Road Cycling - What would you consider a "hill"

Would you consider a hill the Alps in france, or the hills around your neighborhood?...I would consider my neighborhood pretty hilly, when going down "hill" with no pedaling im riding at about 25mph.. SO climbing back up that thing is work and it hurts but i enjoy it...so is that a hill?

hill (n.)
1. A well-defined natural elevation smaller than a mountain.
2. A small heap, pile, or mound.
3. A mound of earth piled around and over a plant. A plant thus covered.
4. An incline, especially of a road; a slope.


and yes, my name is Merriam Webster.

NEXT!!!

This fall I rode 60 miles from my house in Sacramento (elev. 25) to Camino (elev. 3200) to meet my wife at Apple Hill. I probably spent 98% of my time in the saddle and in the middle ring. So, I guess I'd call that one long hill. Definitely not a mountain.

Hill: Any stretch of pavement longer than five yards in which you are in any way higher elevated at the end than at the beginning.

Rollers: How one refers to a hill when discussing it with another cyclist who just finished nearly blowing a lung trying to get up it.

Mountain: How one refers to a hill when he knows no one else listening has been on it (see "Eighteen Percent Grade")

http://www.pbase.com/image/20588346

Lugging up Paradox Hill in Colorado, I realized it was a steeper, harder climb than Chestnut Mountain in Illinois.

We used to describe the terrain of our club century as "gently rolling" which is how it seems to us. Chicago flatlanders bellyached about that description. We now call it "challenging" and "hilly."

Hills are subjective.

Would you consider a hill the Alps in france, or the hills around your neighborhood?...I would consider my neighborhood pretty hilly, when going down "hill" with no pedaling im riding at about 25mph.. SO climbing back up that thing is work and it hurts but i enjoy it...so is that a hill?
Perhaps the question should not be "What is a hill?" but "What kind of hill is it?" It would be nice if the severity of a hill is a matter of degree rather than just a Yes/no sort of thing. As we all know, they do it for the Tour de France, with the Cat 1, Cat 2, HC, and so on. Does anyone know what method is used to determine those categories or is it purely subjective? Maybe the same priniciple could be applied to the hills we all ride on as it is a fairly straight forward matter to find the elevation profile of a hill given the mapping software available.

This was a good hill climb.

http://www.town.yashima.akita.jp/english/roadrace/course.htm

The english on it is horrible, i think they used some sort of computer
translation program.

My definition of a hill is any situation where I have to change down to my middle chain ring.

- if I am on the easiest cog with the middle chain-ring, it is a serious hill.
- if I am down to my thrid chain ring, then it is a REALLY serious hill. Almost too the point of walking.

What's a hill? At my age, anything that's not flat!

What's a hill? At my age, anything that's not flat!

Same.

Around here there are things that I call 'hills' that are between 30 metres long and 3 miles long.

A significant hill is one at least 1/3 mile long IMO.

Anything shorter can be ran hard and will not affect my pace very much. I like rollers as they are good places to drop other riders who are not ready to hit em hard.

Long hills are my enemy since I am 30 lbs heavier than the average cyclist. @ 190-195 I am pretty much a heavyweight in the hardcore cycling community.

Perhaps the question should not be "What is a hill?" but "What kind of hill is it?" It would be nice if the severity of a hill is a matter of degree rather than just a Yes/no sort of thing. As we all know, they do it for the Tour de France, with the Cat 1, Cat 2, HC, and so on. Does anyone know what method is used to determine those categories or is it purely subjective? Maybe the same priniciple could be applied to the hills we all ride on as it is a fairly straight forward matter to find the elevation profile of a hill given the mapping software available.

From Lance Armstrong's 1999 TdF website:

"You've know that climbing the mountains in the TdF is really, reaLLY, REALLY hard, and you've heard some numbers kicked around. But then you look at your flat table top and think "Wait a second, just how bad can a 4%, 5% - even a 6% hill be?" Let's find out...

