Climbing rate per mile?
apprent1ce
Posts: 58
Living in a county that reputedly has no hills, I average 50ft of climbing per mile on my routes. I know this doesn't compare with the counties with the extreme geographical lumpy bits, but, in general, how flat is this?
0
Comments
-
less than 1% average gradient, simplest to call it flat
though if it all comes in one short sharp climb it may not feel like it at that pointmy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I dont think it's that flat. I always regard 1000ft per 10 miles as a very hilly ride. That's 100 per mile, so I would say that half of that is moderately hard.0
-
Difficult to define as it can depend on the type of climbing (short sharp or long drag) and the distribution of the hills (you might do a 100km ride where it's flat for 90km and then you climb a few hundred metres in the last 10km).
But, this is how I see it:
Less than 1% (i.e. less than 1000m per 100km) - flat (with the caveat that it can be skewed by one big climb on an otherwise flat day)
1%-1.5% (1000m-1500m per 100km) - rolling
Greater than 1.5% - getting pretty hilly
Greater than 2% - things are serious
Greater than 2.5% - remember to pack crampons
It isn't impossible to get figures of 3.5% and more with a day in the big mountains.
(I am sure that many of us can wave our willies about what exact amount of climbing we have done in the mountains, but I for one, don't need to!).0 -
Living in a county that reputedly has no hills, I average 50ft of climbing per mile on my routes. I know this doesn't compare with the counties with the extreme geographical lumpy bits, but, in general, how flat is this?
I generally say 1,000ft per 10 miles is a hilly course. Your's is 500ft per 10 miles, so while I wouldn't say it's hilly, it's not flat either.0 -
50ft/mile is what I would call the thin end of hilly. 60 to 70ft/mile is a nice mixed-terrain route, but some of the after work courses we do here are up to 130 ft/mile - that is pretty bumpy by English standards.- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
50ft per mile certainly isn't flat (unless it's all lumped into one climb as others have said). This is the route profile from one of my local 35 mile loops, I'd say it's more rolling than hilly and I go this way if I want a quickish ride instead of going to the Peak District. Near enough every route there is 100ft per mile and you can easily do 120/130ft per mile.
0 -
Living in a county that reputedly has no hills, I average 50ft of climbing per mile on my routes. I know this doesn't compare with the counties with the extreme geographical lumpy bits, but, in general, how flat is this?
I generally say 1,000ft per 10 miles is a hilly course. Your's is 500ft per 10 miles, so while I wouldn't say it's hilly, it's not flat either.
^ this ^Rule #5 // Harden The Feck Up.
Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.0 -
I'm assuming that this is circuit route , so what goes up must come down , so in reality its a 100ft per mile climbing if my math is correct meaning that it could be quite hilly ,ie half route will be descending.last month wilier gt -this month ? bh rc10
-
I'm assuming that this is circuit route , so what goes up must come down , so in reality its a 100ft per mile climbing if my math is correct meaning that it could be quite hilly ,ie half route will be descending.
You are overthinking the ascent rate number...it's an indicator of how tough a course is, so you need to include the bits where you're not going uphill.
Otherwise I could do a 150 mile ride with one 1500 ft, 4 miles long ascent at the beginning and claim it was a 375 ft/mile course.
Nice try though, if you want to big your rides up to your mates
- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
Yep I getvwhat you mean , I just thought that 50% must be ascending and 50%i must be descending to get to the same point ? So the ascending would be over 10 miles if it was a 20 mile course. As you say over thinking bit never measured a ride this way before ,always on altitude gain.
[qsshuote="[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19679365#p19679365]DesWeller[/url]"]I'm assuming that this is circuit route , so what goes up must come down , so in reality its a 100ft per mile climbing if my math is correct meaning that it could be quite hilly ,ie half route will be descending.
You are overthinking the ascent rate number...it's an indicator of how tough a course is, so you need to include the bits where you're not going uphill.
Otherwise I could do a 150 mile ride with one 1500 ft, 4 miles long ascent at the beginning and claim it was a 375 ft/mile course.
Nice try though, if you want to big your rides up to your mates[/quote] last month wilier gt -this month ? bh rc10 -
So where does a 20 mile point to point 164ft ride rank; ironing board or pancake?
0 -
I'm assuming that this is circuit route , so what goes up must come down , so in reality its a 100ft per mile climbing if my math is correct meaning that it could be quite hilly ,ie half route will be descending.
Would you please refrain from using the word maths in the singular sense. I don't mind the evolution of language, but this is one of the most annoying Americanisms that seems to be creeping in from over the Atlantic. It is not cool and quite frankly makes the user sound illiterate and/or stupid. Apologies if it was a typo, but quite frankly there is an edit function. Thank you. Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug0 -
So where does a 20 mile point to point 164ft ride rank; ironing board or pancake?
I suppose it depends on which analogy has the most potential to be extended to other rides.
For instance, would a hilly ride be best defined using the 'food' paradigm, e.g. an undulating ride might be 'bubble-and-squeak territory', whereas a ride with one big climb could be 'riding over a baked alaska'. Or would a domestic household frame of reference be best, e.g. 'floor-of-a-teenager's-bedroom' for the aforementioned undulations?
Now this truly is a topic worthy of discussion.
NB Vman; could you be any more pompous...- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
I don't particularly like the use of 'math' either but not worth getting bothered about as either abbreviation can be used:I'm assuming that this is circuit route , so what goes up must come down , so in reality its a 100ft per mile climbing if my math is correct meaning that it could be quite hilly ,ie half route will be descending.
Would you please refrain from using the word maths in the singular sense. I don't mind the evolution of language, but this is one of the most annoying Americanisms that seems to be creeping in from over the Atlantic. It is not cool and quite frankly makes the user sound illiterate and/or stupid. Apologies if it was a typo, but quite frankly there is an edit function. Thank you.
http://grammarist.com/spelling/math-maths/0
