# It's not the miles, but the elevation



## amandasmile (20 Oct 2017)

So when people start cycling, they tend to get all excited about the century mark, i was no different but i've realized that i no longer plan my cycling activities around the number of miles i do , but how many feet i climb and what climbs i feel like attacking that day. That and what scenery will turn me on.

Wondering how many of you focus more on altitude versus distance.


----------



## gbb (20 Oct 2017)

Climbing only interested me personally as a means to get a more immediate harder workout. But, in a circuit every foot climbed is a foot downhill where the workout isn't as intense. Looking at my former stats, say a 50 miles ride,whether its a flat ride, a hilly one, a windy day or a still one...the averages almost always worked out pretty much the same.


----------



## ianrauk (20 Oct 2017)

It also depends on the area of where you live.

Some people like @nickyboy have no choice but to do rides based on elevation rather then distance. Others in the east of the country have very little on the way of climbing. Luckily in the SE we have a nice mix of the two.

Where are you based @amandasmile ?


----------



## Drago (20 Oct 2017)

Elevation itself is problematic as an indicator. None of it will all be at the same gradient, and even within a few metres on the same climb the gradient can change. At least you know where you stand with a mile - each one will always be a mile long.


----------



## PaulSB (20 Oct 2017)

Living in Lancashire our choice is flat out towards the Fylde and/or Southport and the Mosses. To get the best scenery one needs to head for the hilly Ribble Valley. Though having said that we managed 95 miles to Silverdale with only 3500 feet on Wednesday so it’s possible with careful planning.

Like @gbb when riding solo I use local climbs to train. When riding with friends we chose the scenery and challenges we fancy on the day.


----------



## dave r (20 Oct 2017)

I do most of my rides in rolling Warwickshire countryside, lots of small hills but very few major climbs, I'd have trouble accumulating a lot of elevation without doing hill reps on one of the bigger hills.


----------



## Will Spin (20 Oct 2017)

I ride around the South Downs area so plenty of hills. I prefer a hilly ride for the variety of countryside and I think I get a more intense workout if there are plenty of hills involved. Overall though, it seems to me that 2 hours riding on the flat seems to take more effort than 2 hours riding through hilly country as you never get a rest whilst freewheeling!


----------



## Johnno260 (20 Oct 2017)

I'm lucky great combo of climbs and flats I can't complain at all.

I really want to attempt my first century in the new year.


----------



## welsh dragon (20 Oct 2017)

I don't like hills. My rides consist of just enjoying myself however short or long the distance. People can become obsessed with distance, elevation, speed, how how many calories you burn ETC.

I really can't be bothered with all that. Where i live is very hilly, so i look for flatter routes. Suits me much better.


----------



## Threevok (20 Oct 2017)

Living around here, I tend to concentrate on altitude more than distance.

After all, if you were to iron out Wales it would be bigger than Texas


----------



## Aravis (20 Oct 2017)

In January, when I switched from a Garmin Edge 200 to a 520, I started doing twice as much climbing. My mileage has stayed the same.

As a somewhat more useful bit of input, I often find the elevation prediction on RwGPS's planning tool extremely useful. I have a chance next week for a ride in a hilly area I don't know, and it's good to know that what I'm planning is likely to be within my capability.

Targeting a particular amount of climbing? I think it could happen, but miles, scenery, and new roads are always going to be higher priorities.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (20 Oct 2017)

Depends on how fit I am. If I'm fit then it's miles plus a modicum of elevation - although not too much of the latter as I'm never _that_ fit. If I'm not fit then it's miles and elevation avoidance - as best as I can avoid it in the Lake District.

Scenery (especially when the lovely Mrs Spokey is waving me off from the front window of the house) is always lovely here so I don't consciously factor that in.


----------



## mjr (20 Oct 2017)

gbb said:


> Climbing only interested me personally as a means to get a more immediate harder workout. But, in a circuit every foot climbed is a foot downhill where the workout isn't as intense. Looking at my former stats, say a 50 miles ride,whether its a flat ride, a hilly one, a windy day or a still one...the averages almost always worked out pretty much the same.


If you want to make life harder, try riding more uphill than down and getting a train home, or more into a headwind and getting a train, or aligning most long gentle downhills with the headwind while trying to avoid climbing with tailwinds - I've done most of those accidentally at various times and the last one especially can make a ride as tough as one about twice as long!


