Come on up to Santa Barbara sometime and watch the Downhillers bomb Tunnel or Cold Springs and you’ll understand that bikes are about three times as fast, given a pro-level DH biker. A hacker might go at Muni speed, but not a skilled DHer, who will smoke us up–and down–every trail in tarnation–of that we may be sure. If you want speed, go with the bike.
JL
Re: Why are hills hard on a bike? (unicyclist perspectives)
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, steveyo <> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > <snipped a bunch of stuff about cardio vs. limb strength>…A bike more
> > effectively utilises the power available from a person on most
> > gradients.
>
> I happen agree, but you just stated this fact (which has nothing to do
> with the earlier info in your post) with no supporting evidence.
>
> -Why- does a bike more effectively utilise the power available from a
> person on most gradients?
Because it has gears. I didn’t state it, because I thought it was
self-evident. Even if it isn’t, several other people in the thread
have stated it.
I didn’t state that I was assuming a circular-wheeled bike either -
there’s loads of stuff not stated.
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |
Naomi’s message has a lot of words, but no actual content. Especially, the idea that unicyclists are at their greatest advantage on steep uphills suggests that she’s never watched a unicyclist try to climb a steep uphill.
Interesting topic (bicyclist perspective)
Based on extensive experience riding singlespeed mountain bikes, I would say that a bike is more efficient because it requires less energy to balance, and (if properly set up for the task) provides more leverage with which to concentrate available weight and muscle power from all major muscle groups onto the pedals. When climbing on my bike, 99% of the time I am standing on the pedals with a near upright posture (and I can sustain this quite comfortably).
There are a lot of slow bicyclists. Some are out of shape. Others are just not in a hurry.
For for thought(?) – the average singlespeed mountain biker uses gearing equivalent to riding a unicycle with at least a 46" wheel. An average fixed gear road cyclists uses gearing equivalent to at least a 66" wheel. Little wonder it is easier to pedal a 29" or 36" unicycle.
Meanwhile a geared mountain biker may use gearing equivalent to a unicycle with a 16" wheel and a geared road cyclist may use gearing equivalent to a unicycle with a 30" wheel. Little wonder a geared bike can be so much slower.
I was merely pointing out to you that you were just in the “is not/is too” camp until you support your assertion.
The gears don’t enter into it as much as:
I think these two (which I consider so interrelated as to be the same thing) make far more difference than the gearing on a long, fairly constant uphill grade like the uphill races I’ve done. Example: Whiteface Mtn Uphill (http://www.whitefacerace.com) with fairly constant grade of 8% + or - very little. Many of the bikers use singlespeed, geared specially for hills at or around 1:1 ratio.
Last year I beat some of them, but it’s the balance/wobble/straightness thing that keeps me far from the front of the pack.
And tholub, I was agreeing with you, but just asked Mr. Smith for a better supported statement, not for you to support it (again).
Right. My contention is that even if you choose a grade which is perfect for a given unicycle wheel size, a reasonably-equipped single-speed bike with platform pedals will still be significantly faster, given equivalent rider strength and skill. My experience with big hill climbs out here is similar to yours.
One of us has to visit the other’s coast and we’ll do one together, then I’ll buy you a well-earned beer.
I don’t quite agree with that - There are a couple of (road) hills on my usual commute that I can climb on either unicycle (usually 26x3") or a bike. But on the unicycle I’m knackered at the top and back off a bit for a rest. On the bike I use a far higher gear than the 28ish inches of the unicycle and get to the top faster and less tired. On both machines I’m standing on the pedals; the unicycle doesn’t feel like spinning a low gear on a bike to me (at least not on a steepish climb). Even allowing for the shorter cranks on the unicycle (150mm vs 170 on the bike) I’m still riding a higher gear on the bike with seemingly less effort expended, and getting to the top faster.
