Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Compare Brevet Courses

I think we all know the distances, but what about the altitude gain? The DC Randonneurs' Urbana 200K is spitefully, chock full of rather steep hills, with the first leg alone easily having over 1000' of 10+% climbs. 8,400 ft of elevation gain in total. :cry:

I'm curious to know how other rides compare. (and yes, I'm looking to see what is easier out there :o) What are the elevation gains on your rides? What about PBP?

Most ride organizers (myself included) try to create the hilliest route we can. Bwa-hahahaha!! :D

We do that because the PBP has something like 30,000 ft of climbing, and since the ultimate goal of doing brevets is to do the PBP, we try to prepare the riders for all that climbing.

That said, "the hilliest route we can" is much different in Manitoba than it is here in Alberta. In Manitoba our routes might have just a few hundred feet of climbing, whereas the routes I've created here have several thousand feet of climbing.

Interestingly, the Manitoba riders have a very good track record for finishing the PBP despite their lack of hills. I suspect it has something to do with the amount of wind and other inclement condititions we face on our routes there.

Standard elevation gain in the UK is 1000 m per 100 km distance. Audax UK's Audax Altitude Award doesn't consider a brevet to start being hilly until hitting 1500 m for a 100 km, 2800 m for a 200 and so on for longer brevet. http://www.aukweb.net/aaa/index.htm Grades steeper than 10% are fairly common in some UK regions.

i wonder if everyone is measuring elevation the same way.. or with the same device.

nonetheless, i love the subject! we definitely have some nice slopes out here in seattle. brevets with passes, brevets with short steep grades, longish steep grades, and brevets with all of the above. i'm sure it's not the hilliest place on earth, but we've got to be up there.

is there a profile for PBP? i always imagine a series of rolling hills, but i'm sure it's more interesting than that.

some stats from rides i've done:

last weekend's 200k: a few Garmin 705 units said about 6,200 ft (1889 m), some apps (WKO) calculated as much as 9k ft.. but it's probably closer to the more conservative estimate. had a ~10% grade for one mile as a highlight towards the end.

three pass 400k brevet from last year: 10,000 ft according to the permanent page (http://permanents.seattlerando.org/2007/02/0189-s-b-s-passes.html) (although they seem to round up and/or give rough estimates).

that one was a blast, but the rolling hills in the last 50 miles just about killed me.

four pass 600k: a lot. the elevation graph is here (http://cyclinginseattle.blogspot.com/2008/05/getting-ready-for-gigantic-ride-four.html).

thebulls uploaded gps data from that ride, motionbased (http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/5950027) calculated 21,519 ft (6558 m) of gain. he also wrote up a nice report of that ride here (http://thedailyrandonneur.wordpress.com/nicks-sir-four-passes-600k-6708/).

cascade 1200k: haven't done this ride, but from the profile (http://www.cascade1200.com/route_profile.html) i'd say it's got "lots" too.

is there a profile for PBP? i always imagine a series of rolling hills, but i'm sure it's more interesting than that.



They call it undulating. I call it tall, steep rollers. The profile goes something like this ...
.

They call it undulating. I call it tall, steep rollers. The profile goes something like this ...
.

Here ... you can find info about the PBP on the official PBP site. :)

This is Stage 1:
http://www.paris-brest-paris.org/EN/index.php?showpage=6313

You can get the rest of the stages by clicking on each one on the left sidebar.

Here's a ride description of a 116 mile brevet I did last year called the D2R2 (http://www.franklinlandtrust.org/randonee.htm):


Put into numbers, D2R2's approximately 116 miles with over 16,500 feet of climbing is longer and hillier than a Tour de France mountain stage, or more climbing than either two ascents of Mt. Evans or three ascents of Mt. Washington. And 80 miles of D2R2 are dirt! By way of comparison, the legendary cobblestones of Paris-Roubaix total only 30 miles of level ground. D2R2's signature climbs are so gravelly and steep that you can't stand up without losing traction. Most riders have to walk at least one hill, and some just fall over on the relentless grades.

Here's a ride description of a 116 mile brevet I did last year

A 116 mile brevet??? The shortest brevet is 200 km or 125 miles.

A 116 mile brevet??? The shortest brevet is 200 km or 125 miles.

Amazingly enough, Machka, there are 100k brevets. I think the proper name, though, is populaire -- which is what the D2R2 is. And believe me, even if the D2R2 is shorter than the regulation 200k, it is the most challenging and most rewarding 180k you will ever ride in North America. As many folks around here say, "it's a century that rides like a double."

Don't shrug your shoulders at the 70 miles of unpaved dirt

... or the multiple +20% grades

... or the cues that say "turn left at stone hut"

... or the 11000 ft of climbing (1/3 the elevation of PBP in 1/10 the distance!)

even if you've done a 1200k like PBP or the RM1200, a measly little 180k like the D2R2 will kick your ass and ask you to prove yourself all over again. It is not a course to be taken lightly.

sorry to get the vernacular inaccurate- I should have said "Randonee". I suppose at such a short distance it's not that impressive a ride but I thought it was an interestingly designed course since like many actual "brevets" it is intentionally jam packed with hills.

