Hill Climbing Speed

trickeyja

I was wondering what a good uphill speed would be. Living in Cheltenham, near the Cotswold escarpment I am blessed having the choice of either riding hills to my East and flats to my West but I tend to go for the hills.

At the moment, up a 2 mile average 4.5% climb from Winchcombe I am able to average 14mph on a good day. Up Leckhampton Hill, two miles at average 7.5% I am about 10mph. Up Harp Hill, a short 10% climb I can sustain about 8mph and on Aggs Hill, at the point which is marked on the OS map as 14-20%, I am up out of the saddle for a short section at about 6mph.

How does this compare to other cyclists? How fast the pros are able to climb similar inclines?

redddraggon

~10% - Alpe d'Huez ITT - Lance averaged 23.44 km/h ~15mph

Jez mon

It's best not to think about what speed the pros do!

Alex_Simmons/RST

trickeyja wrote:

I was wondering what a good uphill speed would be. Living in Cheltenham, near the Cotswold escarpment I am blessed having the choice of either riding hills to my East and flats to my West but I tend to go for the hills.

At the moment, up a 2 mile 4.5% climb from Winchcombe I am able to average 14mph on a good day. Up Leckhampton Hill, two miles at 7.5% I am just under 10mph. Up Harp Hill, a short 10% climb I can sustain about 8mph and on Aggs Hill, which is marked on the OS map as 14-20%, I am up out of the saddle for a short section at about 6mph.

How does this compare to other cyclists? How fast the pros are able to climb similar inclines?

How much do you (and your bike) weigh (in kg)?

trickeyja

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

How much do you (and your bike) weigh (in kg)?

I'm 16, I weigh about 70kg, the bike is 8kg and I'm about 5'10".

zacca

I can susatain 8mph on a mile long 14% climb, but my bike weighs 9.4kg

kettrinboy

usually on hills from 10 to 15% i am down at 8 to 10mph last week i hit a 17% hill and was down to 6.5 mph that was on 30x23 & only one cog left if it was 25% i would probably be faster if i got off & walked up

Alex_Simmons/RST

trickeyja wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

How much do you (and your bike) weigh (in kg)?

I'm 16, I weigh about 70kg, the bike is 8kg and I'm about 5'10".

OK, let's say 1.5 kg for clothes and other bits.

10mph for 2 miles up a 7.5% gradient = ~ 295 watts or 4.2 W/kg for ~ 12 minutes. That's pretty useful power for a young bloke, esp if you've only recently started riding.

The top pros are capable of ~ 6 W/kg up climbs of 20+ minutes. At 7.5% that's ~ 13.7 mph

Your power up the lesser gradient is similar, slightly less maybe (and of course it wouldn't take as long) but the actual gradients and speeds quoted may not be all that accurate.

Marko1962

Just to jump in with a related question, just how do you work out gradients from given figures. Theres a hill near me thats 0.8 miles long and according to Bikely has a total climb of 180ft and a total descent of 33ft. What would be the gradient?

Alex_Simmons/RST

redddraggon wrote:

~10% - Alpe d'Huez ITT - Lance averaged 23.44 km/h ~15mph

Actually his best time up le Alpe was in the 2004 TT at a speed of 22.2 km/h on the climb section of the TT and the average gradient is 7.9%.

That would require ~ 6.1 W/kg.

The figures you quoted would be physiologically impossible to achieve.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Marko1962 wrote:

Just to jump in with a related question, just how do you work out gradients from given figures. Theres a hill near me thats 0.8 miles long and according to Bikely has a total climb of 180ft and a total descent of 33ft. What would be the gradient?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(slope)

trickeyja

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

OK, let's say 1.5 kg for clothes and other bits.

10mph for 2 miles up a 7.5% gradient = ~ 295 watts or 4.2 W/kg for ~ 12 minutes. That's pretty useful power for a young bloke, esp if you've only recently started riding.

The top pros are capable of ~ 6 W/kg up climbs of 20+ minutes. At 7.5% that's ~ 13.7 mph

Your power up the lesser gradient is similar, slightly less maybe (and of course it wouldn't take as long) but the actual gradients and speeds quoted may not be all that accurate.

Thanks for this information I have been cycling on a mountain bike for several years but have only recently transferred to a road bike.

Here is the gradient profile of Leckhampton Hill (and Hartley Hill) using toporoute.com: http://flickr.com/photos/jtrickey/2915018046/ It actually works out at just under 1.5 miles for this steeper section.

redddraggon

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

~10% - Alpe d'Huez ITT - Lance averaged 23.44 km/h ~15mph

Actually his best time up le Alpe was in the 2004 TT at a speed of 22.2 km/h on the climb section of the TT and the average gradient is 7.9%.

That would require ~ 6.1 W/kg.

The figures you quoted would be physiologically impossible to achieve.

I never gave any lies, I just gave the overall time/speed for the stage which includes a hell of a lot of climbing, and I believed (maybe wrongly) that most of the Alpe is about 10%.

Results

1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 39.41 (23.44 km/h)
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team 1.01
3 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile Team 1.41
4 Jose Azevedo (Por) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 1.45
5 Santos Gonzalez (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 2.11
6 Giuseppe Guerini (Ita) T-Mobile Team
7 Vladimir Karpets (Rus) Illes Balears - Banesto 2.15
8 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC 2.23
9 David Moncoutié (Fra) Cofidis - Le Crédit Par Téléphone
10 Carlos Sastre (Spa) Team CSC 2.27
11 Stéphane Goubert (Fra) AG2R Prévoyance 2.33
12 Michael Rogers (Aus) Quick Step-Davitamon 2.34
13 José Enrique Gutierrez (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 3.04
14 Oscar Pereiro (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems 3.06
15 Marcos Serrano Rodriguez (Spa) Liberty Seguros 3.09
16 Georg Totschnig (Aut) Gerolsteiner 3.15
17 Sandy Casar (Fra) Fdjeux.com 3.19
18 Mikel Astarloza Chaurreau (Spa) AG2R Prévoyance 3.25

Alex_Simmons/RST

redddraggon wrote:

I never gave any lies, I just gave the overall time/speed for the stage which includes a hell of a lot of climbing, and I believed (maybe wrongly) that most of the Alpe is about 10%.

Results

1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor 39.41 (23.44 km/h)
<snip>

I didn't say you lied, just the numbers quoted were wrong.

The TT times (and average speed) from the 2004 TT result included a flat section before they commenced the 7.9% average gradient climb.

Details of climb and times here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27H ... ez_ascents

julietp

zacca wrote:

I can susatain 8mph on a mile long 14% climb, but my bike weighs 9.4kg

I do about the same but I weigh about 55kg and my bike weighs 10kg.

julietp

Marko1962 wrote:

Just to jump in with a related question, just how do you work out gradients from given figures. Theres a hill near me thats 0.8 miles long and according to Bikely has a total climb of 180ft and a total descent of 33ft. What would be the gradient?

A 1 in 10 hill (or a 10% hill) has 1 foot/meter/mile etc ascent for every 10 feet/meters/miles of distance. Does that make sense? You will have to convert the measurements you're using into the same thing - i.e convert the miles into feet then use the formula.

I think every hill over 10% is signed - or at least I haven't seen one below 10% that is???

julietp

Marko1962 wrote:

Just to jump in with a related question, just how do you work out gradients from given figures. Theres a hill near me thats 0.8 miles long and according to Bikely has a total climb of 180ft and a total descent of 33ft. What would be the gradient?

I've just worked yours out - it comes out at 23%!! Can someone confirm if that's right?

FJS

julietp wrote:

I think every hill over 10% is signed - or at least I haven't seen one below 10% that is???

I guess that depends on where you live. Here in the Peak district around Sheffield there are loads of >10 % roads, and only a feware signed. And I'd hope they would invest in road improvement before financing gradient signs ....
And of course >10% streets in cities rarely have signs.

Marko1962

julietp wrote:

I've just worked yours out - it comes out at 23%!! Can someone confirm if that's right?

I think you've just devided 4224 ( 0.8 mile ) by 180 (climb in feet) and come up with 23.4. I believe that equates to 1 in 23 which is not tha same as 23% (or is it?)hmm

Using a bit of trig I get the slope to roughly 7.5 degrees and then looking at the graph in the link kindly provided by Alex Simmons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade(slope)
that climb comes in at around13%- bloody near kills me every time, that I can tell you for sure..

FJS

23%?, 13%? Uhm.... I get either 5.1% or 4.3% as an average gradient for Marko's hill.
The hill is 0.8 miles long, that's about 1287 meters. 4.3% if your 180ft (55 meter) is really the total height difference between start and finish. 5.1% if that 33ft (10 meter) descent is somewhere in the middle, meaning there is an extra 33 ft to climb there as well that you might want to add to the real total climb (180ft+33ft= 65 meter).

Alex_Simmons/RST

julietp wrote:

zacca wrote:

I can susatain 8mph on a mile long 14% climb, but my bike weighs 9.4kg

I do about the same but I weigh about 55kg and my bike weighs 10kg.

Really?

That would require ~ 6.2 W/kg for about 7.5 minutes, which for a man would be exceptional (a professional road racer) and for a women, well you'd be winning major Pro races.

Do that sort of power for 15-20min+ and you'd be probably be placed on watch by the anti-doping authorities.

julietp

It's about 0.8miles and I don't think it's anything as good as you say when compared to the other people I've seen doing it - many of which go past me.

Alex_Simmons/RST

julietp wrote:

It's about 0.8miles and I don't think it's anything as good as you say when compared to the other people I've seen doing it - many of which go past me.

OK. Sounds like the climbing gradient quoted is wrong then.

FJS

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

OK. Sounds like the climbing gradient quoted is wrong then.

If there's a 14% sign, doesn't mean that's the average gradient..

Jeff Jones

Percentage gradient is (rise/run)x100, not the other way round.

Rise: 180 feet
Run = ~4224 feet (actually the slope length, but almost the same as the horizontal distance)

%grade = 180/4224 x 100
= 4.26

Note: most road signs for gradients that I've seen are for the steepest part, not the average. So a climb with a 14% sign at the bottom might only average 7%, which will throw your power estimations way off.

STEFANOS4784

i can go up a 15 mile 150% gradient in 3 seconds, is that any good?

STEFANOS4784

(my tyres are REALLY grippy)

celbianchi

There are plenty of hill climb races on just now for people who want to know if their climbing is any good or not

on the road

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

i can go up a 15 mile 150% gradient in 3 seconds, is that any good?

Too much Red Bull

cakewalk

zacca wrote:

I can susatain 8mph on a mile long 14% climb, but my bike weighs 9.4kg

Erm. Is this not a bit daft?

doyler78

Alex are you using an online calculator to work out those power estimations? If it is you couldn't give a link.