I’ve always assumed the reason for this to be that the unicycle takes more energy to balance than the bike does - obviously the better the unicycling technique the less the wasted energy in balancing, but it’s never going to be as little as a bike. My bicycling technique is (presumably, as I’m a relatively new unicyclist) much better than my unicycling, so that accounts for something, but I’m still convinced a bike makes more efficient use of energy on the whole.
Rob
To clarify, I just meant “easier” to pedal insofar as you are covering a smaller distance per crank revolution. There are many reasons why “easier” does not necessarily translate to “faster”, some of which you mentioned.
Wow, this seems to have stoked up some interest. Thanks for all the thoughts.
My main conclusion is: I’m a big wuss; must try harder. Thanks John! So apparently it is all in the mind - I know a bike ‘must’ be more efficient, especially when you can select the perfect gear for the gradient, but to go the speed that a unicycle forces you to go at requires more willpower - to resist shifting down. That for me makes it ‘feel’ (which this is all about from my view) harder - even if a uni does get my heart going a bit more.
Hands up - I have very little bike experience, so undoubtably my test is unfair against the bike. It also could also have been a better size for me, so trying with a really high saddle would be more interesting. I’m sure I wobble more on a bike uphill (spinning a lowish gear) than a unicycle (one or both hands on handle).
I admit I still have trouble visualising either a) ever having the capacity* to stay out of the saddle all the way up (as it seasoned bikers seem to have described - Rob, PeanutButterBreath etc.) or b) being able to push hard enough when seated on a bike to match the speed I’d have on a uni (John seems to suggest spinning seated?). But apparently it needs practice 
Comparisons against pros in various disciplines - or racing other bikers at all - is quite another issue. I was only interested in the comparing the same person on the two types of cycling. Things have enough variables already!
And the idea of fixie bikes making it up harder climbs than unicycles, despite having vastly higher gearing seems curious.
So maybe I’ll give the bike another try. 
Cheers
Sam
*Despite what Joe may think, I know I’m not mega-fit - eg. thirty lengths of swimming is quite enough for me before I’m gasping more than enough. Also, my fastest uni speed was after the summer of riding loads, and now it’s winter and I’ve hardly ridden much. I’d need much better data to be a scientist!
More efficient exercise at least…
The consensus in this thread is that the average person gets more exercise from the same route on a unicycle than on a bicycle. Additionally, unicycles are simpler, cheaper, easier to maintain, more fun, etc. Therefore, I expect unicycles to replace NordicSki and other widgets in infomercials.
But seriously, I’ve always been aware that I got more exercise from unicycling than bicycling. Since I spend the rest of my time sitting in front of a computer, I like that…
Hello!
Tell me about it. Lost 11 pounds in 2 months. Just added uni to my diet 
Practical too. They fit under bus seats and can be easily carried up the stairs to ones’ office.
I don’t get that channel.
Unicycling is much more interesting than bicycling.
The riders are much more interesting too…
–Tom
Re: Why are hills hard on a bike? (unicyclist perspectives)
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, steveyo <> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, steveyo <> wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > Ian Smith wrote:
> > > > <snipped a bunch of stuff about cardio vs. limb strength>…A
> > > > bike more effectively utilises the power available from a
> > > > person on most gradients.
> > >
> > > I happen agree, but you just stated this fact (which has nothing to
> > > do with the earlier info in your post) with no supporting
> > > evidence.
> > >
> > > -Why- does a bike more effectively utilise the power available from
> > > a person on most gradients?
> >
> > Because it has gears. I didn’t state it, because I thought it was
> > self-evident. Even if it isn’t, several other people in the thread
> > have stated it.
>
> I was merely pointing out to you that you were just in the “is not/is
> too” camp until you support your assertion.[/color]
But I haven’t supported it - I’ve given you one more step. You now
have to say “but why do gears more effectively utilise…”. You can’t
ever answer “why” questions - there’s always another “why” to be
asked, but most people grow out of that process by the time they’re
about 10 (maybe that’s not a good thing, of course).