The steepness of a hill/mountain climb is usually expressed in either degrees or percentage (most common and least understood!) and then categorized accordingly. Degrees are easy - just a general characterization of the angle of the hill in relation to the horizon.

But to determine the percent of a grade on an incline, we use the formula: Percent of Grade = Height / Length x 100. For a cyclist, a 10% climb is pretty rough - and a 25% jaunt is extremely difficult. To put things in some perspective for us mere mortals, say you had a 2km climb that went up 100m. Using our handy-dandy formula, you have 5.0% climb ahead of you!

For the Tour de France, climbs are categorized 1, 2 3, or 4 (with 4 being the alleged easy ones) based on height / distance (our percent above), road surface, and the position of the the climb in the race. Then you have the dreaded "Hors" category (pronounced: "oar" category) or: beyond, without peer. At one time these climbs were deemed impossible to get up, but changes in equipment, road conditions, and athleticism have now made them do-able - at least for riders like Lance, anyway! Remember your example climb above? Judging that it's probably newly paved and in the middle of your ride, we'll give you a Cat 5 climb just to be nice! (grin)

Is there some subjectivity (and bravado) in these ratings? Probably - but not too much, the climbs in the Alps and Pyrenees are monsters: Stage 10, Sestrières to L'Alpe d'Huez, has three "Hors" category climbs, 67kms/41miles in length...ugh.

General guidelines:
Category 4 - the lowest category, climbs of 300-1000 feet(100-300m).
Category 3 - climbs of 1000-2000 feet(300-600m).
Category 2 - climbs of 2000-3500 ft.(600-1100m)
Category 1 - climbs of 3500-5000ft(1100-1500m)
Hors Category - the hardest, climbs of 5000ft+(1500m+)

*** Steepness also plays a factor in the rating. Most of the big climbs in the Alps average 7-8% where the big climbs in the Pyrenees average 8-9%."

I'd say that means a "hill", by the TdF classification, has to be at least a 300-ft climb to be called a "hill" (anything less than that would a "rise" or a "bump" or a "slight grade", I guess).

The english on it is horrible, i think they used some sort of computer translation program.

Oh no... very typical of Japanese translations into English. Try reading any instruction manual written in English by a Japanese.

Joji

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not only does it give you a headache. After which you are not even sure if you are wearing your boxers correctly

Does anyone know what method is used to determine those categories or is it purely subjective?

Its partially subjective. You might see a certain climb having a different cat rating one year to the next.

Here, in flat Sweden, any "climb" longer than 300 metres.

In the Alps (or Pyrenees, etc), any climb higher than 300 metres. I have even seen this (http://biketouring.eurotourism.net/album/images/2001_042_innancamping.jpg) referred to as a hill...

BTW, if they followed those guidelines strictly Alpe d'Huez (http://www.ciclomaniac.com/altimetria.asp?ID=Alpe+d'Huez+-+versante+Sud&racetype=climb) would be a Cat 2 climb since it climbs less than 1100 metres ;).

/Csson

Well we use to say about a girl in high school,she flatter then 2 bebe's on a breadboard.Pretty flat around here.

<SNIP>. I have even seen this (http://biketouring.eurotourism.net/album/images/2001_042_innancamping.jpg) referred to as a hill...

/Csson


Around here we would call that "a slight incline."

Most of the hills around here are rollers, less than 50 yards long and hardly ever over 50 ft high. I worked into riding up these faster and faster, and I thought I was doing great! Alas, I went a few counties over, to ride with one of my coworkers. There I encountered hills that where 200-500 yards long with 100ft+ rise. Boy did these take the wind out of my sails! :D I have since sought out the largest, nastiest hills in our county for traning and have learned to like them. I have learned to enbrace the hills, while despising the wind! The wind, now that is the invisable hill, the hill that has no end! :mad:

The more I ride, the more I learn to judge how to attack, in my case peck away at, the hill. What killed me on the biger hills was trying to hit them like the ones around home, power up them fast then recover over the top. The longer hills ate my lunch! I would burn out faster than a roman candle on the 4th of July, because I was putting out too much in the first half of the rise.

