.  Check it out... --Dan

The OP also posted to RBR (rec.bicycles.racing) if you are interested. Matthew

Response:

Dot: I brought this topic over to rec.bicycles.misc, and got some informed and interesting responses, as TopCounsel suggested.  Check it out...

THanks. I did follow it then posted back here since I wasn't seeing too much (also don't like posting in a ng unless I've lurked a couple weeks) - other than the Shimano comment (low gear design is where it's more efficient to run than bike), which made sense. But this older thread that was referred to in r.b.r seems to have more discussion (read other parts of the thread, but I didn't read it all). I suspect it's a recurring theme in that ng, much like some of our threads. http://tinyurl.com/34jml Even the cyclists seem to think it's faster to run than bike on a steep enough hill, which may be somewhere between 12% (Mt. Washington data) and 3x%. But it depends on the distance. This is why people dismount and run sometimes. The OP also posted to RBR (rec.bicycles.racing) if you are interested.

Thanks. This thread had some interesting discussion with links to some good information - including an old discussion on r.b.m. Dot -- "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

But let's take a straight gravel road (probably true for paved roads too but I don't have a feeling for necessary slopes for them) and a stock bike (normal low gearing, not a special rig). I'm sure it would depend on the distance and how the start is, but I'm still certain a runner could go faster than a bike - probably in the 20-30% slope range although maybe more - at least for hard packed gravel (or pavement).

I was all set to agree with you until you added those last two words:  "or pavement."  In fact, but for those two words I had said as much in my earlier post -- that on dirt or trails, it is absolutely the case that running is faster under a number of different conditions. The distinction between dirt and pavement is about more than the obstacles, the unevenness encountered, and the need for acceleration/deceleration for stops and starts -- all of which change the picture from pavement dramatically in and of themselves -- it is also about the huge loss of traction when going to a crumbly tire-to-path interface.  The effect of increasing slope when you are offroad is tremendous as to lost traction alone. One point that might make this clear is that I used to deliberately try to ride such steep PAVED interfaces that I would sometimes "spin out" my rear tire in a 40" gear on pavement, and have to pedal deliberately as slowly as I could and still stay up on the bike.  The answer to that dilemma has been solved by the newer much more weakling-friendly gear ratio options.  If this is a potential problem on pavement, then how much the more so on dirt?  The net force pointing perpendicular at the road from your rear hub surface gets weaker and weaker as the slope increases, because the gravitational vector gets farther and farther away from that line.

Response:

Even the cyclists seem to think it's faster to run than bike on a steep enough hill, which may be somewhere between 12% (Mt. Washington data) and 3x%. But it depends on the distance. This is why people dismount and run sometimes.

Nobody dismounts and runs on pavement.  Well, okay, I have seen people way out of their league get off and walk their bikes up hills when they have bit off more than they can chew, but this is not "because it's faster"-- it's because they are not up to the challenge of biking the hill, and walking is the only way they are going to get up to the crest! In thousands and thousands of road miles, I have NEVER, repeat NEVER, found a stretch of paved road where I would have to get off and walk because of the incline.  Bear in mind, too, that the cyclist has the option of weaving side to side (as many do) if the incline gets to be too much.  This is certainly within the rules of bike racing (though you don't see it much in that environment, for sure), and it is also typical for cyclists to select their gearing for the anticipated terrain of a particular stage or race.

Response:

At a 5k about 1.5 yr ago on same system, one of the runners beat the mt biker Appreciate your comments and insight, Dot.  This example introduces a new variable, however -- maneuverability -- which a staright-up-the-road hypothetical did not include.  I would in many instances expect that it would be more efficient to travel on foot than on bike if you are on trails; all the more so if the trails are rough and meandering, or call for the MTB'ers to dismount and carry their cycles for stretches.