----------



## Rooster1 (20 Oct 2017)

I used to ride more for miles. As i've got gradually better at hills (and then worse again) i've tried to do more climbing in my rides than previous years.
This year I am at 166,000 Feet and I still have two months to go for the year - last year 166,000 feet was my total so I reckon I can do 200,000 by the end of the year - with 5000 miles.


----------



## Supersuperleeds (20 Oct 2017)

All about the miles for me, I'm more than happy to avoid a hill and increase the mileage.


----------



## petek (20 Oct 2017)

ianrauk said:


> It also depends on the area of where you live.
> 
> Some people like @nickyboy have no choice but to do rides based on elevation rather then distance. Others in the east of the country have very little on the way of climbing. Luckily in the SE we have a nice mix of the two.
> 
> Where are you based @amandasmile ?


+1
Very flat round these parts but we do have some short and steep 'pullovers' onto the sea defence wall and a couple of hills. I don't do much by way of mileage either, maybe 7 to 10 miles most days. BUT one thing I have noticed about what bit of climbing I tackle. Some slopes I had to get off and push with my old three speed bike. Since getting this five speed bike, I don't need to get off. Five speed first gear seems lower and kinder than was the first gear on the three speed.


----------



## Threevok (20 Oct 2017)

Typical sort of outing for me - 4,000ft (ish) elevation in 53 miles

https://www.strava.com/activities/395386918


----------



## si_c (20 Oct 2017)

I live in a very flat area of the country. Some of the local loops are ridiculously flat. If I'm doing a century ride, I'll usually head into North Wales though, which gets significantly hillier very quickly. But I plan rides around distance rather than climbing, I'd rather plan to get somewhere, and then deal with the elevation as it comes.


----------



## Ajax Bay (20 Oct 2017)

I plan for distance but look for climbing if the conditions are good. Devon offers huge variety, day to day. I can get as much as 1700m in a 100km or as little as 800m. Last year's averages (across UK and abroad, not just Devon) were 135km long and 1524m of climb (I don't do short rides).

When planning, how much climb is equivalent to how far? My rule of thumb is that 40m more climb on a route will take the same amount longer as if the route is 1km longer (for imperialists: an extra 200ft roughly the same as an extra mile (round figures)). I would be interested to hear what others' take is on this, nevertheless appreciating that the extra climb will cost strong climbers less and that the differential also depends on the quality of the associated/implicit descent on the hillier route.


----------



## rugby bloke (20 Oct 2017)

I always plan on distance - the countryside around me is fairly uniformly rolling so the climbing will be pretty much the same whatever route I take. I find the wind is as much as a factor. Any ride with a long drag into headwind is going to be hard work on my wobbly legs.


----------



## Ajax Bay (20 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I decided that there was no forumula that fitted my data.


Except Cycle Chat, of course!


----------



## Welsh wheels (20 Oct 2017)

amandasmile said:


> So when people start cycling, they tend to get all excited about the century mark, i was no different but i've realized that i no longer plan my cycling activities around the number of miles i do , but how many feet i climb and what climbs i feel like attacking that day. That and what scenery will turn me on.
> 
> Wondering how many of you focus more on altitude versus distance.


I will be focusing more on elevation than miles over the winter, as weather and light will limit my riding time.


----------



## Sea of vapours (20 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5005690, member: 9609"]If it wasn't for hills I doubt I would ride a bike,[/QUOTE]

I entirely agree with that. That's not to say that I choose routes based solely on elevation though - it's too variable in aspects like density, consistency of gradient and the nature of the downhill bits. 

Similarly, I don't really think there's a relaible equivalent of Naismith's rule for cycling. Such a rule would have to be way more complex than even the versions of Naismith which factor in terrain, load, weather and fitness. I have just considered two routes of approximately 60km each from my house, each being about the same elevation gain of just under one thousand metres. Time-wise - and I just checked this on my records of each loop - they vary by 10-20%, with the one which includes short, steep bits being slower than the one with consistent gradients (a double effect since whilst I do go down 4% gradients at 60kph+, I go down 20%+ gradients very slowly indeed). 

So yes, I find elevation far more interesting in all respects, but I still plan routes initially on distance and then consider whether it's: less than a thousand metres of up per 100km ('flat'); 1,000-2,000m up per 100km ('normal)'; or over 2,000m up per 100km ('distressingly hilly'). 

