I’m creating a very simple webapp and even in the very early stage I would appreciate some feebback or ideas. It is not even published yet so I will use screenshots.
The idea is to know if you will be able to climb certain iconic climbs given your current fitness (weight, FTP) and gear.
For the calculations, I use a minimum of 55 RPM, no wind, decent road. I could of course add all these parameters, but I prefer to keep it simple for the user.
That’s all I have for now, appreciate any ideas or comments. Thanks!
This sounds Amazing, will be Very Helpful for me and I am sure for others. I can see it will be very helpful for holiday or trip planning. I am planning 12 rides in France and am ruling some rides out because I am not sure if I can manage them - a bit more insight from your app would certainly help.
Sorry I don’t know anything about coding but higher presets of cadence be possible?
I’ve used the Broleur’s Hill Climb Calculator for a few of the climbs I have in my area (we have hills, not mountains in my area). The speed is quite accurate but the average power is completely out.
One example:
4.22km, 3.6%, 153m↗️ for 7m22s shows 32,6km/h and a staggering 523W power required.
The race file with actual power shows 32,8km/h and 307W average. I don’t know the weather as it’s pre-2022 (Intervals doesn’t go back far enough for weather history).
The KOM set by a domestic pro is 6:09, 41,2km/h and 342W average. Was set with a strong tailwind, so the power is likely understated a bit, but not that much that it’s >500W.
At those speeds aero is everything. So the calculator is basically assuming a really bad drag coefficient. With gradients bigger then 6% the aerodynamic doesn’t play any big part anymore.
So such calculators are better for steeper climbs, and is by the way a method to check a powermeter if its values are off or not.
Even on a 10% gradient (2km, 200m) it shows higher estimated wattage than actual. We have a few hills with 13,14% but it’s peak gradients and not very long.
But I think if one of both (power or gradient) is not constant, it won’t match as perfect.
Another analysis tool is this:
You can upload an gpx file of the climb, and put in some numbers (FTP, IF, Weight), and you get a workout (power profile) with an estimated time of that course. You can play with the IF to get to your desired time. @hynack Maybe could be a great “addon” to put in a desired time and get the power for these segments too.
I found another segment of 6.1% that shows 278 vs 289 (4%). Intervals shows 283 (mid point between the two). Not sure if altitude (1633-1726m) would make a difference to the calculator.
I live at 1530m, so would be acclimatised to 1600m, yet the w.alt field is 315W which too high.
Hey @Gerald and @MedTechCD - I’m Steve and I created the Broleur calculator. Been doing a lot more work on it recently - check out the link again - totally rebuilt from the ground up and tweaked the calculation based on some of this feedback.
There’s all sorts of things that could be at play here - the elevation is one thing (the calculator assumes you’re at sea level), but also on longer easy climbs I’ve tried to increase the effect of adopting an aero position. I’ve also adjusted the effect of drivetrain efficiency - assuming most people using a calculator like this will have a well-maintained modern bike. There’s also the effect of carrying momentum into a hill (the calculator assumes a standing start), the fact most hills aren’t a steady gradient etc. It’s really hard to get it to match up to my efforts on climbs, but I think it’s a bit more accurate now.
Anyway - if you have any more feedback or suggestions I’d love to try and make it more accurate.
When I have some time, I will improve UI and add more climbs, also the possibility to import your own.
For now, it assumes a min cadence of 60rpm.
The main difference with existing calculators is that it does km by km. I can in theory climb Angliru based on average percentage, but in reality I will die in the hardest kms.