True, most of the tough climbs end up with people carrying their bikes. The OP didn't specify a distance, type of start, or surface. But let's take a straight gravel road (probably true for paved roads too but I don't have a feeling for necessary slopes for them) and a stock bike (normal low gearing, not a special rig). I'm sure it would depend on the distance and how the start is, but I'm still certain a runner could go faster than a bike - probably in the 20-30% slope range although maybe more - at least for hard packed gravel (or pavement). I agree that on an 11% mentioned on r.b.misc, a biker would win, but the question was how steep does the hill have to be before the runner would win. 11% is much shallower than anything I would have suggested. [You might try alt.mountain-bike although they'd probably complain about the smooth surface and no obstacles to jump ] To see this, take a slope that is just beyond rideable, then back it down a notch so it is rideable. At least with me, at that point just before I stall out, I’m moving so slowly, I could run at least that fast and probably not be anywhere near LT. Wind resistance from speed is not an issue. I’m sure with world class athletes, it would be somewhat different, esp. for the speeds and slope, but I think the basic concept would hold true. I think a cyclist will stall out before a mtn runner. For what it’s worth, mountain runners are still running at 30% slopes and more – although it depends on length of hills whether they run or include some walking in that. Normal runners do repeats on 30% slopes and some treadmills go up to 30% or more slopes. 20% slopes would probably be run the whole way. Yea, they’d be walked in an ultra for sure, but in a competitive mtn running race, elite men would be charging up those slopes (women and jr men didn’t have the strength). One of the papers I posted last year referred to submaximal efforts by elites running on 45% slopes (treadmill). Actually, some elites couldn’t do this at submaximal levels. In a quick search, I wasn’t able to find any information on slopes that bikers ride. I could be wrong in my thought process, but I’d need to be shown numbers since it’s counter-intuitive to real life. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

Is it possible for a world-class runner to beat a cyclists time on a steep

enough slope? Assuming the slope is NOT so steep as to be unrideable, and assuming lots of other things such as negligible headwind, etc., no. The lightest a cycle can be and still be legal for competition is 15 lbs.  Many people ride better bikes in the 20-25 lb. range.  If you use a 20-lb. bike and a 160-lb. man, this is roughly a 1/8 weight disadvantage you are giving the cyclist (12-1/2 %).  However, the "efficiency" advantage of the bike is far greater than that 12-1/2%. For example, the "hour record" for cycling is about 31 miles.  In running, it is more or less a half-marathon (WR = 59:17) or about 13.1 miles or so.  The 24-hour record for cycling I think is still 539 miles (for 24-hour running I think it’s about 151 miles?).  The cycling advantage would be FAR greater if not for the fact that air resistance becomes severe as the velocity goes up. The hour record on a track bike following a motorized drafting cycle is a huge number that slips my mind, and just for further example, the max sustained speed record for a bicycle is 152 mph (drafting a motor vehicle)! I used to test your theory (sort of) when I bicycled the outrageous street hills of Berkeley, California.  My bike at the time had a low gear of 40" (42-28, 27" tires), and I found a hill of about a half mile (I seem to recall) which had just an outrageous slope.  If you drove it in your car, you feared flipping over backwards off the hill.  I wish I could recall for sure, but it may have been named Marin Street or something like that (I’ll have to go back).  I was very strong in the legs, fit, in my early 20’s, and riding about a 22 pound bike.  This hill was so bad that it was a challenge to stay up without having to plant my feet, but I eventually learned to go from bottom to top straight up — not doing the weave you see so many people use for hills — Even under these conditions, I was going faster than I could have walked/run up the hill.  I think that the relative inefficiency of running would have been exacerbated by the outrageous slope.  Interestingly, I do not really think the inefficiency of the cycling is hurt much by the slope, assuming a gear low enough to turn the rear wheel.  These days, with triple chainrings and 10-cog rear cassettes, taking such a hill might even be something you could accomplish sitting on your saddle!

Response:

The time trial on the L’Alpe d’Huez got me wondering. Is it possible for a world-class runner to beat a cyclists time on a steep enough slope?

absolutely – assuming not limited to paved roads (but I don’t have a feeling for roads so may be true there also). Obviously on level ground a bike is much faster but when the road turns up the cyclist has the disadvantage of having to lift more weight up the hill. So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to win.

Not sure about world class, but for local runners and mt bikers, somewhere around 20%+ on dirt will probably do it and probably depends on surface condition (mud, snow) and equivalent skills / training of the two. (biking requires more skill) [FWIW, I've been calling that particular trail system 10-20% slope. While perusing a trail guide book the other night, I stumbled across a section indicating that short pitches were above 35 *degrees* (which I can believe for very short pitches). But I'm basing my comment on the assumption that most of the hills are somewhere near 20%, maybe a little steeper.] On the hills on trails that are shallow enough that I can bike them (that is I stay off the ones that want to throw my front wheel up – until I’ve got more skill, maybe forever), I run and bike the same distance in about the same time if slightly muddy. And the running was sooo much easier – no LT needed to crest the hills. At a 5k about 1.5 yr ago on same system, one of the runners beat the mt biker (just had one biker leading the pack), and the mt biker (my GP was experienced and rides that trail system a lot. The winning run time was about 17+, iirc. Some runners doing marathon training on the same course (gravel road, different from my local course) as a duathlon a couple years ago were alternately passing mt bikers on the uphill and being passed on downhill. Most of those were less than 20%. And generally, we don’t see mt bikes on the long 30%+ hills so there’s no comparison (although may not be legal on the mtn trails). Some might suggest that if a runner can’t beat a mt biker on a hill, then it’s not a hill And if talking long distance like Iditarod Trail Invitational, the runner sometimes wins if conditions are really cruddy for bikes and skiing. So much depens on the surface involved. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

At a 5k about 1.5 yr ago on same system, one of the runners beat the mt biker

Appreciate your comments and insight, Dot.  This example introduces a new variable, however — maneuverability — which a staright-up-the-road hypothetical did not include.  I would in many instances expect that it would be more efficient to travel on foot than on bike if you are on trails; all the more so if the trails are rough and meandering, or call for the MTB’ers to dismount and carry their cycles for stretches.

Response:

Just wondering

If you really want a fun discussion of all points of view, you may wish to post this same inquiry also to rec.bicycles.misc.  That’s a fairly lively crew and a newsgroup that’s even more active than rec.running.

Response:

James: I’ve been interested in this one, too, having passed many a mtn biker on uphill grinds. I posted a query over on r.b.m, as you suggested. –Dan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just wondering If you really want a fun discussion of all points of view, you may wish to post this same inquiry also to rec.bicycles.misc.  That’s a fairly lively crew and a newsgroup that’s even more active than rec.running.

Response:

The time trial on the L’Alpe d’Huez got me wondering. Is it possible for a world-class runner to beat a cyclists time on a steep enough slope? Obviously on level ground a bike is much faster but when the road turns up the cyclist has the disadvantage of having to lift more weight up the hill. So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to win. Just wondering Steve Gerdemann

Response:

The time trial on the L’Alpe d’Huez got me wondering. Is it possible for a world-class runner to beat a cyclist’s time on a steep enough slope? Obviously on level ground a bike is much faster but when the road turns up the cyclist has the disadvantage of having to lift more weight up the hill. So if the hill is steep enough can a runner beat a cyclist and if so how steep does the hill have to be for the runner to win.

I think there is no chance. FWIW, relatively speaking L’Alpe d’Huez is not that steep. Its mystique comes largely from its typical placement at the end of a grueling stage. Of course any elite distance runner could beat *my* cycling time over this hill I just called "not that steep." I am only talking of steep as paved roads go. Dot and the other trail runners are sure to chime in on the "real" hills regularly found on their training grounds. ISTR discussion that walking is more efficient than running on these grades. Matthew

Response: