Minuteman Road Club

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:20 pm**

My jaw dropped when I saw AJs result, it is now dislocated. Well done Pare!
I will update the results tonight.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:32 pm**

So what was your gearing and cadence Chris?
And if speed upon entry "only" accounts for ~10% that still is a significant number (ya know, my FTP w/kg is only 10% lower than (some strong cat 1 guy))
I've held off on attempting one other hill that is steeper and more consistent as it's a slight uphill left turn entry. The only other approach is a flat but 90 degree right turn which is probably worse.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:40 pm**

pace21 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:58 pm I love challenges. Especially when they combine 2 of my favorite things, bikes and physics! I chose Wilbur Wall in RI as the best option that I could ride to from my house, but after 3 attempts at said Wall I came away concluding that 2 false flats in the middle were providing a few precious seconds where I was putting energy into fighting speed (drag) rather than gravity, and gravity is the King Beast to tackle when vertical ascent is the only output we care about.

I took the data from the Wilbur attempts and went back to the maths. I calculated the total energy involved in the full 1 minute ascent by combining 2 terms: the first is the total mechanical energy that I (my body) injected into bike/rider system. That's a relatively straightforward calculation to make if you have a power meter -- just multiply your 1 minute avg Watts by 60 and that will give you the total "physiological" energy you delivered. In my case it was around 40kJ. In addition to that you can add in your kinetic energy, assuming you started the 1 minute effort with some entry speed. You can calculate that by 0.5*m*(v^2) where in this case "m" is the total mass in kilograms of both you and your bike, for me around 82kg. My entry speed into Wilbur Wall was around 23.5mph (10.5meters/sec) which results in a total kinetic energy around 4.5kJ. [interesting to note that a reasonably high entry speed still only accounts for ~10% of the 1 minute "physiological" energy -- humans are pretty good at creating lots of energy really quickly].

So that's all well and good, ~40kJ physiological and ~4.5kJ kinetic. Now what? Well, I know how far I climbed vertically -- 140 feet, or 139 according to some but knowing that the hill gradient wasn't ideal with the false flats I really wanted to know what that effort would have given me on a different hill. Since we know that the total amount of energy (physiological + kinetic) results in raising you vertically by a certain number of feet we can calculate the resulting potential energy of the bike/rider system, which is given by PE=mgh (mass in kg, gravity constant in m/sec^2, and height in meters). Setting those 2 energies equal we can calculate for different constant gradients (5%, 10%, 15%, etc) what the theoretical height number "h" is. At the limit we can simulate theoretically climbing a purely vertical wall from a standstill and get the theoretical height in that scenario. For me it was 159.4 feet. Of course you can't climb a vertical wall and anything less than vertical will detract from your total because of additional air resistance due to increased airspeed, but it's a start.

Armed with that knowledge I started searching for something steeper. Around about that time AJ posted his result, and looking at his hill I got jealous -- super steep and very constant gradient -- perfect! The rules state that we can't copy segments, but lo and behold AJ's hill had a close sibling running exactly parallel up roughly the same gradient. I'm there.

Got out to Arlington early this morning (yay lockdown) and gave it a go. Better result, in between my previous result of 140 (139) and my calculated theoretical max of 159.4 feet. Clocked in at 156 feet. Minus 5 plus 4 yields 155 feet.

https://www.strava.com/activities/35926 ... /1568/1628

You can use conservation of energy to see how much energy went to friction. I would have expected to lose more than 3.4 feet worth of potential energy from friction. Plus you didn't include the Kinetic energy at the end of your attempt in the equation (or maybe you did and your post was already long enough haha)

(Kinetic energy at the start) + (riders input "physiological") = (Kinetic energy at the end) + (Potential energy gained by the end) + (Losses due to friction)

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:48 pm**

Man I feel like Batman having just realized Superman lived across the street and could ACTUALLY fly.

In all seriousness though nice work Pare! I think you picked the best of those Arlington walls too. I was surprised to actually get to the top of Menotomy after 48 seconds and then had to turn right, cross Gray street, and continue climbing Grandview to get the full minute so I bet I could squeeze some more elevation with a consistent grade. Alas, I'm on the inpatient leukemia service through Sunday so doubt I'll be able to get out for another attempt.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:03 pm**

Although the 12th is late for a first attempt, I have a hill that I think would be perfect. I will post up Friday morning.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:19 pm**

remad wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:40 pm
pace21 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:58 pm I love challenges. Especially when they combine 2 of my favorite things, bikes and physics! I chose Wilbur Wall in RI as the best option that I could ride to from my house, but after 3 attempts at said Wall I came away concluding that 2 false flats in the middle were providing a few precious seconds where I was putting energy into fighting speed (drag) rather than gravity, and gravity is the King Beast to tackle when vertical ascent is the only output we care about.