Take heart Hammer, I rode the same course monday, the one in another county, and noticed I made it up the hills about 4 mph faster than I did last year. Now if I can just get that extra 20lbs or so off my, WOOPS, save that for another thread. :D

A hill = praying for it to end followed by a 40-50 mph
decent, quickly followed by another and another and another.... bliss!

www.belfastandbeyond.com

Perhaps the question should not be "What is a hill?" but "What kind of hill is it?" It would be nice if the severity of a hill is a matter of degree rather than just a Yes/no sort of thing. As we all know, they do it for the Tour de France, with the Cat 1, Cat 2, HC, and so on. Does anyone know what method is used to determine those categories or is it purely subjective? Maybe the same priniciple could be applied to the hills we all ride on as it is a fairly straight forward matter to find the elevation profile of a hill given the mapping software available.

There's a pretty good answer to the Cat question elsewhere in this forum. Net: the rating depends on the elevation climbed and when the climb occurs in the Stage. Gradient matters but is not the sole determinant.

So, it would be pretty hard to rate your local climbs using the UCI's approach - riders approach them from different distances out and maybe by different routes. Gradient is the only standard measure for local climbs as it has nothing to do with what's gone on before the climb (or how your legs feels if you've been hammering for 75 miles before you get to the base).

For me, a hill (meaning a climb) has to have three factors: be at least 4% (4 feet of vertical climb for every 100 feet forward), run at least 1/3 mile and cause me to move out one cog to maintain cadence or speed before the top. Anything less than that is bump in the road. ;)

I not knowledge you what matters wrong with translation. It observes to me be just fine. :D

I agree that we are subjective in what we call hills. The climbs I call serious hills are the ones on which I have a difficult time keeping the front wheel on the ground, no matter how short they are, and the ones long enough and steep enough that, a third of the way up them, I start telling myself that I could put some larger cogs on the bike.

I think all we have here in Columbus, OH is bumps in the road. So, almost anything that isnt flat is a hill to me.

I'm 54 and still refuse a triple chainring. If I can't stay on the bike, it is a hill.

I live (well go to uni actually) in Bath in the UK. The uni is at the top of a 11% hill which is over a mile long. I can manage that on a double. There is also Cheddar gorge (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/tandemadventures/endtoend/e2e-05a.jpg) which is about the steepest hill in my part of the country. Also good fun on a double!

Coming from where I love, we call hills bridges. We call this area the Lowcountry for good reason.

If I get tired going up, and have fun coming down, it's a hill.

If my heart rate monitor stays below 130 and my breathing is normal, then it is a hill and not a mountain.

ANYTHING that goes up.

What would you consider a "hill"
I ride in the Houston, TX area -- I wouldn't know. :D

I live (well go to uni actually) in Bath in the UK. The uni is at the top of a 11% hill which is over a mile long. I can manage that on a double. There is also Cheddar gorge (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/tandemadventures/endtoend/e2e-05a.jpg) which is about the steepest hill in my part of the country. Also good fun on a double!
I remember in '60 or '61, I took part in a London/Bath/London enduro' ride 210miles I was 14 yrs old I remember being pissed of as I got in within the adult time 14hrs I think, but I only got credited with a junior cert. which was 17hrs. I also remeber my freind & myself stopping to buy some stawberry's at the side of the road on the return leg, the best strawberry's I've ever tasted!

I ride in the Houston, TX area -- I wouldn't know. :D
Grendel,
I believe that Hills are those things that go over I45. :lol:

Marty

One of my favorite rides goes up a hill commonly refered too as the 'back side of mountain lake' here in Virginia. Greg Lemond almost fell off his bike going up it in the Tour Dupont circa 1993-94. It's one hell of a hill!

Depends on if I'm on a recovery ride or not!