What do you consider a decent climb?

imafatman

As a road bike and hill climbing beginner I just want to get peoples opinions from the perspective of a hobbyist of what is considered good climb.

I'm in the south of France currently and enjoying the empty roads and perfect weather. I did a ride yesterday and I apparently did 900m total elevation over 50km.
(Average between my Strava + Garmin)

What do you all consider as being a decent climb on your average hill rides?

kawaspresso

Decent climb in my local area is a 1000m climb I think, there are some 1500m+ climbs, and my favorite is a 1900m+ (Col du Galibier from bottom valley)
I live in the French Alps.

myideal

Anything that gets the heart rate in zone 3/4 and you know you have to work hard at.

As you progress an average 2% becomes easy and you start looking for steeper and longee ones. That's all part of progression.

I always set myself a target, starting with first time just to climb it, then every other time it's to do it faster.

Currently the 25% incline at the top of Station Road towards Mow Cop is killing me, just can't get up it all the way. However the target is that within a few weeks I'll be smashing it.

yiannism

Dont compare your self with the others, the guy that you want to beat is your self. The way to get better is to challenge your self all the time. Find a few friends that are better than you, but not way better. This is gonna push you alot, and you will hate bicycle, you gonna feel that you want to quit, but after you finish the climb you will feel like a king. This is gonna make you to want to lose weight to improve your performance. After 5-6 months start over the same routes that you did. You will find your self much much better. Just have in mind that cycling will never be easy. You will just go faster and longer. Just give time to your self, dont rattle and just RIDE.

roger_merriman

As others have said does depend on effort required to a extent, so that absolute distance/height gained doesn't tell the same story.

I.e. Short and steep can be just as hard if not worse! Than longer milder grades

myideal

Also riding out on your own and against the wind I find is a classic to build fitness and sometimes just as good as a climb. It's definitely all about effort and as we get better and stronger we need to look to steeper / increased number of climbs. It's all part of the joys of fitness and cycling!

burnthesheep

To be able to make it a personal goal thing instead of a universal truth for all.......I would say a "climb" should take the rider more than about 10 minutes.

I feel the classification from 4 to HC is pretty fair and straightforward.

I'd say the more difficult III's and easier II's is where climbing starts to "get real".

I was near the Appalachian mountains for a work day recently. After work I parked the car at the base of a 1000 ft climb and did repeats over and back. Got nearly 2500ft in right at 20 miles counting the distance the descent takes up.

I want to go do the HC Mt. Mitchell climb, 5000 feet in 21 miles. It would likely take me 3 hours. That's going to suck.

ben@31

Different people look for different things. My mate loves real long steady incline slogs. While I love the challenge of doing a big classic hill, something that's a real achevement and daydreaming that for 5 minutes my life isn't boring and I'm not average but instead for 5 epic minutes I'm a (drug free) Marco Pantani on the Alpe d'Huez or Richard Virenque in the polka dot jersey. Unfortunately I'm soon back to reality.
I recommend going to Soller or Pollensa in Mallorca , it's the best cycling ever with hairpin bends and then long long descents. If you like hills you will be in cycling heaven.
I keep on seeing a "100 best climbs in the UK " book. I'd like to make my way through the list and see how many I can tick off.

imafatman

Because I did 900m over 50km on Saturday I found a route today which was 1250m over 60km which I thought wouldn't be too dissimilar.

It was sooo much harder. It was one long slog to the top with very little break. This was the first bike ride in which I questioned my sanity but something at the back of my head told me to keep going.

Hopefully all of this is good practise for the London 2 Brighton but I think I'm going to not ride any hills for a few days and give my legs a bit of a rest with something a little less hilly.

webboo

burnthesheep wrote:

To be able to make it a personal goal thing instead of a universal truth for all.......I would say a "climb" should take the rider more than about 10 minutes.

I feel the classification from 4 to HC is pretty fair and straightforward.

I'd say the more difficult III's and easier II's is where climbing starts to "get real".

I was near the Appalachian mountains for a work day recently. After work I parked the car at the base of a 1000 ft climb and did repeats over and back. Got nearly 2500ft in right at 20 miles counting the distance the descent takes up.

I want to go do the HC Mt. Mitchell climb, 5000 feet in 21 miles. It would likely take me 3 hours. That's going to suck.

You could try something like Rosedale Chimney it should take you less than 10 minutes but at 33% you might remember it for a while.

itboffin

We had this discussion here many years ago and decided that 1000ft per 10 miles is hard climbing obviously theres tons of factors in that calc but its not a bad rule of thumb

My commute is 16 miles half is a gradual climb each way its about 2100ft and I'm pretty used to it but a bad day is a very bad day

dannbodge

Anything with an avg gradient of over 5%

slowbike

YiannisM wrote:

Dont compare your self with the others, the guy that you want to beat is your self.

To a point - but comparing yourself on one climb is not always a good idea.

There's a few climbs around my place ~300m with various options from 15% gradient to a nice gradual 4% - give or take a few %. I can go out and "smash" a climb - as I've done for all of them - and aim for a PB - or I can link the climbs into a longer ride and go for a reasonable time up each one but knowing I'm not going to PB them individually.

burnthesheep

Webboo wrote:

You could try something like Rosedale Chimney it should take you less than 10 minutes but at 33% you might remember it for a while.

Lol, on OEM aero bike gearing that would not work right now.

Break out the MTB cassette.

So, dumb question. Is a climb "failed" if you have to put a foot down? I'm in the US so Rosedale Chimney is a no-go. This Mt. Mitchell climb looks doable in 2.5 hrs. I've ridden that far non-stop, but if you need a 2 minute breather and unclip........is that "failure"? Or is it only failure if you abort the climb and don't crest the top?