I took the data from the Wilbur attempts and went back to the maths. I calculated the total energy involved in the full 1 minute ascent by combining 2 terms: the first is the total mechanical energy that I (my body) injected into bike/rider system. That's a relatively straightforward calculation to make if you have a power meter -- just multiply your 1 minute avg Watts by 60 and that will give you the total "physiological" energy you delivered. In my case it was around 40kJ. In addition to that you can add in your kinetic energy, assuming you started the 1 minute effort with some entry speed. You can calculate that by 0.5*m*(v^2) where in this case "m" is the total mass in kilograms of both you and your bike, for me around 82kg. My entry speed into Wilbur Wall was around 23.5mph (10.5meters/sec) which results in a total kinetic energy around 4.5kJ. [interesting to note that a reasonably high entry speed still only accounts for ~10% of the 1 minute "physiological" energy -- humans are pretty good at creating lots of energy really quickly].

So that's all well and good, ~40kJ physiological and ~4.5kJ kinetic. Now what? Well, I know how far I climbed vertically -- 140 feet, or 139 according to some but knowing that the hill gradient wasn't ideal with the false flats I really wanted to know what that effort would have given me on a different hill. Since we know that the total amount of energy (physiological + kinetic) results in raising you vertically by a certain number of feet we can calculate the resulting potential energy of the bike/rider system, which is given by PE=mgh (mass in kg, gravity constant in m/sec^2, and height in meters). Setting those 2 energies equal we can calculate for different constant gradients (5%, 10%, 15%, etc) what the theoretical height number "h" is. At the limit we can simulate theoretically climbing a purely vertical wall from a standstill and get the theoretical height in that scenario. For me it was 159.4 feet. Of course you can't climb a vertical wall and anything less than vertical will detract from your total because of additional air resistance due to increased airspeed, but it's a start.

Armed with that knowledge I started searching for something steeper. Around about that time AJ posted his result, and looking at his hill I got jealous -- super steep and very constant gradient -- perfect! The rules state that we can't copy segments, but lo and behold AJ's hill had a close sibling running exactly parallel up roughly the same gradient. I'm there.

Got out to Arlington early this morning (yay lockdown) and gave it a go. Better result, in between my previous result of 140 (139) and my calculated theoretical max of 159.4 feet. Clocked in at 156 feet. Minus 5 plus 4 yields 155 feet.

https://www.strava.com/activities/35926 ... /1568/1628
You can use conservation of energy to see how much energy went to friction. I would have expected to lose more than 3.4 feet worth of potential energy from friction. Plus you didn't include the Kinetic energy at the end of your attempt in the equation (or maybe you did and your post was already long enough haha)

(Kinetic energy at the start) + (riders input "physiological") = (Kinetic energy at the end) + (Potential energy gained by the end) + (Losses due to friction)

Spot on Rees, although I lumped air resistance and rolling resistance into one bucket and essentially ignored it because the gravity term is so dominant. And yes to the final KE being real, although I think it's small. I entered at 23.5mph and finished at less than 5 or so. With the velocity being squared the end speed is even less of a factor.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:30 pm**

djming wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:32 pm So what was your gearing and cadence Chris?
And if speed upon entry "only" accounts for ~10% that still is a significant number (ya know, my FTP w/kg is only 10% lower than (some strong cat 1 guy))
I've held off on attempting one other hill that is steeper and more consistent as it's a slight uphill left turn entry. The only other approach is a flat but 90 degree right turn which is probably worse.

It was interesting doing the pre-ride because with a hill that steep it's so hard to hold low power. There's a lower limit on functional cadence (50rpm? 40?) and even at that low cadence I was still doing 350+ watts. For the actual full gas attempt it was essentially the same torque (because same gradient) but at a much higher cadence (100rpm-ish). If you look close you can actually see in my cadence plot 2 distinct events -- at about 25 seconds in I switched from seated to standing and there was a momentary cadence hiccup. Then towards the end when crossing a road it leveled out slightly so my cadence went up to keep power output.

