When I started cycling in 2003, my weight was over 100 kg (1/10 of a metric ton). I still think I did quite well (relatively) in my first races. But how was that possible with such a high weight? The short answer is that cycling on flats does not involve gravity:

"On the flats, resistance (which slows you down) is primarily related to the resistance created by a rider's bike and body as they move through the air. Big riders, in a low racing position, have a frontal surface area that is quite similar to that of smaller riders. But big riders tend to generate more power thanks to their larger muscle mass. That's why time trials and sprints on flat or rolling terrain favor the bigger, muscular riders." (cycling performance tips)

When I attended races with more hills, the result was a very different story. Climbing is a power-to-weight activity. Kraftprøven this year was the first hilly race where I managed to keep up with the best. It took me 4 years with over 300 hours of exercise per year, and over 20 kg weight reduction in order to make it. But how much better did I perform this year at 79 kg compared to my 86 kg last time I did the race in 2005?

At the race I noticed that a lot of riders received food and bottles along the road. As for myself, I rode unsupported and brought all the food and bottles with me from start. How much easier would I be able to ride in the hills if I had also received support along the track? The total weight of the food and bottles were 2-3 kg. How much difference would it be?

And when you start to think about it, more questions arrive. How much easier would it be if my bike was 1 kg lighter? What if I was a few kg lighter myself? In 1994 at the age of 25 I was only 70 kg, so you could say that I still have 9 kg to go. How much better would I be if I was able to get back in 1994 shape?

To find the answer I started playing around with a nice tool called "Bicycle Speed and Power Calculator". I extracted the data from the major hills of the race. I also compared the results to 2005. In 2005 I was 86 kg, had a bike that were 9.4 kg. Now in 2007 I'm 79 kg and my bike 8.3 kg. For both bikes I add 300 gr. for pedals, 300 grams for accessories. I also add 2 kg for food and drink and 2 more kg for clothes, shoes, helmet etc. Totals for 2005: 10 kg for bike, 90 kg for rider. Totals for 2007: 8.9 kg for bike, 83 for rider.

Buktamoen/Olsborg:
The first hill of the race. It's about 60 meters climb, 1.8 km and average grade of 3.5%.

• In 2005 the hill took me 4:00 to climb, avg/max hr: 160/176 bpm, speed 27 km/h, estimated 442 watts (5.1 watts/kg)
  
• In 2007 the hill took me 3:39 to climb, avg/max hr: 165/174 bpm, speeed 30.1 km/h, estimated 494 watts (6.3 watts/kg)
  

Before Heia:
In 2005 I lost the pack in these hills. It's a 107 meters ascent over 5.4 km with an average grade of 2%. The first 2 kilometers are about grade 3.8%. For me it's the worst hill of the whole race.

• In 2005 the hill took me 10:45 to climb. avg/max hr: 165/175 bpm, speed 30.0 km/h, estimated 398 watts (4.6 watts/kg)
  
• In 2007 the hill took me 9:48 to climb. avg/max hr: 155/173 bpm, speed 31.1 km/h, estimated 402 watts (5.1 watts/kg)

Calculating wattage for the first two kilometers only, gives 407 watts (4.7 watts/kg) and 409 watts (5.2 watts/kg) respectively, which is still very consistent with the result above.

After Heia:
The third hill is a 90 meters ascent over 2.6 km with an average grade of 3.6%.

• In 2005 the hill took me 7:15 to climb. avg/max hr: 163/170 bpm, speed 21.1 km/h, estimated 311 watts (3.6 watts/kg)
  
• In 2007 the hill took me 5:37 to climb. avg/max hr: 155/171 bpm, speed 26.4 km/h, estimated 404 watts (5.1 watts/kg)
  

Hundbergan:
Kavlebakken, Hundbergan. A 64 meters climb, 2.3 km with an average grade of 2.1%.

• In 2005 the hill took me 6:00 to climb, avg/max hr: 159/166 bpm, 23.1 km/t, estimated 251 watts (3 watts/kg)
  
• In 2007 the hill took me 3:57 to climb, avg/max hr: 160/174, 27,6 km/h, estimated 320 watts (4.1 watts/kg)
  

Even if the absolute wattage estimation may be to high because of coasting/pacing behind other riders, the relative performance between the hills should tell something about the performance during the race. One can see that the wattage drops quite a lot from one hill to the other. In such a race it's simply not enough to perform well in one hill. You have to perform over and over again. It should also be realistic to compare the result from one year with another. In 2005 the wattage dropped from 5.1 to 3 watts/kg. In 2007 it dropped from 6.3 to 4.1 watts/kg.

In each of these hills one can estimate that 2 kg of bottles and food costs you 4-5 seconds extra time for each hill (except for the last where you don't have any food/drink left). The same goes for a lighter bike that will save you about 2 seconds for every kilo in each hill. You will also have to generate 4 more watts for every extra kg of weight you carry in order to maintain the speed in any of these hills.

Thus if you have problems keeping up with the rest in these hills, then having some friends give you food and bottles along the way in addition to a lighter bike, may be the difference between "to be or not to be". And even if you already manage to keep up with the best, then the effort you save by having less weight may be the difference you need in order to win the race in the end. For many it's really unfair to compete with people that have a bike that is 2 kg lighter and costs 5-10 times more than your own. Especially for young people that have limited income. If they also receive food/drink along the way, then one might say that they are actually competing in a different race/class than you are. With pro-tour teams is the same for everybody. They have equal bikes, they all receive support. So what can you do about it? Well you should save weight where you get the most out of it. If you are overweight like I was in 2005, then there is no bike in the world what will save you. If I had received bottles and food in 2005, I would probably have been able to keep up with the rest in the second hill, but I would definitely have been dropped in the next.

As for my 1994 shape. With equal cycling fitness, I should have been able to climb each hill between 10-20 seconds faster. That's a big difference, but will still not make me a world class rider :-) But I'm happy to see the improvement. The absolute wattage looks to have improved with about 50 watts over the last 2 years. According to Knut Anders Fostervold, an increase of 25 watts per year is regarded as very good for cyclists. 25 watts is equivalent to about 6 kilos of weight reduction (if you have any places you can save). Also the watt reduction over the 4 hours of the race has also gone down, which shows that the power lasts a bit longer than before.