Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

What is Hilly?

doyler78doyler78 Posts: 1,951
I did what I would consider to be a hilly route. Just interested in what you all consider hilly to be. I'm sure there are plenty doing much more climbing give some of the hills that you have over in Britain.

Done 51.7 miles today and I done just over 1100m (3600ft) of climbing however 928m (3044ft) of those were done in 34.7 miles.

Posts

  • redddraggonredddraggon Posts: 10,862
    Hilly = over 100ft per mile ?
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • doyler78doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    Hilly = over 100ft per mile ?

    Cool. So at 90ft per mile on that first part that I thought was really hilly wasn't far off. Not bad then for my first attempt at a more hilly route. In the past I've only ever done a rolling route with one big hill (except for the one and only sportive I did last year which was up and down all the way round - no flat at all - found it hard to get food into me). I had 3, what I'd call hills on this route today. It absolutely killed me. Was glad for the flatter roads and tailwind on the way home. That gives me something to work towards (along with my power as my speed was chronic).
  • StefanPStefanP Posts: 429
    I would say over 50m per Mile, but it all depends on the amount of hills I guess... gradient etc... a 3% gradient would be hilly if you cycled far enough :P ;)

    I did 40 miles with 835 metres, on a 14kg mountain bike last year, but you could do more, easily, I don't really consider that very hilly compared to what europe has, hilly enough though.
  • crumbschiefcrumbschief Posts: 3,399
    Holly's bit of stuff from Red Dwarf.
  • Depends how fit/light you are :lol:
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • freehubfreehub Posts: 4,257
    If you've done a ride of say 60 miles, with 3000+ft of ascent, that's hilly.
  • holmeboyholmeboy Posts: 674
    Approx 1500ft in 30 miles? It felt bloody hilly!
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 16,015
    edited March 2010
    StefanP wrote:
    I would say over 50m per Mile, but it all depends on the amount of hills I guess... gradient etc... a 3% gradient would be hilly if you cycled far enough :P ;)

    Not many places in the UK that hilly. Lake District, Welsh Mountains, Highlands etc. But 150ft per mile makes Yorkshire not hilly :lol:

    Of course, if you ride 50 miles and half of its flat and that drags you down below eg 100ft per mile, it doesn't stop the route being hilly; it just means you've done 25 hilly miles and 25 not hilly miles!
    Faster than a tent.......
  • dajdaj Posts: 139
    4800ft in 50 mile ..... Felt like it was uphill all the way !!!
  • hopper1hopper1 Posts: 4,389
    Did a hilly ride today at 31ft/ mile... :oops: :oops:
    Start with a budget, finish with a mortgage!
  • nasahapleynasahapley Posts: 717
    Hilly = over 100ft per mile ?

    Over 100 ft per mile certainly is hilly, but to say that anything under 100ft/mile isn't hilly is a bit much IMO. The Fred Whitton, for instance, might only just make the grade (depending on what mapping prog you use), and in fact hardly any sportives would. I reckon on 50+ ft/mile being 'hilly', and once your nearing 100ft/mile your into 'very hilly' territory. I'm a fine one to talk though, having done a grand total of about 500 feet of climbing this year!
  • doyler78doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    Thought there would be a wide range of views but that's good.
    Depends how fit/light you are Laughing

    Yeah that's so true. At 76kg (5'8") I'm about 8kg over what I'm happiest cycling at but just haven't been able to get ride of any of it over the last couple of years. No matter how much or little I eat I seem to end up a 1kg either side.

    I was giving away over 10kg to the person I was out with but he turned off on to a short cut at 36 miles :lol::lol:
    Of course, if you ride 50 miles and half of its flat and that drags you down below eg 100ft per mile, it doesn't stop the route being hilly; it just means you've done 25 hilly miles and 25 not hilly miles!

    Well that's the way I was looking at it. The first half was much hillier than I'd done before and the rest was my normal stomping ground of rolling terrain.

    Was looking at the power data and well don't know what to make of it. It's a real strange look about it.


    IF - 0.886
    16% Coasting

    My training zones (Power) were:
    Active Recovery - 35.2% (shock)
    Endurance - 15.7%
    Tempo - 11.9%
    Threshold - 10.4%
    V02 Max - 8.6%
    Anaerobic Capactiy - 18.0% (Shock)

    So threshold & above accounted for 37% of the time. So I spent as much time recovering as I did at around or above threshold. I guess the recovery was the price I paid for the effort :?

    I find trying to get a decent rythmn on my normal rides a challenge because there isn't much flat round by me but this brings a whole new meaning to things.

    So can this sort of ride with real mix up really be useful. I suppose it does give me practice climbing but can't see it doing much more my sustainable power, which is a problem.
  • borisfaceborisface Posts: 273
    Hi, just looked at two similar rides I did Thursday and yesterday on roads local to me in East Sussex.
    The very hilly ride which I only do when I'm feeling brave/fit is 33 miles and 3691 feet climbing. The hilly ride is 20 miles and 2706 ft climbing. No wonder I find it difficult to average 15 mph!
  • doyler78doyler78 Posts: 1,951
    borisface wrote:
    Hi, just looked at two similar rides I did Thursday and yesterday on roads local to me in East Sussex.
    The very hilly ride which I only do when I'm feeling brave/fit is 33 miles and 3691 feet climbing. The hilly ride is 20 miles and 2706 ft climbing. No wonder I find it difficult to average 15 mph!

    I'm with you there.

