As the Tour de France enters its final week, riders have already negotiated some of the toughest climbs in Europe, and have some major climbs still to go. So what makes some of those riders successful while others crumble?
This year’s Tour includes 25 mountain passes or mountain-top finishes that are classified as Category 2 or harder (Category 1 or hors category).
For those that don’t know, climbs are categorised from easiest (Category 4) to hardest (Category 1) based on gradient and distance, with the extremely tough hors category climbs being considered beyond categorisation.
The climbs include some of the most iconic mountains in the Tour de France, such as the Col de la Croix-de-Fer, Col de la Madeleine and the Col du Tourmalet – all of which are higher than 2000m above sea level and involve more than 19km of climbing at an average gradient greater than 6.2%.
As with each year, these climbs will be extremely important to the ultimate outcome of the race and dictating who stands on the podium in Paris on July 22.
So why are mountains any more decisive to the overall outcome of the race than the long and very intense flat mass-start stages?
Many of these mountains passes are greater than 10km long, with an average gradient of 5-10%. The average power output required to stay with the leading group of riders during the 30-to-60 minutes climbing these mountain passes can be upwards of 450W.
As I’ve written previously, the average trained recreational cyclist may be able to hold this power output for a maximum of only approximately 30-to-120 seconds.
Such high power outputs are required to overcome the high resistive forces experienced by the riders.
When riding in relatively flat stages, cyclists are required to overcome significant wind resistance.
As a result, the absolute power output of the rider relative to their aerodynamical drag appears most meaningful to performance, especially when riding alone (such as during an individual time trial or breakaway).
It is for this reason that so much time and effort is spent on advancements in cycling equipment (such as helmets, bicycles, wheels), and rider positioning) to improve cycling aerodynamics.
Gravity sucks
When riding uphill the cyclists not only have to overcome wind resistance, but also gravity. Consequently, the mass of the cyclists (and bicycle) begins to play a much more important role in dictating speed.
It’s for this reason that the power output of the cyclists relative to their body mass (know as their power-to-weight ratio) is so important to performance in the Tour’s mountain stages.
At an average power output of 450W, a typical 74kg cyclist would be able to produce 6.08 W/kg (watts of energy per kilogram of weight). But if this cyclist were to maintain the same power output at just 5kg lighter they would produce 6.52W/kg.
That may not seem a great deal higher but could mean the difference between staying with the lead riders and being dropped on the climb.
Some of the fastest times ever ridden up some of the Tour’s most famous climbs such as Alpe d’Huez were thought to be completed at average power outputs as high as 6.9 W/kg.
Based on these data it may seem intuitive that the easiest way to improve uphill cycling performance is to reduce body weight to improve a rider’s power-to-weight ratio. But it’s not that easy.
When dropping body weight, cyclists often reduce fat but also muscle mass – they therefore lose the ability to maintain high absolute-power outputs.
This is most obvious when watching lighter road cyclists. They may be extremely fast in the mountain stages due to very high power-to-weight ratios, but they lose significant time in the flat time trials, which require very high absolute-power outputs.
That could be seen in last year’s Tour when second-placed rider Andy Schleck – at 1.86m and weighing just 68kg – was extremely fast in the mountains but lost to Cadel Evans on the penultimate day, on the individual time-trial stage of the Tour.
For Tour contenders, it’s therefore a very fine balance between being light enough to climb the mountains quickly and being powerful enough to ride fast during individual time trials.
There are, however, other methods that can be adopted to maximise power-to-weight ratios. Most obvious is to reduce the weight of bicycle, which can improve the power-to-weight ratio given cyclists are essentially required to carry their bikes up the hill.
But with the recent rapid advancements in bicycle technology most professional road bikes are now very near the legal limit of 6.8kg set by the sport’s international governing body, Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI).
Interestingly, this legal limit is the same for all cyclists irrespective of the cyclists’ body weight and as a result the lighter, less powerful riders may be at a slight disadvantage.
An alternative method that may reduce weight and improve the cyclists’ power-to-weight ratio is to manipulate diet and hydration status.
Research has shown cyclists may voluntary dehydrate by more than 2% during prolonged stage racing, which would theoretically improve uphill cycling ability.
Assuming the same 74kg cyclist can still maintain 450W, such dehydration would result in an increase of 0.12W/kg. But it should be noted that dehydration, especially beyond 2-4%, can significantly increase thermal strain and influence exercise capacity.
It is therefore unlikely that this cyclist would be able to maintain the same power output, especially during prolonged mountain stages such as those in the Tour, lasting between four and six hours.
Indeed, uphill riding is considerably slower than riding on the flat – with speeds averaging around 20km/hr at a grade of 9%, compared with 45km/hr on the flat. As a result, the effectiveness of convective and evaporative (i.e. sweating) cooling can be reduced.
This is extremely important to performance during the hot summer days during the Tour de France. Excessive dehydration can reduce the ability to dissipate heat, reduce performance, and possibly place the rider at increased cardiovascular risk.
While a number of methods may assist in minor improvements to one’s power-to-mass ratio, the rider that wears the maillot jaune when leaving the mountains in this year’s Tour will have undoubtedly performed the incredible amount of training necessary to improve their absolute power.
Indeed, an improvement in maximal power output of just 15W would give our imagined 74kg rider a similar improvement in power-to-weight ratio as losing 2.5kg. Being a successful hill climber is therefore not as simple as being as light as possible.
A grand tour winner has to be light, strong, fatigue-resistant, extremely powerful and, of course, lucky enough to avoid all the crashes on the way to the finish line in Paris.
