Professional Cycling - hill climb question

can someone explain the hill climb categories to me? whats the hardest and how do they figure them out

Category 4 is the easiest of the rated climbs, Categories 3,2,1 are progressively harder with Hors Categorie (HC, or,above categorization) the hardest.

They are rated on the basis of length and steepness. However there is a fair amount of subjectivity in the ratings, particularly in deciding if something is HC. Where the climb comes in the Stage, road surface and historical significance of the climb can also be factored in.

Thus a climb that would be a Cat 1 climb in the middle of a Stage, may be rated HC if it's a mountain top finish.

Also, the overall profile of the Stage can have an effect. For example, the only hill on a flat stage may get a Cat 4 rating, where a climb of the same length and grade on a mountain stage would not even be rated.


If you look around, you'll find various charts as to grades and lengths for the categories, but I'm not sure there's a definitive one, given the subjective elements.

An HC climb typically would be over 3,000 vertical feet, and above 7% grade. (i.e. L' Alpe de Huez with 3900 vertical, and about 9% average IIRC), On the other end a Cat 4 is going to be several hundred feet over a km or two.

Very informative post, thanks!

I'm not sure if it's apocryphal or anything, but I've read that in the old days the categorization was based on the gear you could climb the hill in while driving an old Citroen 2CV. 4th gear: cat 4. 2nd gear: cat 2. Unclimbable: Hors Categorie.

Go here....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/?id=features/FAQ


you're welcome.

Category 4 is the easiest of the rated climbs, Categories 3,2,1 are progressively harder with Hors Categorie (HC, or,above categorization) the hardest.

They are rated on the basis of length and steepness. However there is a fair amount of subjectivity in the ratings, particularly in deciding if something is HC. Where the climb comes in the Stage, road surface and historical significance of the climb can also be factored in.

Thus a climb that would be a Cat 1 climb in the middle of a Stage, may be rated HC if it's a mountain top finish.

Also, the overall profile of the Stage can have an effect. For example, the only hill on a flat stage may get a Cat 4 rating, where a climb of the same length and grade on a mountain stage would not even be rated.


If you look around, you'll find various charts as to grades and lengths for the categories, but I'm not sure there's a definitive one, given the subjective elements.

An HC climb typically would be over 3,000 vertical feet, and above 7% grade. (i.e. L' Alpe de Huez with 3900 vertical, and about 9% average IIRC), On the other end a Cat 4 is going to be several hundred feet over a km or two.

Nice post, wow. I think hearing from riders, Mont Ventoux (depending from which side you climb it) and Galibier among the toughest climbs ever. Armstrong hated the Ventoux.

I'm not sure if it's apocryphal or anything, but I've read that in the old days the categorization was based on the gear you could climb the hill in while driving an old Citroen 2CV. 4th gear: cat 4. 2nd gear: cat 2. Unclimbable: Hors Categorie.

That would be very cute if it were true. Is it? The 2CV has been around a long time, but the tour has been around longer.

That would be very cute if it were true. Is it? The 2CV has been around a long time, but the tour has been around longer.

They didn't have mountain stages in the early days of the Tour (fixie pre-derailleur). Also, a rating system doesn't neccessarily need coincide with the introduction of mountain stages.

So getting back to the 2cv hypothesis, if true would that mean hc was a hill 2cv couldn't climb?

Go here....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/?id=features/FAQ


you're welcome.


thanks for that link, i've been looking for a payout chart.

Don't forget Mt Zoncolan as one of the hardest in Europe, depending on which side you are going up.