Both the cadence and the power had a pretty much linear drop throughout the course of the run. Cadence started around 110rpm and ended just over 60rpm. I thought I paced pretty well too, the first 25 seconds (seated) was around 770watts and then it declined from there but not a ton. Also, because of the "wasted" power required to accelerate up to speed the highest "power" minute was about 5 seconds before the highest "vertical" minute. My average for the highest vertical minute was 680watts while my highest 1 minute power was 710watts.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:39 pm**

remad wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:40 pm
You can use conservation of energy to see how much energy went to friction. I would have expected to lose more than 3.4 feet worth of potential energy from friction. Plus you didn't include the Kinetic energy at the end of your attempt in the equation (or maybe you did and your post was already long enough haha)

I think you're right, the lack of inclusion of air resistance in the calculations was offset by the fact that I didn't start from speed=0. The "theoretical max" would have been higher (probably by about 10% based on the ratio of the physiological to kinetic energy) so instead of 159.4 feet let's call it something like 175 feet (~10% higher than 159.4 feet), of which I attained 155, the difference of 20 probably due to friction/drag.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:19 pm**

You two (Pare & Rees) will be all kinds of fun tonight on the inaugural WNR. Probably drive Cratty right out of his mind!

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:30 pm**

djming wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:19 pm You two (Pare & Rees) will be all kinds of fun tonight on the inaugural WNR. Probably drive Cratty right out of his mind!

Dave will you pm me a good hill? I will trade beer for this information or bribe you in other ways if your investment pays off

Posted: **Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:51 am**

peterkuhn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:30 pm
djming wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:19 pm You two (Pare & Rees) will be all kinds of fun tonight on the inaugural WNR. Probably drive Cratty right out of his mind!
Dave will you pm me a good hill? I will trade beer for this information or bribe you in other ways if your investment pays off

Nevermind. I have decided that while as a crit fan I am willing to risk paralysis for some socks I'm leery of spending 3/4 of my two hours weekend riding time driving to Worcester in order to find out I suck now

Posted: **Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:42 pm**

peterkuhn wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:51 am
peterkuhn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:30 pm
djming wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:19 pm You two (Pare & Rees) will be all kinds of fun tonight on the inaugural WNR. Probably drive Cratty right out of his mind!
Dave will you pm me a good hill? I will trade beer for this information or bribe you in other ways if your investment pays off
Nevermind. I have decided that while as a crit fan I am willing to risk paralysis for some socks I'm leery of spending 3/4 of my two hours weekend riding time driving to Worcester in order to find out I suck now

There is actually a 3rd street on the same hill that AJ and Pare used in Arlington — School St. You could also try Pine Hill across from Walden Pond in Concord.

Posted: **Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:46 pm**

Driving to Arlington now...

Posted: **Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:27 pm**

Updating the leader board.
Jacob and John are tied at 143ft, but Jacob wins the tie breaker for entering his effort at a lower speed.

Pace21 155ft= 156-5+4 https://www.strava.com/activities/35926 ... /1568/1628
ajpiper 149ft= 150-5+4 https://www.strava.com/activities/35800 ... /1075/1135
jacob 143ft= 144-5+4 https://www.strava.com/activities/35933 ... /1004/1064
jraguin 143ft= 140-5+8 https://www.strava.com/activities/35886 ... /1944/2004
JeremyC 135ft= 136-5+4 https://www.strava.com/activities/35533 ... /1363/1423
djming 133ft= 130-5+8 https://www.strava.com/activities/35679 ... /4395/4455
michealcole 130ft=127-5+8 https://www.strava.com/activities/35646 ... /2067/2127
remad 124ft= 134-10+0 https://www.strava.com/activities/35740 ... /6452/6512
mfwestbe 120ft= 121-5+4 https://www.strava.com/activities/35805 ... is/897/957
bmassey 110ft= 111-5+4 https://www.strava.com/activities/35681 ... is/563/623

Posted: **Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:56 pm**

Rees - FYI, you have a link to the wrong activity for Pare.

Posted: **Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:55 pm**

Thanks Dave, it should be fixed now.
If anyone notices any other mistakes with the leader board, let me know.

Posted: **Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:04 pm**

Well, at least I passed Cratty.
That's it for me. I figured that the only hill nearby that gave me a realistic shot to get on the podium was Wrentham, as it offers up a total of 153 with a sustained 13-15% section that provides 140. I needed to hit that section in a minute to tie Jacob and John then take the tie breaker with slowest entry speed (as there's virtually no way to start this hill at >15mph). Three problems:
1) Horrible entry. 90 degree left turn across traffic from a slight uphill into 13%.
2) It's off a main road, plus the view for the left turn is obscured by a bend in the road so timing traffic becomes tricky. Should have tried this two weeks ago but with "Phase 2" in effect significantly more traffic out and just couldn't time the traffic to maximize entry. Slowing to much before the turn.
3) Most importantly, I still can't reach 600W for a minute.

