# A nice flat audax wanted



## Tynan (8 Apr 2011)

Howdy

I'm charged with selecting an audax for myself and the wife with 'no hills' she's done a 60 and a 75 miler at a steady sedate pace with no terrible issues other than crawling painfully up anything vaguely uphill so she'd like something flat.

The Four Fords 100km seems to maybe be that more or less

Is 800m of climbing over 100km flat as a pancake in the real world?

I extolling the longer warmer days over the frankly short and cold and in one case very wet days she's seen so far

Ta


----------



## Spinney (8 Apr 2011)

Tynan said:


> Howdy
> 
> I'm charged with selecting an audax for myself and the wife with 'no hills' she's done a 60 and a 75 miler at a steady sedate pace with no terrible issues other than crawling painfully up anything vaguely uphill so she'd like something flat.
> 
> ...



I'd say it depends on where that 800m of climbing is! If it's all in one steep hill, your life will not be worth living....


----------



## PpPete (8 Apr 2011)

800m in 100 km is not "flat as a pancake" but there's probably very few that are flatter.


----------



## zigzag (8 Apr 2011)

i'd agree with PpPete, it will be an enjoyable route rather then dull.


----------



## Banjo (8 Apr 2011)

The South Glos 100 on May 7th could be ideal. 0930 start , very close to Motorway links from M4 or M5 

Starts /finishes in Alveston close to the Severn Bridge. At least a couple of CCers are signed up for it.

My link


----------



## GrasB (8 Apr 2011)

Assuming around 50% climbing & flat/descent a rough guide to hilliness over a decent length ride is:
0-5m/km = flat
5-10m/km = rolling
10-15m/km = slightly hilly
15-20m/km = hilly
20-25m/km = very hilly
>25m/km = insanely hilly.

Bare in mind that in the Alps on a training camp we averaged 23.1m per km of climbing over the entire camp.


----------



## Tynan (8 Apr 2011)

Thanks gents, especially that last guide Gras

And thanks Banjo but we're E London so the Severn is rather a long way


----------



## Nuncio (8 Apr 2011)

As a very rough rule of thumb an average of 10m ascent per kilometer is deemed to be around, or maybe slightly less, than average hilliness for a UK Audax. Of course, East Anglian Audaxes would be hard-pressed to reach that average, as would Welsh and West Country audaxes. So 800m over 100km would be generally thought of as flattish, but far from 'as a pancake'. But if you're gaining this info from the Audax calendar, a note of caution: methods of measuring climbing (contour counting, GPS, computers with climbing measurements based on barometric pressure, mapping websites) can vary considerably, as can, for example, actual readings using a similar method. And a few of the rides published on the calendar can be wildly out. For example, I'll be doing a 200 soon which claims 800m of climbing but which I have recorded 3 times as being over 1600m using my barometric pressure altitude reader (which usually under-reads by about 20-25% compared with other methods). This may be very rare now that there is a central climbing validation man.


----------



## bof (8 Apr 2011)

Actually some rolling rides come out with quite high climb values, but bear in mind that they will contain lots of slopes you can get half way up with momentum. It's the long slogs that feel hilly.


----------



## GrasB (8 Apr 2011)

I did say a rough guide however a high number means that you had to lift the bike up a certain amount of elevation & there is no such thing as a free climbing. To gain kinetic potential energy you've got to climb, to climb requires power, to put power in requires effort, once you've climbed to the top you then turn that potential energy into kinetic energy. Yes it's true a stronger rider might be able to put power in downhill & then use that power a little latter, however you had to put that power into start with. Weaker riders don't have the extra power on tap to do this so simply struggle on gradients no matter how 'rolling' or long they are. In addition to this most riders actually have a higher climbing rate on long drawn out climbs compared to lots of shorter climbs.


----------



## Baggy (9 Apr 2011)

Nuncio said:


> As a very rough rule of thumb an average of 10m ascent per kilometer is deemed to be around, or maybe slightly less, than average hilliness for a UK Audax. Of course, East Anglian Audaxes would be hard-pressed to reach that average, as would Welsh and West Country audaxes. So 800m over 100km would be generally thought of as flattish, but far from 'as a pancake'.


I'm taking that to mean that west country and Welsh Audaxes would be hard pressed to get down to that average - it's pretty lumpy round these parts!


----------



## Glover Fan (9 Apr 2011)

The only way you could create a flat westcountry audax is to do 10 laps of the somerset levels!


----------



## Banjo (9 Apr 2011)

Pity its so far to travel but this nice flat Welsh 100k would have done  







Ask me again tommorow afternoon  .

When I did my first 100 mile ride I did find an incredibly flat route mostly in Wales. Started at Cardiff and followed the coastal road all the way through the Wentlooge and Gwent Levels across the Severn bridge then along the very flat Severn Beach road towards avonmouth. Once past the 50 mile mark I sat on the grass looking over the estuary then turned round and rode back. At the time the thrill of riding the century mattered more than a boring out and back route,though crossing the bridge was a highlight of the day (twice). 






