Describing Rides

[ColinJ]

I like this guide to the approximate nature of a ride m climb per km (ft climb per mile):
Flat - 0-5 m/km (0-26ft/m)
Rolling - 5-10 m/km (26-52ft/m)
Moderately hilly - 10-15 m/km (52-78ft/m)
Hilly - 15-20 m/km (78-104ft/m)
Very hill - 20-25 m/km (104-130ft/m)
Insanely hilly - >25 m/km (>130ft/m)

Ah, so SoM is insanely hilly - it has 2,550 m of climbing in 100 km! 

 

[HLaB]

I'm looking for an online tool to do gradient profiles from GPX files - do you know of one? I use Memory Map for plotting routes and it only does altitude and speed profiles.

MapMyRide.com does a gradient profile but so it seems to be struggling today (for me at least)

 

[johnr]

You'll find that with time as you start to get used to riding further distance your perspective on whats hilly and whats far changes.


When I first started riding I can remember trying in vain to get around this ~15mile loop in under 2 hours. At the time I thought I would never break the 2hr barrier for this loop. I can remember struggling up some of the hills in the granny ring of my MTB and having to force myself to keep going to the top of the hill before stopping.

Several years later I rode the same route one evening on a road bike. Even though I was deliberately taking things easy I still comfortably got around the route within the hour and hardly noticed most of the climbs.

+ 1

 

[jimboalee]

There is an old myth involving two newspaper reporters and a very early Renault motorcar.

I tried to understand their logic once..... still confused.

Ditchling Beacon was a fourth cat climb, while a bridge in Normandy over some river was also a fourth cat climb.... ?????

 

[RedBike]

Theres was some myth about car gear ratios and catagories of climb. Something along the lines of if the car needed to use second gear then it was a Cat 2 etc.

Apparently the catagory of a climb is simply desided upon by the organisers of that race. There is no offical messure/grading system.
Climbs are award their catagory status depending upon their length, steepness and where-abouts they appear in a race.

 

[ColinJ]

Ah, so SoM is insanely hilly - it has 2,550 m of climbing in 100 km!   

If you look at the profile I posted, it looks as though almost the entire route is either uphill or downhill and, actually, that's exactly what it feels like! I'd be surprised if even 20 km of the 100 km route was at less than +/-3% gradient. 

When you think about it, if half of the route was uphill and the other half was downhill the average is 5.1% uphill for 50 km and 5.1% downhill for 50 km - now that is hilly!  

 

[marinyork]

I like this guide to the approximate nature of a ride m climb per km (ft climb per mile):
Flat - 0-5 m/km (0-26ft/m)
Rolling - 5-10 m/km (26-52ft/m)
Moderately hilly - 10-15 m/km (52-78ft/m)
Hilly - 15-20 m/km (78-104ft/m)
Very hill - 20-25 m/km (104-130ft/m)
Insanely hilly - >25 m/km (>130ft/m)

It's a reasonable guide (I use a similar description myself) but I'd have put a transformation on it shifting the numbers to the right. I'd say insanely hilly would be more like 1500ft per mile ten miles or greater. I wouldn't describe something that was 1040 ft per 10 miles as very hilly either, it'd just be moderately hilly or hilly.

 

[GrasB]

marinyork, That's evaluating the ride as whole not just the climb & assuming that the ride is looped. That measure actually seems to work very well in the rides I've done in the Alps & lake district. Even in the Alps I found that on a random circular route came out mostly in the very hilly with a few in the hilly & insanely hilly categories.


Or put in another way - by the average gradient when climbing is
Flat 0%<1%
Rolling 1%<2%
Moderately hilly 2%<3%
Hilly 3%<4%
Very hilly 4%<5%
Insanely hilly >5%

 

[ColinJ]

marinyork, That's evaluating the ride as whole not just the climb & assuming that the ride is looped. That measure actually seems to work very well in the rides I've done in the Alps & lake district. Even in the Alps I found that on a random circular route came out mostly in the very hilly with a few in the hilly & insanely hilly categories.


Or put in another way - by the average gradient when climbing is
Flat 0%<1%
Rolling 1%<2%
Moderately hilly 2%<3%
Hilly 3%<4%
Very hilly 4%<5%
Insanely hilly >5%

Yes, that's what I was getting at a few posts back. It struck me that 50 km at 5.1% is quite tough. Given that there were a few stretches of flatter roads in SoM, it was probably more like 40 km at 6+%!

 

[BenScoobert]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us




This is a route I've found lately that incorporates lots of quiet back roads and Parkgate, which has a lovely view of Wales from the coast of Wirral. What I would like to know is, how do you describe it? I do a few flat suburban streets at the end to make it 20 miles, but what would you call it? Flat with a hill? Pan flat with a hill? Flat?

That is a pothole :-)

 

[marinyork]

marinyork, That's evaluating the ride as whole not just the climb & assuming that the ride is looped. That measure actually seems to work very well in the rides I've done in the Alps & lake district. Even in the Alps I found that on a random circular route came out mostly in the very hilly with a few in the hilly & insanely hilly categories.


Or put in another way - by the average gradient when climbing is
Flat 0%<1%
Rolling 1%<2%
Moderately hilly 2%<3%
Hilly 3%<4%
Very hilly 4%<5%
Insanely hilly >5%

Yes, I realise that. I still stand by my comments. It seems a bit generous. By this measure even the training rides I do would be regarded as 'hilly' something I regard as utterly ridiculous.

 

[jimboalee]

What does Audax Altitude Award have to say?

To qualify as a AAA event, with a distance of 100km, the amount of climbing must be more than 1500m. OR,, 1.5% overall.

 

[GrasB]

marinyork, I think that says more about your choice of route & location than anything else, also the length of ride. Even in the 'flat' of cambridgeshire I can find sub-10 mile loops to make routes getting close to 12m/km, once you go further than 15 miles without looping round you're really stuck with around 7m/km maximum.

 

[lukesdad]

This is all abit subjective really. Here in Carmarthenshire most of the land lies above 500 ft and is riddled with steep valleys, The secondary roads tend to go up and over,whilst main roads tend to follow the valleys. Unlike most hiily or moutainous counties the road network is extensive ( not exactly sure why this is,could be something to do with the many tiny villages and small farms). Having ridden in most counties in mainland Britain (lincolnshire being the exception ) the rate at which climbs and descents come and go is mind boggling. Anyway I digress. I would consider a ride with anything up to 1000ft per 10 miles as flat 1000ft to 3000ft as lumpy Over 3000 ft hilly. Needless to say there are not many flat rides and most would be in the lumpy/hilly category. Within a 5 mile radius of my house I can think of over a dozen climbs over 3/4 mile at an average gradient of over 15 % 4 shorter at 20% and 2 at 25% That doesn t include ones I dont ride regularly. My round the block training lap is 3miles long 800ft of climbing not in the hilly category It all depends on your interpretation and what your used to. Repetition I think is the key ,if you are continually climbing and descending with no flat respite and no time to recover( altitude is immaterial IMO as long as the gradient is tough and long enough ) thats a hilly ride.

 

[battered]

I think flat roads have been made illegal around Hebby Bridge I well remember the climb from Bacup (or was it Tod?) and subsequent descent, the climb was MTB granny ring all the way and the descent had the knobblies singing at gawd knows what speed.