I ask as it is a masochistic personal goal kind of thing to do the one climb without a foot down (unless for safety/crash).

thistle_

Something that is rewarding. A decent but enjoyable effort to get up to the top but also with a fast, fun descent.

term1te

Any climb with a good view from the top.

Websta24

I live in east anglia, a decent climb for us is a 25m gain over about 1km haha

drlodge

itboffin wrote:

We had this discussion here many years ago and decided that 1000ft per 10 miles is hard climbing obviously theres tons of factors in that calc but its not a bad rule of thumb

This. A really hard ride would be 100 miles and 10,000ft of climbing, I've only done this a few times mind. The OPs ride is about 30 miles and 3,000ft climbing so roughly follows this rule of thumb.

One big variable is the steepness of the climbs - I find an Alpine climb with a steady 7% is a lot easier than doing the Surrey Hills with 15%-20% bursts. It also depends on the gears you have, now I have a 34-32 combo I should find the steeper hills a bit easier!

term1te

I've got my eye on the Montée de fou in Wallis, Switzerland, 10 km at 13%, but I think you'd need a CX bike as the road isn't paved and the top half is above the tree line. Now that would be a decent climb, and it would have a great view.

roger_merriman

drlodge wrote:

itboffin wrote:

We had this discussion here many years ago and decided that 1000ft per 10 miles is hard climbing obviously theres tons of factors in that calc but its not a bad rule of thumb

This. A really hard ride would be 100 miles and 10,000ft of climbing, I've only done this a few times mind. The OPs ride is about 30 miles and 3,000ft climbing so roughly follows this rule of thumb.

One big variable is the steepness of the climbs - I find an Alpine climb with a steady 7% is a lot easier than doing the Surrey Hills with 15%-20% bursts. It also depends on the gears you have, now I have a 34-32 combo I should find the steeper hills a bit easier!

Indeed the local to my folks are hills like Llangynidr mountain 3 something miles and 7% and cat 2 vs some of the short steep stuff at half a mile but 17%, most will struggle more on the short and steep, and number of folks who will be deafened but the short steep vs the longer shallower. I would say that properly long climbs are different in nothing else because you have to fuel etc up and how long it takes to ride 20 something miles uphill.

itboffin

Back ache used to get me before legs on long alpine climbs, i still prefer a 20% short sharp to a 20 mile 8%

ADH is a bitch for that the first few turns are avg 10% and seem to take an age to pass

davidof

kawaspresso wrote:

Decent climb in my local area is a 1000m climb I think, there are some 1500m+ climbs, and my favorite is a 1900m+ (Col du Galibier from bottom valley)
I live in the French Alps.

When I climb the Galibier from the valley where I live it is more like 2400 meters :-)

but a good climb for me is 500 meters+, that is around half an hour minimum, although generally I'm just warmed up at 500 meters.

itboffin

just rode up a local wall, half a mile or so the middle section is 20% the rest is not much better

I've changed my mind

thegreatdivide

davidof wrote:

kawaspresso wrote:

Decent climb in my local area is a 1000m climb I think, there are some 1500m+ climbs, and my favorite is a 1900m+ (Col du Galibier from bottom valley)
I live in the French Alps.

When I climb the Galibier from the valley where I live it is more like 2400 meters :-)

but a good climb for me is 500 meters+, that is around half an hour minimum, although generally I'm just warmed up at 500 meters.

You're amazing.

Do you also play the trumpet and have long arms?

meanredspider

Most hills are doable provided you have the right gearing and can stay upright. My toughest ride stats are 100 miles and 21500ft - it took about twice as long as a flat century.

A decent climb probably has more to do with the effort you are putting in.

burnthesheep

My two cents or pence, or whatever.........

This comes up a lot also for your entire ride. Was a ride flat, hilly, or mountainous? The answer isn't one-size-fits-all. It depends on your ability level and personal weight also.

To me, at my current state, I'd say for 100 mi: 0-3000 ft is flat, 3000-6000 is hilly, 6000-8000 is foothills of mountains, and 8000+ is mountainous.

All the time I get more talented riders calling 2500 ft in 40 mi pancake flat. Maybe if 25 miles of that route were not flat with all 2500 ft coming in 15 miles.

Look at a map of the route. If you're equally going up and down on an out-back or loop, then divide your total distance by 2 and see what the % grade is for the time spent going up then make a judgement.

ugo.santalucia

300 metres

Matthewfalle

301 metres.

rpherts

myideal wrote:

Also riding out on your own and against the wind I find is a classic to build fitness and sometimes just as good as a climb. It's definitely all about effort and as we get better and stronger we need to look to steeper / increased number of climbs. It's all part of the joys of fitness and cycling!

I'd take a long, gentle climb (< 4%) over riding into the wind any day. At least the hill doesn't constantly batter you in the face.

rpherts

imafatman wrote:

Because I did 900m over 50km on Saturday I found a route today which was 1250m over 60km which I thought wouldn't be too dissimilar.

It was sooo much harder. It was one long slog to the top with very little break. This was the first bike ride in which I questioned my sanity but something at the back of my head told me to keep going.

Hopefully all of this is good practise for the London 2 Brighton but I think I'm going to not ride any hills for a few days and give my legs a bit of a rest with something a little less hilly.

After a long climb it's the little ones which follow which hurt the most.

rpherts

Websta24 wrote:

I live in east anglia, a decent climb for us is a 25m gain over about 1km haha

Gedney Hill is my favourite, altitude 8m.