It's also interesting how perspective makes a huge difference. I'm pretty sure someone said above that they head to the Ribble Valley when they want 'hilly', whereas I actively consider the Ribble Valley the only area to head to from here to create a 'flat' route.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Oct 2017)

Sea of vapours said:


> I, I go down 20%+ gradients very slowly indeed).



Not as slowly as me.

I reckon almost anyone can rattle along at a good pace on the flat on a lightweight road bike, that must be true because I can.

But any sort of gradient on a push bike wipes me out.

So in terms of fitness, it's certainly the elevation not the miles that count.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Oct 2017)

Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...


----------



## Threevok (20 Oct 2017)

Marmion said:


> Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...



Indeed. I always go out for a period of time (for as long as I am allow out - that is). Distance and elevation are more of a biproduct


----------



## Aravis (20 Oct 2017)

Just a theory really, possibly relevant to a several comments that have been made. I think that most cyclists probably have a optimal climbing ratio, enough to keep the legs and mind interested; any flatter and the ride starts to become more difficult for reasons other than climbing content. 

I'm not going to say where I think my threshold is; suffice to say I don't hit 1000m in every 100km very often. I didn't say never!

A very good thread though. It's suggested a number of ways in which challenges could be made more interesting.


----------



## Jody (20 Oct 2017)

Elevation always trumps mileage for me. 20 miles off road in the peak district at 5mph average with 3,000+ft of climbing tires me out a lot more than the 100 mile run we did to the coast through Lincolnshire at 17mph+ average.


----------



## Low Gear Guy (20 Oct 2017)

Marmion said:


> Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...


I normally sneak out of the house muttering I'll only be a couple of hours honestly'.


----------



## mjr (20 Oct 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> I reckon almost anyone can rattle along at a good pace on the flat on a lightweight road bike, that must be true because I can.
> 
> But any sort of gradient on a push bike wipes me out.
> 
> So in terms of fitness, it's certainly the elevation not the miles that count.


I'm not sure of that. I can climb OK (more easily on the road bike or hybrid with lower gears than the folder or roadsters, of course) but my flat pace is pretty poor, especially if the surface is at all rough... and so I moved from the Mendips to the fens  oh well, it's good to do what challenges you, isn't it?


----------



## ColinJ (20 Oct 2017)

Sea of vapours said:


> It's also interesting how perspective makes a huge difference. I'm pretty sure someone said above that they head to the Ribble Valley when they want 'hilly', whereas I actively consider the Ribble Valley the only area to head to from here to create a 'flat' route.


I was thinking that too, though I think of it more as 'undulating'!

I had intended to ride out there to do Longridge Fell/Chipping/Whitewell/Cow Ark today for my October metric century but the weather put me off. Monday is looking better for it.

It is possible to do some very hilly rides out there but there are more flattish possibilities than round here. I have the busy flattish A646/A6033 roads to ride here, but apart from those everything else is either hilly or _very_ hilly.

It is very rare for my rides in this area to be less than 10 metres of climbing per km. Typically, it would be more like a hilly 20 metres per km and sometimes a very hilly 25+ metres per km. 2,000 metres in 100 km would be ~6,500 ft in 62 miles so I would agree with 100+ ft of climbing per mile as being a hilly ride.

I like the challenge of the hills, the views from the summits, and the speed of the descents but I would also like to be able to do more flat rides without having to travel far to get to them. If I lived somewhere near (say) Preston, Wetherby or Macclesfield, I would have hills in one direction and flatlands in the opposite direction. That would probably be ideal for me.


----------



## nickyboy (20 Oct 2017)

ianrauk said:


> It also depends on the area of where you live.
> 
> Some people like @nickyboy have no choice but to do rides based on elevation rather then distance. Others in the east of the country have very little on the way of climbing. Luckily in the SE we have a nice mix of the two.
> 
> Where are you based @amandasmile ?



How true...I keep inviting folk for a "nice ride around these parts" but strangely enough I'm not getting any takers

I will plan a route based on ft/mile of climbing depending on how hard I want to make it. A long ride out to Cheshire and back may be as low as 40ft/mile, an intentionally tough loop here would be 120ft/mile (that's the equivalent of climbing 4.5% and descending the same the whole ride, no flat at all). Standard is 100ft/mile. As a result I find it difficult to do more than 60 miles (and thus 6,000ft of climbing) per ride

I think the longest ride I've ever done in the Peak District is about 80 miles and that all but killed me


----------



## presta (20 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I have given this much thought. I've pored over spreadsheets. I've tried formulae. My conclusion is: I don't know.
> 
> When walking there's some kind of formula that they use. I decided that there was no forumula that fitted my data.