136ft = 133-5+8 https://www.strava.com/activities/36032 ... /2477/2537

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:26 pm**

I should have tried to find a better hill, but the limiting factors were more likely my weight, my 19 lb bike, and my precipitous drop in power beyond about 40 seconds.

Today I went back to the same nearby hill and gave it one more go.
I was able go hard enough to snag the KOM and clicking "analyze" on that KOM shows 150ft vert in 58 sec which would be nice

but in any full 60 second interval the best I'm seeing is less than 150.
Any ideas? click on the kom result then click analyze...
https://www.strava.com/activities/36089 ... 6516386613

This look like my best 60 sec
135-5+8 = 138. for cat-3 penalty and 52 year old bonus
https://www.strava.com/activities/36089 ... /2780/2840

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:15 pm**

https://www.strava.com/activities/3609874642/laps

Last minute entry. Gave it a shot up Uxbridge Road (south) in Sutton. Pretty good wall. Unfortunately the segment didn't register,so there's no segment showing

but I did hit the lap button for 60 seconds and picked up 146 feet of elev. The link above is the my Strava lap page showing the attempt. Not sure if it will suffice.

146 ft - 5 ft/ Cat 3 penalty +4 35plus bonus = 145 feet.

Also - the Master's bonus is nice, but there should totally be a Dad legs bonus, 2 points for every child w/ extra points for kids under 5

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:05 pm**

PJ McQuade wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:15 pm https://www.strava.com/activities/3609874642/laps

Last minute entry. Gave it a shot up Uxbridge Road (south) in Sutton. Pretty good wall. Unfortunately the segment didn't register,so there's no segment showing but I did hit the lap button for 60 seconds and picked up 146 feet of elev. The link above is the my Strava lap page showing the attempt. Not sure if it will suffice.

146 ft - 5 ft/ Cat 3 penalty +4 35plus bonus = 145 feet.

Also - the Master's bonus is nice, but there should totally be a Dad legs bonus, 2 points for every child w/ extra points for kids under 5

Fixed for ya PJ (figured I'd take pity on you after the "Dad Legs" comment

). You actually got 148
148-5+4 = 147
https://www.strava.com/activities/36098 ... is/909/969

Always nice to find a climb that you can enter at over 32mph with no effort!

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:35 pm**

Thanks Dave ! Not sure how I gained a few feet but I'll take it.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:54 pm**

PJ, I tried that hill first and something just didn't click. I think I was expecting the momentum to take me further than it did and was expecting to hold speed longer once I stepped on the gas. I was mentally out of it very quickly when I found myself at walking speed so soon.

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2020 8:11 pm**

Coley - hear you, last 30 seconds were an eternity and I was dying a slow death. Guess the first half saved it. Would have been a disaster w/o generous lead in.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:00 am**

PJ McQuade wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:15 pm
Also - the Master's bonus is nice, but there should totally be a Dad legs bonus, 2 points for every child w/ extra points for kids under 5

+ 10ft for every sub-5 child. Dads who know, know.

Posted: **Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:45 am**

PJ definitely found a better hill for this challenge. Although Chris' math had only 10%, with the much higher speed (36 mph) it was probably 15% of the energy (16.1m/s). I do think that the conservation of personal energy by not expending it in the run up has to be important and am not sure where that shows in the calculation. In the 20 seconds/10 seconds before the hill, I averaged 302w/336w respectively. Not super taxing, but definitely had an effect. By contrast, PJ averaged 65w/130w respectively.

It did get me thinking, what was the 1 minute power number order (to make myself feel better). Of course it doesn't factor in that AJ must be a heck of a lot lighter than the rest of us!
1. Pare - 680w (wow)
2. Rees - 626w
3. Raguin - 621w
4. Cratty - 604w
5. Cole - 589w
6. Westberry - 585w
6. McQuade - 572w (pretty damn good for young Dad legs!)
7. Lipcon - 548w
8. Massey - 527w
9. Mingori - 525w
10. Piper - 457w

Minuteman Road Club

MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!

Re: MRC COVID 19 Climbing Challenge. Ends June 14th!