Maximum torque on the crank?

wrote:

Maybe you can come up with a diagram like the ones above
that can be flipped and will show when the rider's weight
would be off both pedals at once?

These are probably "ordinary" examples of forces on the pedal during
seated riding... though they don't give details. In the clock diagram
of the first link, they show the forces on both pedals being very low
at the 1-11 position and the 2-12 position. This is about the same
location where we could unweight both pedals in a climbing sprint. It's
simply a matter of applying enough force on the downstroke so your body
becomes "airborne" for a moment; not supported by a downward force on
the pedals. Of course you are attached to the pedals, but this isn't a
problem... except that the rear wheel is no longer weighted at this
point... at least not very much.

-Ron

On 8 Aug 2005 11:14:18 -0700, "Goonster"
wrote:

wrote:

From those who tried that approach when we did this, none made it up
the hill because forward speed could not be maintained to stay
upright. With training wheels and a low enough gear this should work.

Jobst Brandt

I have climbed Filbert St. seated, with a 30/27 gear, no traversing.

The first attempt failed due to an involuntary wheelie. On the second
attempt I had to lean all the way forward, over the handlebars, to keep
the front wheel down.

At the speed required to remain upright, this was not a sustainable
(i.e. for a few miles) aerobic effort for me.

Dear Jobst and Goonster,

Fargo Street is roughly equivalent in grade. Browsing around
this site might be interesting:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo.htm

Note that the winner made 30 climbs that day, while the
previous winner made only 26 climbs, presumably slowed by
being 57 years old instead of 56:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargolst.htm

The trick that I liked best was using one rider on the front
of a low-geared tandem to keep the front wheel down.

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel writes:

From those who tried that approach when we did this, none made it
up the hill because forward speed could not be maintained to stay
upright. With training wheels and a low enough gear this should
work.

I have climbed Filbert St. seated, with a 30/27 gear, no traversing.

The first attempt failed due to an involuntary wheelie. On the
second attempt I had to lean all the way forward, over the
handlebars, to keep the front wheel down.

At the speed required to remain upright, this was not a sustainable
(i.e. for a few miles) aerobic effort for me.

Fargo Street is roughly equivalent in grade. Browsing around
this site might be interesting:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo.htm

Well 33% is actually significantly steeper because at that gradient
every little bit counts. Besides, Fargo is from appearances about
five times as long as the steep part of Filbert. One plus is that its
pavement is relatively smooth compared to the rough and tumble
concrete on Filbert, some of whose lumps can stall a rider.

Note that the winner made 30 climbs that day, while the previous
winner made only 26 climbs, presumably slowed by being 57 years old
instead of 56:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargolst.htm

The trick that I liked best was using one rider on the front
of a low-geared tandem to keep the front wheel down.

From the web page it appears this street has a following, something
Filbert St. in SF doesn't. I lies amid a picturesque part of SF where
a couple of blocks north, beautiful brick paved and ess-curved Lombard
Street garden (also one way down) is a favorite uphill bicycle route
for riders cruising that district.

Fillmore up is not one of the streets taken voluntarily by most.
That's hard work.

Jobst Brandt

Lombard Street:

http://tinyurl.com/76cl4

Jobst Brandt

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:16:57 GMT,
wrote:

Carl Fogel writes:

From those who tried that approach when we did this, none made it
up the hill because forward speed could not be maintained to stay
upright. With training wheels and a low enough gear this should
work.

I have climbed Filbert St. seated, with a 30/27 gear, no traversing.

The first attempt failed due to an involuntary wheelie. On the
second attempt I had to lean all the way forward, over the
handlebars, to keep the front wheel down.

At the speed required to remain upright, this was not a sustainable
(i.e. for a few miles) aerobic effort for me.

Fargo Street is roughly equivalent in grade. Browsing around
this site might be interesting:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo.htm

Well 33% is actually significantly steeper because at that gradient
every little bit counts. Besides, Fargo is from appearances about
five times as long as the steep part of Filbert. One plus is that its
pavement is relatively smooth compared to the rough and tumble
concrete on Filbert, some of whose lumps can stall a rider.

Note that the winner made 30 climbs that day, while the previous
winner made only 26 climbs, presumably slowed by being 57 years old
instead of 56:

http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargolst.htm

The trick that I liked best was using one rider on the front
of a low-geared tandem to keep the front wheel down.

From the web page it appears this street has a following, something
Filbert St. in SF doesn't. I lies amid a picturesque part of SF where
a couple of blocks north, beautiful brick paved and ess-curved Lombard
Street garden (also one way down) is a favorite uphill bicycle route
for riders cruising that district.

Fillmore up is not one of the streets taken voluntarily by most.
That's hard work.

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

The grade claims for Fargo Street vary--I've seen 30, 32,
and 33%, but never 31%, nor any actual source for the
measurements, though some pages have mentioned city street
departments.

(I'm skeptical of city street departments because mine has
showed a street for forty years that not only has never
existed, but would also require a thirty-foot-high bridge a
hundred feet long to get across the stream in the arroyo
below a neighbor's duck pond.)

When I measured the angle apparent in some of the pictures
(side shots involving fence railings), the local grade in
the picture seemed to be closer to 28%, but neither fences
nor my measurements strike me as convincingly reliable grade
indicators.

A private email exchange during that thread led me to point
out that for a thousand-foot distance, the elevation
difference should be brutally clear--a 280 foot climb versus
a 300, 320, or 330 foot climb would be the equivalent of
neglecting a building up to five stories tall sitting on the
top of the hill.

Whatever its actual grade is, Fargo looks beastly steep to
me. I'd be pleased if someone measured it and showed that
it's 34%.

Carl Fogel