Excel will do regression for you if you download the analysis tool pack:

First click: File>Add-ins>Options>Manage Excel Add-ins>Analysis Tool pack>OK
then click: Data>Data Analysis>Regression>OK


----------



## ColinJ (20 Oct 2017)

nickyboy said:


> I think the longest ride I've ever done in the Peak District is about 80 miles and that all but killed me


I have ridden 140 miles in a day across West Yorkshire, right down the length of the Peak District and then onwards to Coventry. You are probably as fit as I was then or fitter than I was so if 80 Peak District miles is killing you then I think that maybe you are not pacing yourself well, or you are over-geared? (Or you don't eat and/or drink enough.) I only averaged about 11.5 mph on that ride (including stops) and my bottom gear was 26/28.


----------



## FishFright (20 Oct 2017)

Marmion said:


> Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...



Me. I used to care about time,distance, altitude gain etc but then I realised what I actually like to do is go out for a ride for a few hours and having a nice time .

Say no to suffering, unless you're racing of course.


----------



## nickyboy (20 Oct 2017)

ColinJ said:


> I have ridden 140 miles in a day across West Yorkshire, right down the length of the Peak District and then onwards to Coventry. You are probably as fit as I was then or fitter than I was so if 80 Peak District miles is killing you then I think that maybe you are not pacing yourself well, or you are over-geared? (Or you don't eat and/or drink enough.) I only averaged about 11.5 mph on that ride (including stops) and my bottom gear was 26/28.



It included 9,000ft of climbing. And I guess that's the point. I could probably manage 140 miles with 9,000ft of climbing. But doing it in 80 miles was a real killer


----------



## ColinJ (20 Oct 2017)

nickyboy said:


> It included 9,000ft of climbing. And I guess that's the point. I could probably manage 140 miles with 9,000ft of climbing. But doing it in 80 miles was a real killer


That is pretty hilly but I still think you could cope with that ok if you slowed down a bit.

Our local Season of Mists audax is 104 km with 2,550 metres of climbing (65 miles, 8,400 ft) and I get round that ok but I take about 7 hours these days. I did it in 6 hours in the past. I suspect that you would do it sub-6 hours and wonder why you were knackered!


----------



## 400bhp (20 Oct 2017)

gbb said:


> Climbing only interested me personally as a means to get a more immediate harder workout. But, in a circuit every foot climbed is a foot downhill where the workout isn't as intense. Looking at my former stats, say a 50 miles ride,whether its a flat ride, a hilly one, a windy day or a still one...the averages almost always worked out pretty much the same.



Something doesn’t stack up here for two main reasons. 1. Time spent going uphill is much greater than time spent going down do would expect average speed to be lower on a loop. And 2. Effort is broadly exponential so holding a particular average speed on a hilly loop requires more effort than a constant effort on a flat loop.


----------



## gbb (20 Oct 2017)

400bhp said:


> Something doesn’t stack up here for two main reasons. 1. Time spent going uphill is much greater than time spent going down do would expect average speed to be lower on a loop. And 2. Effort is broadly exponential so holding a particular average speed on a hilly loop requires more effort than a constant effort on a flat loop.


|I can only say as i find. I used to be a bit anal about my stats, i could do say a standard 50 mile ride and whatever the conditions or route, my times never varied that much. Bear in mind there are hills and hills. Mine tended to be rolling inclines (Northants) with occasional maybe 1 mile uphill at the most, many not that far. Over those 50 miles i seem to remember there'd be around 1000 ft of climbing, perhaps not much really.

If i went to Wales or similar, i'm sure you'd be right...proper hills, like wot we aint got here


----------



## roadrash (20 Oct 2017)

Marmion said:


> Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...



I usually don't make plans for a specific ride I just say right I'm off out for an hour, couple of hours, or whatever, I normally have no idea where I'm going to go either


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Oct 2017)

Yes I pop out for a period. I tend to choose time, quiet lanes, and variety. So I just vary the loops based on how long I intend to be out, what I rode last time, the time of day, and what I fancy. For instance if I am going to be out during sunrise or sunset I might choose a ride that will have a good view of the rising / setting Sun.