    My average over the 34.1 miles of hills was 14.9mph (there was a headwind too which didn't help but at least the hills provided shelter). The ride overall I only averaged 15.5mph. Did get a max speed of 42.3mph which I really enjoyed :lol:

    Normally because of the rolling terrain I can expect 400m of climbing over 50 miles and that averages ~17mph.
  • AirwaveAirwave Posts: 483
    Did a 12mile TT today,it was only 600ft of climbing.But when your already on 170bpm at the bottom hill looking upwards it might as well be a mountain.But on the other hand one of my regular routes has 7000ft of climbing in 75-80miles.Which seems easier than the paltry 600ft i climbed today.So i think the pace your riding at must have bearing on the percieved hillyness of a ride.
  • chrisw12chrisw12 Posts: 1,246
    Airwave wrote:
    Did a 12mile TT today,it was only 600ft of climbing.But when your already on 170bpm at the bottom hill looking upwards it might as well be a mountain.But on the other hand one of my regular routes has 7000ft of climbing in 75-80miles.Which seems easier than the paltry 600ft i climbed today.So i think the pace your riding at must have bearing on the percieved hillyness of a ride.

    Spot on, hills are irrelevant a flat tt can be harder than any hill.

    It's the IF (intensity factor) of a ride I find most revealing not how much up and downs I've done.

    Good question though, got me searching through my files and even though I live in a very hilly area I don't get those high figures, I'm bit of a hill dodger.
  • freehubfreehub Posts: 4,257
    chrisw12 wrote:
    Airwave wrote:
    Did a 12mile TT today,it was only 600ft of climbing.But when your already on 170bpm at the bottom hill looking upwards it might as well be a mountain.But on the other hand one of my regular routes has 7000ft of climbing in 75-80miles.Which seems easier than the paltry 600ft i climbed today.So i think the pace your riding at must have bearing on the percieved hillyness of a ride.

    Spot on, hills are irrelevant a flat tt can be harder than any hill.

    It's the IF (intensity factor) of a ride I find most revealing not how much up and downs I've done.

    Good question though, got me searching through my files and even though I live in a very hilly area I don't get those high figures, I'm bit of a hill dodger.

    Hills ain't irrelevant at all. Maybe to a censored climber they are.
  • redddraggonredddraggon Posts: 10,862
    freehub wrote:
    chrisw12 wrote:
    Airwave wrote:
    Did a 12mile TT today,it was only 600ft of climbing.But when your already on 170bpm at the bottom hill looking upwards it might as well be a mountain.But on the other hand one of my regular routes has 7000ft of climbing in 75-80miles.Which seems easier than the paltry 600ft i climbed today.So i think the pace your riding at must have bearing on the percieved hillyness of a ride.

    Spot on, hills are irrelevant a flat tt can be harder than any hill.

    It's the IF (intensity factor) of a ride I find most revealing not how much up and downs I've done.

    Good question though, got me searching through my files and even though I live in a very hilly area I don't get those high figures, I'm bit of a hill dodger.

    Hills ain't irrelevant at all. Maybe to a censored climber they are.

    Hills are irrelevant to a good climber, not a censored climber.
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • kettrinboykettrinboy Posts: 613
    I did a 47.5 mile ride yesterday, this was based around Naseby in Northamptonshire and surrounding villages, Northants has no what you would call big climbs but plenty in the 50-100m of climb range because of the rolling terrain so i did 754m of climb on this ride or 52 feet per mile so verging on hilly?
  • softladsoftlad Posts: 3,513
    'hilly' to me just means a ride with lots of hills. The actual amount of climbing, or the total height attained during a ride means nothing to anyone apart from the fella doing the ride....

    If you feel a ride is 'hilly' - then it is hilly. Whether someone else climbs more or less during their own rides is largely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what your legs are telling you afterwards....
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,786
    The very hilly ride which I only do when I'm feeling brave/fit is 33 miles and 3691 feet climbing. The hilly ride is 20 miles and 2706 ft climbing. No wonder I find it difficult to average 15 mph!

    But surely 2706 in 20 has more climbing than 3691 in 33, pro rata, it's just shorter!
    I think that both would be concidered super hilly!
  • Jeff JonesJeff Jones Posts: 1,865 Editor
    I go off 10m/1km = rolling with a few hills. 20m/1km is properly hilly.
    Jeff Jones

    Product manager, Sports
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,786
    If I've done the maths right the Marmotte works out at 28.7 metres per km (5000 in 174k).
    The 2706ft in 20 miles works out at 25.75, so super hilly like I said.
    Yesterday I did just over 1000m in 110kms and it was fairly flat with a few short sharp climbs.
  • ColinJColinJ Posts: 2,218
    Jeff Jones wrote:
    I go off 10m/1km = rolling with a few hills. 20m/1km is properly hilly.
    I agree that 20 m/km is a good definition of hilliness. My local rides (W.Yorks. and Lancs.) are definitely hilly and they average 20-25 m/km (106-130 ft/mile).

    For example, one notably hilly ride that I did last week had 1,800 m in 83 km (5,900 ft in 51.6 miles) equivalent to 21.7 m/km (115 ft/mile). About 40% of that ride was climbing, 40% descending and 20% flat so that corresponded to 33 km of climbing at an average gradient of 5.4%.It certainly felt hilly! :wink:
    inseine wrote:
    If I've done the maths right the Marmotte works out at 28.7 metres per km (5000 in 174k).
    Yikes! :shock:

    I think I'll give that one a miss until I've shed the last 20 kg of my lard stores!
Sign In or Register to comment.