How much ascent before a route is no longer flat?

penski
penski Posts: 124
edited June 2017 in Road beginners
I frequently ride a 20 mile loop route where total feet climbed can be 550, and also a 30 mile loop route where there can be 1000 feet of climbing.

For me, the 20 miler is flat, and I refer to it as flat. However, my cycling buddy thinks that it is hilly.

So how much ascent can there be before a flat route can no longer be deemed as flat?

Comments

  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 16,560
    that ascent over 20 miles doesn't sound hilly to me, it's only about 0.5%, even if it's got one short climb it won't turn it into a hilly route

    but in general, it depends on the overall profile of the route, not simply distance and ascent

    taking two extremes, a 100km route with 1km ascent, i.e. 1%, could be very gentle or it could be pan flat for 90km with a nasty 1km ascent over the last 10km

    either way you climb 1km, but is that first example hilly? for that matter is the second, most of it was flat

    as % increases, it gets more likely that a route can be called hilly, irrespective of profile
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • slowmart
    slowmart Posts: 4,481
    edited June 2017
    11 miles and 1970 ft of climbing was hilly for me earlier today.

    It's all relative, ask a local cyclist in the Dolomites and you'll get another perspective.

    I've recently done a bit of riding in Lincolnshire and can be lumpy but its not often your not turning the pedals as its flat and windy.
    “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”

    Desmond Tutu
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    Your pal is a wuss. Take him on a hilly ride to set him right.
  • thefd
    thefd Posts: 1,021
    1000 feet per 10 miles is relatively hilly.
    2017 - Caadx
    2016 - Cervelo R3
    2013 - R872
    2010 - Spesh Tarmac
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,447
    My regular 20 mile and 36 mile loops have 1,000 and over 2,000ft of climbing respectively, and I class those as rolling terrain. They're not hilly. All my other rides are into the Peak District, where as above I'd class anything around 10ft per mile as hilly.
  • ben@31
    ben@31 Posts: 2,327
    I agree it depends on the profile. Does it look like sharks teeth or like a pancake.
    I've done some cycling around East Anglia and Lincolnshire and on the profile you could see where I cycled over a humb-back bridge !!
    "The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby
  • penski
    penski Posts: 124
    NorvernRob wrote:
    All my other rides are into the Peak District, where as above I'd class anything around 10ft per mile as hilly.

    Am I reading this correctly, you are saying anything around 10ft/mile is hilly? 100 feet per 10 miles?
  • burnthesheep
    burnthesheep Posts: 675
    TheFD wrote:
    1000 feet per 10 miles is relatively hilly.

    I agree with this. I have a local route of 1000 ft per 10 mi that's about 30 miles. I avg'd 15mph on this with some time lost descending on fire-road inside of a local forest park that I use for a few miles to get across town.

    1000 ft per 10 miles is very fair. As a 10000ft 100 mi ride is fairly epic for a recreational rider. I would consider 150 ft per mile bordering on being steep for veterans, semi pro, and pro.

    In the US, the Assault on Mt. Mitchel event is 15000 ft and 103 miles, the DNF rate on that course is very high. Last 20 miles is an HC climb. The course is one-way, up hill the entire way into the mountains.

    1000 ft per 10 miles would be 70% as difficult as that absolutely epic course.
    500 ft per 10 miles would be about 1/3 as difficult as an epic course.

    I dare say hilly begins at half the elevation of an epic course then, so 75 ft per mile. Depends on % grade of some climbs of course, but still.......
  • myideal
    myideal Posts: 231
    NorvernRob wrote:
    My regular 20 mile and 36 mile loops have 1,000 and over 2,000ft of climbing respectively, and I class those as rolling terrain. They're not hilly. All my other rides are into the Peak District, where as above I'd class anything around 10ft per mile as hilly.

    That heading into Buxton or the Staffs Moorlands by any chance? That is about what I achieve on some of my 40milers around that area.
  • milemuncher1
    milemuncher1 Posts: 1,472
    Anything less than 100 feet ascent per mile ridden is flat.
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,447
    Penski wrote:
    NorvernRob wrote:
    All my other rides are into the Peak District, where as above I'd class anything around 10ft per mile as hilly.

    Am I reading this correctly, you are saying anything around 10ft/mile is hilly? 100 feet per 10 miles?

    I missed a zero :lol: 100ft per mile it should have said!
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,447
    myideal wrote:
    NorvernRob wrote:
    My regular 20 mile and 36 mile loops have 1,000 and over 2,000ft of climbing respectively, and I class those as rolling terrain. They're not hilly. All my other rides are into the Peak District, where as above I'd class anything around 10ft per mile as hilly.

    That heading into Buxton or the Staffs Moorlands by any chance? That is about what I achieve on some of my 40milers around that area.

    No, I'm the other side of Sheffield to the Peaks so my local loops are in the opposite direction, heading out towards Doncaster. If I turn right out of my door heading towards the Peaks I climb 400ft in the first two miles. That's a decent warm up!
  • burnthesheep
    burnthesheep Posts: 675
    Milemuncher1 wrote:
    Anything less than 100 feet ascent per mile ridden is flat.

    To add to my above post, I'll use this quote as an example.

    This quote is very misleading unless it refers to a point to point route. How many of us ride point to point like a pro bike stage? Most routes are out-back or some kind of large loop.

    Given this is true, you always end where you began. Since that's true, half your time will be spent going up and half going down.

    If ALL the time is spent going up, then less than 100 ft per mile COULD be flat. But, on an out-back or loop, it's not flat.

    Divide the distance by 2 and that could be the effective distance spent accumulating your elevation gain.

    So not 3000 ft in a 30 mile ride, but actually the equivalent of 3000 ft in 15 miles. Or 200 ft per mile.

    If it is point to point....3000 ft in 30 miles is much flatter than an out-back of the same. Literally double. Or rather, you did 15 miles at an average ascent of nearly 4%.

    "Anything below 4%" is not flat. Roads with extended 6% or more get a sign stating the danger to vehicles.
  • milemuncher1
    milemuncher1 Posts: 1,472
    A route can be pancake flat for many miles,then hit a 25% gradient, which lasts for less than one mile, that's not "flat" either, but would appear to be, to the uninitiated.
  • Joshgav
    Joshgav Posts: 158
    I did 500m of climbing in a 38km ride on Tuesday. Felt hilly to me!
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,803
    The 100ft a mile rule was created by a bunch of c*ck wavers trying to make others feel inadequate. The same folk who file themselves under the 'proper cyclist' tag when all they're really doing is riding a bicycle.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Milemuncher1 wrote:
    Given this is true, you always end where you began. Since that's true, half your time will be spent going up and half going down.

    Not really. I spend way more time going uphill than going down ;)
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Oh, and I'd say 50 ft per mile is hilly. But it's the most I can seem to get where I live.
  • OMark
    OMark Posts: 23
    For me it really depends on the length of the climbs, if there are tons of small rollers vs, several longer extended climbs and the rest flat. But a rough range for 'hilly' would be 100-200ft per mile for me.

Categories