----------



## ColinJ (20 Oct 2017)

gbb said:


> |I can only say as i find. I used to be a bit anal about my stats, i could do say a standard 50 mile ride and whatever the conditions or route, my times never varied that much. Bear in mind there are hills and hills. Mine tended to be rolling inclines (Northants) with occasional maybe 1 mile uphill at the most, many not that far. Over those 50 miles i seem to remember there'd be around 1000 ft of climbing, perhaps not much really.


So what you are saying is that you didn't notice much difference in average speed between routes with no hills and other routes with barely any hills ...  

I think round here I could average about 30 kph on the flat for about the same effort as it takes me to do 20 kph over the hills


----------



## classic33 (20 Oct 2017)

If it's elevation only, howabout one of these

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5FSWkjFPxs


----------



## Moodyman (20 Oct 2017)

Big steep hills are fine - you just sit back, gear down and accept it's gonna hurt for a bit, long flat roads are nice as you can cruise along. I find undulating terrain the worst. You never get into a rhythm due to the constantly changing terrain.


----------



## Aravis (21 Oct 2017)

Long hills, steep hills, flat roads, undulating roads - they're all good. Unless we're targeting stupidly steep hills (and I don't do that) we all know we can cope physically with the roads we ride on, but any road can feel tough if the head isn't right.

The thing about the big hills is that they usually cross a significant geographical feature, typically from one river valley to another. So whether its Killhope Cross or the Stelvio, you understand why the road's doing what it's doing. Mentally, the toughest road I can remember tackling (it was a long time ago) was the A68 heading north from Hadrian's Wall, where I had no absolutely no idea what was coming next. But I doubt whether on paper it would have looked especially intimidating.

So, in my experience, understand the landscape and you're almost there. On undulating roads that's not always so easy.

I might target a significant hill as a feature on a ride, but given the choice I'm more likely to navigate away from hills elsewhere. That would imply an elevation profile which is brontosaurus-shaped. Having dabbled a bit with creating artistic ride outlines this year, that gives me an idea...

But, inspired by this thread, I've noticed that with a little effort I could just about reach the 1000m in 100km threshold - sort of. So a change of emphasis could be on the cards. Thanks for that, OP.


----------



## cyberknight (21 Oct 2017)

Dont the pros base work loadon some new fangled figure based on distance, elevation and power output for the day ?


----------



## steveindenmark (21 Oct 2017)

I was reading that Kristof of TCR fame went Everesting in September. 555km in 12 hours. 2 Everests.

I think for Kristof it is both the miles and the elevation.


----------



## Aravis (21 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> This relief map is one of my favourite resources for that.
> https://maps-for-free.com


Could be useful, but I'm not completely in love with it. Having seemingly removed everything else man-made, it's a bit odd that they've left the canal system, which means you can't see the rivers in the English Midlands properly. I wouldn't mind being able to zoom in a bit closer, and points marking major towns would help you to see where you are.

One thing I do like is the perspective it gives to the upper Thames. I've always thought it a bit odd that the source is traditionally taken to be not at the furthest distance from the mouth, but now it makes more sense; the accepted source is the head of the stream that starts furthest west, and the major tributaries coming down from the north do look as though they're joining the main river, even though some of them are longer.

I'm not sure if that could've been more OT. Sorry!


----------



## ColinJ (21 Oct 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> I was reading that Kristof of TCR fame went Everesting in September. 555km in 12 hours. 2 Everests.
> 
> I think for Kristof it is both the miles and the elevation.


46.25 km/hr or 28.7 miles/hr for 12 hours and a huge amount of climbing ... I don't think so!


----------



## Mr Celine (21 Oct 2017)

For me it's either distance or time, but as I always cycle at an average of 15 mph +/- 5% it's a simple calculation. Any ride round here is going to involve some climbing but I never used to keep track of altitude gained.
I joined Strava in January which does track elevation. Unfortunately it won't log distance in miles and elevation in metres, which is how I think.
Apparently I've climbed 172575 feet in 2703 miles. I've no idea if that's hilly or not.


----------



## steveindenmark (22 Oct 2017)

ColinJ said:


> 46.25 km/hr or 28.7 miles/hr for 12 hours and a huge amount of climbing ... I don't think so!


I will double check. I could be wrong.


----------



## steveindenmark (22 Oct 2017)

ColinJ said:


> 46.25 km/hr or 28.7 miles/hr for 12 hours and a huge amount of climbing ... I don't think so!


I was of course totally wrong.

27 hours and 40 minutes.

I can't even keep awake that long.


