The easiest way to increase your average speed? Why riding harder on hills can be faster than keeping a even pace

If you want to be a faster cyclist, there is a vast array of very expensive upgrades that you could make to your road or gravel bike... but is there an easier way? A much, much cheaper way? We wanted to find out, so we set about set about seeing how much difference simply gauging your effort and varying it around a route according to the inclines can make to your average speed. 

uphill vs steady effort UK countryside (credit: road.cc)

Over the past few years, I’ve had a bit of an obsession with trying to discover the fastest possible way to get around my local bread and butter lunchtime ride loop for the least amount of effort - and after raising this on a recent group ride, it appeared I wasn't the only one who was curious. We started discussing what would increase that speed: aero clothing, aero bikes, aero body position, and even shaving our legs.

> How much faster is shaving your legs? 

Some of us at road.cc are very fortunate that we get to ride all kinds of very fancy bikes. I've personally spent time with some of the best experts in the business trying to make my position on the bike better - but what if the biggest gains you can make to your average speed are actually free?

The test we've devised is as follows: ride a route at a constant effort, then do it again putting in more effort on the climbs, and then finally a third and final ride going absolutely maximum effort/dribble mode on the hills. The catch? The harder we ride the uphill, the easier we have to go everywhere else, aiming to complete each lap with the same average power. Without further ado, let’s take a look at the route...

uphill vs steady effort map and route (credit: road.cc)

It just so happened that I was abroad when we conjured up this idea, so the 17.5 kilometre test route is on the island of Lanzarote (someone's gotta do it). 17.5km should be long enough to see a difference in times (if there is indeed one), and most importantly, it’s almost all uphill for the first half and then almost all downhill for the second half, which will help with the pacing.

To make this as fair a test as possible, all efforts were completed using the same bike, power meter and clothing. A calm(ish) day was chosen and being an island in the middle of nowhere, cars or passing traffic won't have affected the results.

Isn't the answer obvious?

uphill vs steady effort riding - bike close-up (credit: road.cc)

Some of you reading this might be thinking that the answer is obvious, and in fact some of our staff members certainly did. Even so, we still think that this is a worthwhile experiment even if only to confirm our suspicions. 

On a flat time trial, it's widely accepted that the fastest way around a route is at a constant power/effort level. However, most people's solo rides are not flat TTs, so how should you pace your effort if you want to complete a loop in the fastest time possible? 

The test

Run 1: Will be used to set a benchmark time. This will be ridden at an effort that is as constant as possible (250 watts)

Run 2: Will be ridden at a higher effort level on the hills, and then at an easier effort level on the descent. (280 watts for the climb and ~220 watts for the descent).

Run 3: Will be ridden at an even higher effort level on the uphill, and at an even easier level on the descent. (310 watts for the climb and ~190 watts for the descent).

It should be noted that the descending effort/wattage on runs two and three may be less than 220 and 190 watts respectively, because even though the descent takes up half the distance, it will not take up half the duration of the lap. It may therefore be necessary to reduce the wattage further to finish the runs with the same average power (250 watts) as the first effort.

Results

uphill vs steady effort results (credit: road.cc)

So, what happened? Well, although it’s always important to take real-world testing with a pinch of salt, I think we can pretty categorically say that runs 2 and 3 were faster than the first and by quite some distance. 

On the second effort, I was already 1 minute and 57 seconds ahead at the top of the climb, a sizeable advantage, but one that did get eaten into on the descent. Just as a reminder, I was descending at just under 220 watts on the second effort, compared to 250 watts on the first. Despite this though, I was still 55 seconds up as I crossed the finish line.

Run 3 confirmed that climbing harder and descending easier was once again faster albeit by a lesser margin. I also recruited some other riders to go and give this ago, and once again, the results were very similar. So, why is this? Does this mean we should all be hitting the hills harder?

Conclusion

uphill vs steady effort riding shot 1 (credit: road.cc)

Well, firstly it should be pointed out that this phenomenon does appear to be true on whatever course we’ve tried it on. Of course, it also applies even if you’re not using a power meter. You can gauge your effort based on heart rate, or just plain old perceived exertion. 

As fast as the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport is, it won't go triple the speed of a Corvette Z06 with a third of the horsepower (credit: Bugatti)

Why is it faster? Well, to help explain, we'll use a car analogy. A Corvette Z06 has 505 horsepower, and given enough road it will do 199mph. To do more than 200mph though, you need quite a lot more power - a Porsche 918 will do 216mph but to get there it needs 875 horsepower. To go faster than that, you need loads more power. The Bugatti Chiron Super Sport can do that for you, but it has a whopping 1,578 horsepower. 

What we're getting at is that three times more power does not get you three times more speed, due to our friend aerodynamic drag. Drag is not a linear equation, and rather its relationship with speed is quadratic. What that means is that for a bit more speed you encounter quite a bit more drag, and things get worse and worse the faster you go.

How does that relate to our little test? Well, when climbing I was travelling about 20kph, and my additional 30 watts got me a nice healthy dose of speed gain. When descending though, those 30 watts make far less of a difference to my average speed, because I was travelling faster. On run 2, my additional 30 watts got me an additional 3.2kph on the climb, but 30 watts less on the descent only cost me about 1.4kph.

uphill vs steady effort climb (credit: road.cc)

So, does this mean that you should always ride harder on climbs? Well, yes and no. If your primary goal is to get round a lumpy route faster then our tests show that yes, you’re better off putting more effort into the climbs than on the flats or descents. However, and this is quite an important bit... it is usually less sustainable. 

I did this test three times, and was in far more pain from the last effort than the first. You see, even though my average power/energy expenditure was the same, the toll that it took on my body was not!

You might have heard of people saying that you’ve got a box of matches to burn, and every effort burns a match. Although this does rather oversimplify your body's energy systems, there is quite a bit of truth in this analogy. Riding near, at, or over your functional threshold power (FTP) will burn matches, burn carbs and create lactic acid. However hard you think you are, this will affect your riding performance later in the day.

2024 Colnago C68 italy jamie riding shot hill road.cc kit climbing (credit: road.cc)

If you’re trying to ride a longer, hilly route as fast as possible, climb at sweet spot, AKA comfortably hard on the climbs. Keep the pace up on the flats and then recover on the descents. This might be what you do already, but now you’ve got some science to back it up!

Did you expect there to be this much difference? Let us know if this will change how you ride in the comments below.