My first Century ride. The little hill is going up to Chepstow then over the highest part of the route is the top of the bridge itself. Great first century as incredibly flat and mostly quiet roads except going through Newport.


----------



## billy1561 (9 Apr 2011)

Apologies for hijacking an interesting thread but can i add a question regarding the type of hill etc. Surely if a rider of say 80kgs is going uphill compared to a bigger rider (me)111kg then there must be a ratio somewhere of the extra effort required pro rata? Some of the rolling hills i have tried almost kill me whereas others seem to ride up with comparitive ease


----------



## Greenbank (10 Apr 2011)

billy1561 said:


> Surely if a rider of say 80kgs is going uphill compared to a bigger rider (me)111kg then there must be a ratio somewhere of the extra effort required pro rata?



Two riders can ride at the same speeds despite one being heavier than the other if they're both fit and have a similar power to weight ratio. Their bodies will have roughly the same composition (i.e. percentage of fat, muscle, etc). The heavier rider will therefore have a greater mass of muscle and be able to produce more power to haul their extra weight along and up.

However, too much extra weight and it'll start going on the body as mainly fat which doesn't contribute to power production and so power-to-weight ratio will drop and the heavier rider will be slower (especially uphill).


----------



## GrasB (10 Apr 2011)

Greenbank said:


> Two riders can ride at the same speeds despite one being heavier than the other if they're both fit and have a similar power to weight ratio. Their bodies will have roughly the same composition (i.e. percentage of fat, muscle, etc). The heavier rider will therefore have a greater mass of muscle and be able to produce more power to haul their extra weight along and up.
> 
> However, too much extra weight and it'll start going on the body as mainly fat which doesn't contribute to power production and so power-to-weight ratio will drop and the heavier rider will be slower (especially uphill).


+1, hovering around the 170lb mark & sub-10% (typically about 8%) body fat, so while I'm heavy for a cyclist I've also got very little excess weight. Net result is I'll out climb most roadies you'll find on the streets. One correction to your above statement is that the heaver rider will need to have a lower body fat % to deliver the PWR of the lighter rider as the muscle power to muscle mass relationship isn't liner.


----------



## billy1561 (10 Apr 2011)

Yep that's just about me then all fat. Although It's definately getting easier the fitter I become. Cheers for the info.


----------



## GrasB (10 Apr 2011)

billy, as you get fitter you'll start to find that you seem to be a powerful rider on the flat/into a headwind. The reason is that you had to develop more power to as the extra weight has meant you've been permanently been doing resistance training compared to riders who were never heavy to start with. Keep up the good work


----------



## Greenbank (10 Apr 2011)

billy1561 said:


> Yep that's just about me then all fat. Although It's definately getting easier the fitter I become. Cheers for the info.



In the early days concentrate on fat burning rather than power/speed training.

Power/speed training will still result in weight loss but not as quickly as going a bit slower to maximise fat loss.

I'm 7kg or so above my preferred summer riding weight, and only a few months to lose it before the big rides begin...


----------



## billy1561 (10 Apr 2011)

Compared to when I started out this time last year, I feel lots fresher and recover much quicker so It's all good


----------



## Nuncio (10 Apr 2011)

Baggy said:


> I'm taking that to mean that west country and Welsh Audaxes would be hard pressed to get down to that average - it's pretty lumpy round these parts!



You take it right!



> The only way you could create a flat westcountry audax is to do 10 laps of the somerset levels!



... a route which could not be validated under Audax rules, I think. (I may be wrong, but I think there are guidelines to prevent this such a route).


----------



## buggi (10 Apr 2011)

Action Medical Research do a ride called the Suffolk Sunrise in ... yep you guessed it, Suffolk. it's 100km or 100m (depending on your mood, you can do either the short or long route) and it's FLAT as a pancake. 

it's a good organised ride, signposted (unlike the audax's) with water stops. you do have to pay to enter, but it goes to charity. they like you to do a minimum sponsorship also, and i think it's about £25. but it is a good day out (i did it, but unfortunately didn't finish thanks to another rider that had me off) but it really is as flat as you're gonna get. I came off at 71 miles but i think in that 71 miles the worst hill was probably about 3 or 4% and 20 yards long. It's a great ride for a first 100, be it km or miles

Other than that, i think if you really want flat you need to look at Audax's in certain areas. Obviously Suffolk being one of them, but i think Norfolk is flat and Somerset. Never been to either so i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## Tynan (11 Apr 2011)

The Four Fords is indeed in Suffolk

pay to enter and get sponsorship!

This noob thinks the route finding is half the fun

do tell the story of being offed by another


----------