----------



## Aravis (22 Oct 2017)

Mr Celine said:


> For me it's either distance or time, but as I always cycle at an average of 15 mph +/- 5% it's a simple calculation. Any ride round here is going to involve some climbing but I never used to keep track of altitude gained.
> I joined Strava in January which does track elevation. Unfortunately it won't log distance in miles and elevation in metres, which is how I think.
> Apparently I've climbed 172575 feet in 2703 miles. *I've no idea if that's hilly or not*.


Having related @Dogtrousers "1000 metres in every 100 kilometres" target to my own efforts, it does look like a reasonable thing to aspire to. I've met it on two rides out of 30 this year, which doesn't sound terribly good, but fortunately there are less discouraging ways I can spin it.

The target can be expressed as a mile of climbing for every 100 miles ridden, which is quite neat. A climbing index of 1, if you like. Your figures give an index of just over 1.2, higher than I've achieved on any single ride since I've been using GPS. Others may have a different perspective, but I think that's hilly.


----------



## ColinJ (22 Oct 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> I was of course totally wrong.
> 
> 27 hours and 40 minutes.
> 
> I can't even keep awake that long.


A now plausibly amazing feat!


----------



## presta (22 Oct 2017)

I've just spent a while putting the stats for my last tour through Excel.

I did 82,870' of ascent in 1,400.2 miles, which works out at 59.1' per mile, or 1,119m/100km. That was Essex > Peak district > Dales > Lakes > Kielder > Dales > Peak > Essex, so a mixture of hilly & flat.

Average time spent moving works out at 5m26s per mile plus 26m06s per 1000' of ascent.

Total time including rest is 6m26s per mile, and 43m01s per 1000' ascent.


----------



## User16625 (24 Oct 2017)

gbb said:


> Climbing only interested me personally as a means to get a more immediate harder workout. But, in a circuit every foot climbed is a foot downhill where the workout isn't as intense. Looking at my former stats, say a 50 miles ride,whether its a flat ride, a hilly one, a windy day or a still one...the averages almost always worked out pretty much the same.



Various factors.

I have done a couple of 50 milers. The flatter one was actually harder due to the stop/start nature of traffic lights. The hillier route I just plod along in bottom gear up the long climbs, virtually no stop/start stuff.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2017)

cyberknight said:


> Dont the pros base work loadon some new fangled figure based on distance, elevation and power output for the day ?


No, time and power.


----------



## cyberknight (24 Oct 2017)

400bhp said:


> No, time and power.


yes they do i remembered VAM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAM_(bicycling)


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2017)

cyberknight said:


> yes they do i remembered VAM.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAM_(bicycling)


No they don’t. VAM is not a measure of workload.


----------



## cyberknight (24 Oct 2017)

400bhp said:


> No they don’t. VAM is not a measure of workload.



calculated the following way:
VAM = (metres ascended x 60) / Minutes it took to ascend

A standard unit term with the same meaning is Vm/h, vertical metres per hour; the two are used interchangeably.

The relationship between VAM and relative power output is expressed as follows:

Relative power (Watts/kg) = VAM (metres/hour) / (Gradient factor x 100)
This gradient factor ranges between 2.6 for a gradient of 6% and 3.1 for a gradient of 11%. To work out the gradient factor take 2 + (% grade/10)
1800+ Vm/h: Lance Armstrong.
1650-1800 Vm/h: Top 10 / Tour de France GC or mountain stage winner.
1450-1650 Vm/h: Top 20 / Tour de France GC; top 20 on tough mountain stage.
1300-1450 Vm/h: Finishing Tour de France mountain stages in peloton
1100-1300 Vm/h: The Autobus Crew


----------



## SuperHans123 (24 Oct 2017)

I focus on cycling.
And if there happens to be a hill in the way, I try to pedal up it but if I get too snacked, I unashamedly get off and push.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2017)

cyberknight said:


> calculated the following way:
> VAM = (metres ascended x 60) / Minutes it took to ascend
> 
> A standard unit term with the same meaning is Vm/h, vertical metres per hour; the two are used interchangeably.
> ...



Yes I understand all that but it’s not something the pros use to measure work done. The above is more or less a weighting factor to judge comparisons of different efforts up different climbs, specifically ignoring the use of power metrics. It’s not very scientific.

If they use anything then it’s Training Stress Score or a variant of it. Essentially which looks at power and time.


----------



## SuperHans123 (26 Oct 2017)

My head would fry if I was thinking about all this crap every time I go out on my bike.


----------

