If someone is healthy and fit enough to ordinarily ride a bicycle, then with the right equipment and preparation they will almost certainly be able to ascend the likes of Mt Hotham, and with a lot more preparation they will probably be able to do it six times. If they really want to. Probably. I speak as living proof of that, because only a few years prior to doing so I weighed 120kg, smoked forty cigarettes a day, owned no bicycle at all, and had sat on my backside for years without any cardiovascular exercise.
At the time of writing, there’s only one other documented everesting of Hotham in the hall of fame, and frankly that surprises me.
Now most of my friends think I'm some kind of elite athlete and I am not, I just rode around on a bike every couple of days for several years. It is incredible what a change in lifestyle can do.
The average person can absolutely everest, or ride 100k, or whatever, given a bit of training. Of course, training for a year so you can ride your bike up and down a hill all day isn't that appealing to most folks. But it could still be done.
There are a decent amount of people, who just don't adapt to exercise.
In an attempt to clarify "decent amount", maybe this helps? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-018-01041-1
I don't generally understand these surveys. This one seems to indicate the term "non-responder" is not just unhelpful, but possibly damaging.
"Thus, just because an individual does not improve their VO2max or 1RM with training, this does not mean that they have not derived a multitude of other benefits from exercise, many of which, such as increased social interaction seen in community exercise settings"
What I don't see in this survey is anything related to "off the couch" improvements, which is clearly what we are talking about. Neither myself nor GP said we went from regionals to nationals. We went from cigarettes and beer to recreational riding. I have a hard time believing those gains aren't available to almost everyone. But, I didn't find a study so it doesn't exist :)
But when you look at one specific benefit of exercise such as the endurance required to accomplish these feats you find far more non responders.
But: Saying that you are just average compared to the general population when you are clearly above average is humble. Saying that you did six laps compared to George Mallory’s eight laps[1]—which forced him to get up ~before sunset in order to be able to ride his bike all day up and down a mountain/hill—is just a humble brag.
At some point the supposed humbleness loses all suspension of disbelief.
[1] Getting up to a best of six laps still took George Mallory from about New Years Day until Autumn.
The motivation of my further comment in regards to being average, that is to say, a very ordinary person, is to encourage others that similarly want for any particular athletic gift, who may look at this sort of thing and might like to have a go, but aren’t sure of themselves, and it’s to them I say, you can do it, because I did.
(https://www.horriblyhilly.com/ride-details/)
Man that is tough, and only about 35% of the way there. Now, a lot of the distance/time comes from transits between the various climbs, but man. I guess if I spammed a single hill in that I'd guess Everesting would be the equivalent timewise/effortwise of about that plus 25-50%.
So you pick a hill to do it on. First of all, get a triple and the biggest rear cog you can. THe key to non-pro-bike-rider climbing is getting lots of gears. For hills all road groups are hilariously too coarse for real sustained climbing. Lance Armstrong, pinnacle of the EPO era, was famous for high-rpm cycling and let's face it, his sustained Wattage output (to say nothing of watt: weight ratio) was 2.5 to 3x what an everyday cyclist could sustain. And yet he probably ran the same 53/39 and 11-25 groupset that they sell at the LBS. Yeah he was spinning a bigger gear, but the point is HE'S 3-4x THE POWER/WEIGHT RATIO and on the same gears.
So get a triple (52-40-30) and go to MTB on the rear if you have to to get to 30+ rings on the back.
Then, weight weeny everything else. Especially your wheels, climbing is about imparting and losing angular momentum to the wheels as much as the actual overcoming of gravity. Protour riders used to have certain ultralight rims IN THEIR CONTRACTS insisting the team provide them regardless of their equipment sponsorships.
Now, what's the best hill to pick? This is all about long term endurance which means Zone2/Zone3. It's 8800m. so...
5% grade: 20x vertical height so that 180 km/112 mi. 10% grade: 10x vertical height so that's 56 miles.
7% average is probably the sweet spot. Not so slow that you're losing your mind, Not so fast where air resistance comes into play.
You'll want a hill with a far steeper descent that ends up in the same place.
You'll want a hill with smooth concrete. Once you start getting tired, every crack, bump, and hole becomes misery and momentum killers. Bike climbing is about sustaining momentum.
But finally, you'll want a hill with a tailwind. Oh yes, it matters a lot, every percentage point is very viscerally felt when climbing inclines. You'll generally be sitting up in the saddle, and a tailwind that is >5mph will be PUSHING YOU, with your body as a sail.
If I could find a 8% Grade climb with a 10+mph tailwind on good concrete a well setup bike, this is probably easier than doing an Ironman (2.4 mile swim / 112 mile bike / 26.2 mile run) on courses like Ironman Wisconsin (where the bike is basically Horrible Hilly lite).
I'm assuming you get a refill/refuel provision/support? Don't carry excess liquid and food!
Finally, it will help to lose weight obviously.
I wonder how many fraud everestings there will be with e-bikes. The criteria are basically you keep your camera running on a known hill.