Hilly vs flat

hmbadger

Is there any sort of formula or rule of thumb for comparing flat rides vs hilly rides in terms of effort required?

Something along the lines of 50 miles inc 5000ft of ascent = 60 miles flat?

Reason for asking is that I'm trying 1st century soon (Man 100). I can do a hilly 100km (e.g. Tour of the Peak 100km with 7000 ft ascent). I'm kind of hoping that 100 miles flat isn't much more effort. Am I being optimistic?

mikebikemike

I'm sure you'll be fine stepping up from a 60 mile to 100 mile ride.
Having said that, I tend to struggle to pace myself over flat rides because it's all hills where I live. I'd suggest taking a leisurely pace and if you're legs are strong then motor along for the last 20 to enjoy overtaking a lot of folk.

mikebikemike

I'm sure you'll be fine stepping up from a 60 mile to 100 mile ride.
Having said that, I tend to struggle to pace myself over flat rides because it's all hills where I live. I'd suggest taking a leisurely pace and if you're legs are strong then motor along for the last 20 to enjoy overtaking a lot of folk.

rolf_f

hmbadger wrote:

Is there any sort of formula or rule of thumb for comparing flat rides vs hilly rides in terms of effort required?

Something along the lines of 50 miles inc 5000ft of ascent = 60 miles flat?

Reason for asking is that I'm trying 1st century soon (Man 100). I can do a hilly 100km (e.g. Tour of the Peak 100km with 7000 ft ascent). I'm kind of hoping that 100 miles flat isn't much more effort. Am I being optimistic?

50 miles inc 5000ft ascent is far harder than 60 miles flat.

So, your 100 miler should be relatively easy - it's down to how long you can last in the saddle; 8 hours for example = 12.5mph which is pretty sedate. The only big counter to that is headwinds. At least on climbs the effort is always changing - a constant headwind on the flat is soul destroying; the effort is just endless. Fortunately though, you shouldn't in theory spend much more than 40% or so of the time dealing with that on a loop.

merak

Rolf F wrote:

The only big counter to that is headwinds. At least on climbs the effort is always changing - a constant headwind on the flat is soul destroying; the effort is just endless. Fortunately though, you shouldn't in theory spend much more than 40% or so of the time dealing with that on a loop.

+1 on the soul destruction. Go out into a strong headwind on the fens and you'll spend 70% of the ride dealing with it (psychologically if not literally, but probably literally: 10mph out; 30mph home). Nothing else comes close to simulating the level of sustained effort that you need to climb a full-on mountain pass as a bad day in the fens.

tim_wand

I live in the flat lands of Lincs/Notts border so once a week I have to take myself off to the peak district for a 40-50 mile loop. Usually this will include around 4000-5000 feet of climbing and my average speed drops to 13=15 mph but my heart rate is around 135 and maxes at over 180 on something like Winnats,

Riding locally I look to cover upto 100 miles average 18 mph + and very rarely see the wrong side of 170 bpm on the monitor. unless putting in lamp post , village marker sprints.

I think the best indicator is heart rate and I would perceive you are working at least 25 - 33% less intensity on a flat route than one with regular climbing.

This only perception I would love a SRM power metre to link to ANT and garmin to confirm this.

Mettan

Rolf F wrote:

- a constant headwind on the flat is soul destroying; the effort is just endless.

True, very true.

rake

your saying how does 60 miles/1.3 miles climb compare to 100 miles fairly flat.
so the difference is effectively 1.3 miles climb versus 40 miles.
it depends weather you think climbing is more than 31 times harder than flat riding. That doesnt take the descending into account.
it all depends on what speeds you go and how hard you attack hills.
i imagine the 100 miles will require more energy expenditure for a similar effort level and take considerably longer.

jibberjim

tim wand wrote:

IRiding locally I look to cover upto 100 miles average 18 mph + and very rarely see the wrong side of 170 bpm on the monitor. unless putting in lamp post , village marker sprints.

You obviously have a different idea of what "wrong side" is.

tim wand wrote:

I think the best indicator is heart rate and I would perceive you are working at least 25 - 33% less intensity on a flat route than one with regular climbing.

As others have said it's nothing to do with the route, it's how you ride it. Indeed obtaining a very high average power for the whole ride will almost certainly require a flat route, because few people can keep the power up at all descending safely on open crappy roads.

Hills are harder because you're forced to work, which you may not do on the flat.

hmbadger

rake wrote:

your saying how does 60 miles/1.3 miles climb compare to 100 miles fairly flat.
so the difference is effectively 1.3 miles climb versus 40 miles.
it depends weather you think climbing is more than 31 times harder than flat riding. That doesnt take the descending into account.
it all depends on what speeds you go and how hard you attack hills.
i imagine the 100 miles will require more energy expenditure for a similar effort level and take considerably longer.

Wouldn;t that be comparing 1.3 miles vertically upwards with 40 miles on the flat? I'll take the flat!

Thanks for responses. I take the point that it depends very much on how hard I ride on the flat. As I will be taking it easy to try and ensure that I do the distance, I still think I'll find it about the same in terms of level of tiredness. But I'll find out soon!

rake

hmbadger wrote:

rake wrote:

your saying how does 60 miles/1.3 miles climb compare to 100 miles fairly flat.
so the difference is effectively 1.3 miles climb versus 40 miles.
it depends weather you think climbing is more than 31 times harder than flat riding. That doesnt take the descending into account.
it all depends on what speeds you go and how hard you attack hills.
i imagine the 100 miles will require more energy expenditure for a similar effort level and take considerably longer.

Wouldn;t that be comparing 1.3 miles vertically upwards with 40 miles on the flat? I'll take the flat!

Thanks for responses. I take the point that it depends very much on how hard I ride on the flat. As I will be taking it easy to try and ensure that I do the distance, I still think I'll find it about the same in terms of level of tiredness. But I'll find out soon!

either that or spread out over the 60, it doesnt really matter. dont forget even if it was vertically youd have time to go about 31 times slower, so if you average 17mph on the flat youd only need to average less than 0.6 mph to achieve the same time.

gavbarron

Even a 'flat' route will have undulations that you'll find yourself trying to power up to maintain an unexpectedly good average. Mistake, as you usually discover later on in the day.
Then of course there's the wind, it makes life miserable if you try to fight it, I've taken to just accepting it now, I can't remember my last wind free day but if you get wind on the day just treat it like a bloody big hill and ease off a bit, you wouldn't expect to do 20+mph uphill so don't expect it into a headwind.

Or

Just go hard from the off and if you blow up then cruise the last few miles and enjoy the view having learnt something new about your abilities