The explanation is not significantly more complete now than it was
before your objection. Further, as I said, there are a multitude of
unstated assumptions, any of which you can choose to pick at if you
like.
> The gears don’t enter into it as much as:
Actually, on the specific aspect I was commenting on (that it’s just
physics / mechanics, and that any idiot schoolboy should know that)
the straightness of the path is not relevant. The discussion was of
force, work and power.
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |
If you are speaking of paved hills, then hills are hard on a bike for a unicycle, even when in a car.
What you are in/on doesn’t change the fact that a hill is hard.
Pavement is hard.
The discussion was of why unis are slower than bikes at hill-climbing.
The energy expending keeping balanced on the unicycle is of the utmost relevance to this thread, as it is the consensus of those who’ve done hillclimb races that this is the primary factor in why unicycles climb more slowly that bikes. Not gears.
And I wish I was 10 again, thank you.
it’s harder uphill on a bike because you normally knock the gearing down to make it easier but by doing that you trying to race your legs and the motion tires you out, mentally and physically.
With a unicycle you are based on stamina and a average speed, going uphill you put more energy into it but even on a long one you recover quickly. Also note if you have the right pace you get into a special controlled wobble that helps you progress.
A lot of cyclists stop pedaling at top of long hills and is a bad thing. Remember runners don’t stop running at the end of a run because it isn’t good for you, and uni peeps have no choice not to stop which is only a good thing 
It is certainly true that a unicyclist who’s never learned how to ride a bike will do better on the unicycle.
I remember that some years ago, I believed so strongly that unicycling up steep hills was easier than cycling up them, that I ended up organising a race up a steep hill with some cyclists form the juggling club who disagreed.
I was genuinely surprised as they dissapeared up the hill, beating me soundly
Still though, the fact remains that, on the admittedly rare occasions I use a bike, that climbing steep hills is no fun at all and often quite unpleasant: whereas, when on the uni, I often relish a good steep hill.
These days I think that it’s not cos it’s physically easier on a uni (it isn’t) but purely cos it’s just a lot more interesting- the requirements of balance and subconscious strategy necessary to get up something steep on one wheel just adds loads of interest, engages your attention and basically makes it seem like more fun.
Whereas, on a bike, really steep hills just seem to be a bit of an obstacle, just a bit of the journey that’s going to be slower and more effort than you’d like.
Six words:
Broken finger, broken wrist, broken nose.
Only interesting in how badly Kris gets spanked. I don’t think you realize the fitness levels of professional road racers compared to nearly anyone else, including Kris Holm. Believe me, I’ve watched Kris’ back recede from me in many races and I know he can go all day. But someone of Tour de France capability would simply spank him. On any hill.
Passing bikes doesn’t prove much. Usually the bikes you’re passing are not in a race with you. Not that it doesn’t feel great anyway…
Re: Why are hills hard on a bike? (unicyclist perspectives)
On Tue, 30 Jan, steveyo <> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, steveyo <> wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > Ian Smith wrote:[color=green]
> > > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, steveyo <> wrote:[color=darkred]
> > [color=darkred]
> > > The gears don’t enter into it as much as:
> >
> > Actually, on the specific aspect I was commenting on (that it’s just
> > physics / mechanics, and that any idiot schoolboy should know that)
> > the straightness of the path is not relevant. The discussion was of
> > force, work and power.
>
> The discussion was of why unis are slower than bikes at hill-climbing.
> ian_smith wrote:
> > The limiting factor in how fast you can go up a hill is how fit your
> > cardio-vascular system is…
>
> The energy expending keeping balanced on the unicycle is of the utmost
> relevance to this thread,[/color]
Absolutely, and if you read what I said, you will find I have never
disagreed.
However, ON TEH SPECIFIC ASPECT I WAS COMMENTING ON the straightness
of the path is not relevant.
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |