Athletes, what's harder riding up that hill or running up that hill?

[arielmoon]

I can't run period so to me biking is easier for everything!

[witeowl]

I don't know if this is definitive, or even if he wasn't just trying to make me feel better, but I have this story to share from yesterday's ride:

I began a long ascent yesterday and passed a runner at the bottom. I started dropping gears and finally landed in my lowest gear, concentrating on breathing, remaining upright, and continuing on up the mountain (and not passing out, if I must be completely honest). After a while, the runner caught up with me. Then he passed me. I smiled, chuckled, and decided that it was a good thing that I was wearing my "Team Hill Slug" jersey.

At the top, I finally caught up with him as he rested before beginning the descent back. I jokingly called out, "Sure, you may beat me up the hill, but just wait until I race you back down." He smiled and informed me that he almost always beats bicycles up the hill. Only one guy beats him up, and he's "hard core".

As he sees it, it's faster to run than bike. I don't know about easier, but I'd say that faster would be easier. Chatting about it, we discussed how - looking at the physics of the sports - mechanical advantages a cyclist has on flats and downhills is lost on uphills. As a runner, he has a onene ratio; everything he puts into climbing translates directly into his motion. It's not quite the same with a bike.

I dunno. I walk up hills when running, but I'm not exactly a stellar runner.

[OakLeaf]

Hmmmm, I don't know about that.

You still have a mechanical advantage on a bike whenever your chainring is bigger than your rear cog. Which it's rare to find a road bike with lower gears than that - mountain bikes, yeah.

Plus, it seems to me that the body mechanics of standing to climb is hard to differentiate from a slow motion run... except that you're creating forward progress on the up-stroke as well as the down-stroke, and using your arms to generate more force.

I think that guy who passed you was a freak of nature.

[Possegal]

I'll repost this picture I posted some time ago. Biking/running up a street near where I was born. The runner won.
http://forums.teamestrogen.com/attac...7&d=1199922660

[OakLeaf]

No fair, that's snowy/icy, and the runner is in stocking feet. He's obviously got way better traction than the cyclist. Even on dry pavement, I do have to work to keep my weight back, or my rear wheel will slip. Let's take traction out of this discussion I think!

[Possegal]

And it's on cobblestone. Oh I don't miss the cobblestone.
They do this 'ride', if one can call it that, up 13 of the wickedest hills, around Thanksgiving. Cause you don't want to have it be too easy or anything, need to add in the cold and snow potential.

[witeowl]

I'll repost this picture I posted some time ago. Biking/running up a street near where I was born. The runner won.
http://forums.teamestrogen.com/attac...7&d=1199922660

Well, I think that settles it.* Just look at the calm smile on the runner, compared to the scream of determination on the cyclist.

* Not really, of course.

[Eden]

That's a 34% grade hill..... like I said I think there is a steepness at which the bike becomes a liability, and I do think it is before you hit the 30's .... I'd say in when a hill hits the high teens a runner might begin to have the advantage. I also think the distance you are talking about makes a difference. Have you ever seen the rabid fans that run along side the riders on mountain climbs. They can usually run faster than the racers *but* for a short time only.

Bicycling Science (a neat geeky book) goes into great detail and appears to come to the conclusion that equilibrium is reached at around an 18% grade (but also assumes you are pushing the bike)

[Owlie]

I'm not at a point yet where I have enough muscle power to overcome the bike's tendency to want to roll backward. I'd say running, except that I can't run either. (No, really. I walk a mile faster than I run one.)