Further reading:
Suffer score: how demanding is Le Tour de France?
Le Tour de France is set to roll, so what makes a perfect bike wheel?
High-end bikes for sale … but what are you really buying?
Cadel Evans and other machines: the science of the Tour de France time trial
Science of elite cycling: Tour de France (stage 1 to 11)
Science of elite cycling: Tour de France (stage 12 to 21)

Michael Block
Idler
Wiggins has certainly improved his climbing this year and is as thin as a rake. He's an endurance rider and this explains why he and his team are riding tempo on all the climbs - effective but boring to watch, but if he can sit just below threshold for the whole climb it limits the ability of any other riders to attack him.
It is a bit puzzling that he can lose so much muscle mass and still out-time trial specialists such as Fabian Cancellara, who Wiggins has rarely beaten in the past. Yes, there's a thinly veiled hint of 'extra assistance' regarding his performance in my comments, but when you compare him to triple world champion Michael Rogers who is apparently the lightest he's been since he was 16, is climbing very well, yet his time trial performance has suffered, I'm puzzled by his current performance, and his comparatively improved recovery in Grand Tours. Chris do you have a physiological explanation for this?
Julian Del Beato
logged in via Facebook
I think the question is just as much - why wasn't Wiggo winning previous TTs? He has won everything worth winning on the track in pursuit events, which is a similar discipline to TTing on the road. While losing muscle mass won't help him on the track or a flat TT, the Stage 9 TT in this Tour was lumpy and would have benefited riders who could climb well - not Cancellara's key strength.
Wiggo has been building to this form. He was reportedly good last year, but crashed out. Sky made it a priority to win the Tour a few years back and have worked hard on it. Winning the Tour is much more than fronting up with a gifted rider. It's not automatically suspicious that Wiggo has got himself in a winning position.
Chris Abbiss
Lecturer for the School of Exercise and Health Sciences at Edith Cowan University
Hi Michael,
Read moreYeah I was also a bit surprised to see Wiggins beat Cancellara in the time trial. Wiggins has however been training to specifically win this event. He is a smart rider and I agree that it can be a bit more boring to watch than the sporadic and aggressive riders. Wiggins realises that to win the tour you need to be a world class climber and time trialist. A lot of time and effort has obviously gone into improving his climbing but maintaining his TT performance. While I mentioned the importance…
Paul Rogers
Manager
Yes, very surprised at Wiggins' time trial performance, (as I was with Carlos Sastre's time trial to beat Evans in 2008).
Wiggins not only beat Cancellara, but also many other TT specialists including Chavanel, Martin (even with tyre problem), Kloden etc.
Not suggesting anything, only surprise at such a remarkable performance.
Markie Linhart
Rouleur
Another insightful and interesting piece Chris.
Seeing Bradley Wiggins' (and the whole Sky team's) approach to the hills is fascinating in itself. A relentless yet seemingly steady pace/cadence keeps them at the front of the peleton - the breakaways (who are no threat to the Maillot Jaune) are allowed to make their own pace.
Seeing Wiggins lead out in the corners at the finish was a joy to behold - after all that climbing…
Varun
logged in via Twitter
Was an attribute like "VO2 max" left out intentionally?, i think it plays a significant part in high intensity aerobic activity like hill climbing along with Power Output and optimal Heart Beat level, etc, also altitude often goes to 2000mts in these climbs, i am assuming Oxygen stress of some sort must occur at these places can't see how not.
Chris Abbiss
Lecturer for the School of Exercise and Health Sciences at Edith Cowan University
Hi Varun,
Read moreYes VO2max definitely plays a very important role in hill climbing performance. However, I didn’t discuss this as I didn’t want to overcomplicate the article. I also believe that power output is much more important to performance. It is the power output that the cyclist produces (along with aerodynamics) that is important in dictating the speed of the cyclists. Oxygen consumption is important in producing this power output however the cyclists with the highest VO2max will not necessarily…
Paul Rogers
Manager
The issue here is how close to V02M an athlete can perform consistently. The measure is a maximum, and does not tell us how efficiently the rider can approach and sustain close to that max over time, although as a starting point, the higher the better.
As Chris says, this affects power output and ultimately, performance.
Gloria Liu
Marketing Coordinator
Hey Chris,
Loved both this piece as well as "How Hard is the Tour de France?". If you hadn't seen them already, wanted to let you know about our Tour de France power data analysis at trainingpeaks.com/TDF, where we publish daily stages analyses of power data from Team Sky, Team Saxo Bank-Tinkoff Bank, ORICA-GreenEDGE, Jani Brajkovic, and Greg Henderson.
In particular, you might be interested to check out Bernie Eisel (Team Sky)'s Stage 15 analysis, where we show how much workload Eisel has put in during the Tour compared to that of a recreational cyclist (we use Training Stress Score to quantify workload based on intensity and duration of each ride): http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/tour-de-france/2012/stage-15.aspx#eisel
Just another way to look at how hard the Tour is, and a potential source for wattage data. Keep up the great writing.
Best,
Gloria Liu
Marketing Coordinator
TrainingPeaks.com
Seamus Gardiner
Citizen
I'm not making light of their fantastic efforts on the bike but let's keep this in perspective.... It is their job. They spend 8 hours a day doing this day after day.... One would hope that they could climb better and produce more power than a recreational cyclist.
As much as I admire them I admire more our local A grade racers who hold down full time jobs, look after families and train sufficiently to put down some pretty impressive power meter stats on local climbs.