Amazingly enough, Machka, there are 100k brevets. I think the proper name, though, is populaire -- which is what the D2R2 is. And believe me, even if the D2R2 is shorter than the regulation 200k, it is the most challenging and most rewarding 180k you will ever ride in North America. As many folks around here say, "it's a century that rides like a double."

Don't shrug your shoulders .


Nowhere in my comment did I "shrug my shoulders" at anything ... you're being unnecessarily sensitive there ... if it's a populaire, it's a populaire, not a brevet and not a randonnee. I made the comment because we've had people try to call completely unsanctioned events "brevets", but riding them wouldn't qualify a person for the PBP.

I think we all know the distances, but what about the altitude gain? The DC Randonneurs' Urbana 200K is spitefully, chock full of rather steep hills, with the first leg alone easily having over 1000' of 10+% climbs. 8,400 ft of elevation gain in total. :cry:

I'm curious to know how other rides compare. (and yes, I'm looking to see what is easier out there :o) What are the elevation gains on your rides? What about PBP?

If your goal is PBP then your aim is to do rides with roughly 1km/3000 ft of climbing per 100km. Any less and you are not training properly for the event. Ideally, the hills should be in a neverending series of steep but short rollers, where every town, rest stop or gas station must be earned by climbing up a small but demanding slope. For a true PBP experience, once you get to the town, rest stop or gas station, there should be a small cluster of spectators present to ply you with tea, coffee or chocolate, but alas, this is not always easy to coordinate in the Americas.

Suffice to say, however, that there will be hills and there might be wind and there will possibly be rain. The hills are going to be a constant, the weather less so, but you should be prepared for all of them and demand the same from the brevets that you ride. You may not like the climbing ... I certainly did not and still don't, but I like the descending and, in France, I like the crepes and cake that is offered to me by hospitable grandmothers at the top of the climb.

I realize that there are some clubs in places like Florida that are not quite suited for short steep rollers. Even the folks who live by the Rockies might only have long, gradual mountain pass climbs to work with. All the same, do the best with what you have. Enjoy the time you get on your bike. However, don't shy away from challenges. Seek out the most difficult routes. You will learn something from the experience, whether you conquer them or if they humble you

Nowhere in my comment did I "shrug my shoulders" at anything ... you're being unnecessarily sensitive there ... if it's a populaire, it's a populaire, not a brevet and not a randonnee. I made the comment because we've had people try to call completely unsanctioned events "brevets", but riding them wouldn't qualify a person for the PBP.

fair enough, Machka. I interpreted your comment as something regarding D2R2 being a 'lesser' event because of its length. In all fairness, the original poster was probably not aware that difference existed between a brevet and populaire, and it might have been better to explain that technically speaking, anything below 200k in distance is referred to as a populaire.

and, for what its worth, the D2R2 is referred to as a populaire by its organizer.

A populaire is still a brevet, just shorter than 200 km and not ratified by the ACP.

A randonnee (literally ramble) is a ride that may or may not be a brevet. Brevet literally translates as certificate and in long-distance riding refers to both the brevet card and the associated event. In cycling a randonnee is some sort of ride and in the long-distance cycling world tends to be interchangeable with brevet. Randonnees are ratified by a range of organisations, although in this forum most of them are ratified by the ACP. In France, most randonnees are ratified by the FFCT. ACP brevets are in the minority most years.

The Brits classify their rides as Brevet Populaire (usually shorter than 200 km and/or reduced average speed), Brevet Randonneur (200+ and standard min/max speeds ratified by Audax UK) and Brevet Randonneur Mondiaux (as per Brevet Randonneur but ratified by the ACP).

...and, for what its worth, the D2R2 is referred to as a populaire by its organizer.

I'm only too happy to defer to both yours and Machka's experience with the terminology around such events, though it is billed both on the website as well as all promotional materials I have seen (including the T-shirt and the pin I have) as the "D2R2 Randonnee"

I am familiar with the terms of brevet, populaire and randonnee and my casual use of the term "brevet", (which I will avoid when posting in this forum in the future!:o), may have to do with the fact that I heard about the D2R2 as part of the "Berkshire Brevet Series". But yes, absolutely, it is not technically a brevet nor does the ride creator, who has extensive brevet experience, ever call it by such a name.

In reality it's just a really gorgeous bike ride through an amazing part of New England. I think it's a favorite of the randonnee/brevet crowd because, though shorter in distance, it offers a fantastic opportunity for some real challenging riding, which would be an ideal prep for a longer, though less intense ride, of brevet length.

In fact, in reference to the OP's question- it's a wise strategy to plan some shorter distance rides with an equivalent amount of elevation gain as a way to prep for the longer distance event. For example, I regularly do a cross state ride of 136 miles with quite a bit of climbing (about 9k-10k feet), after doing the 116 mile D2R2 that 136 mile ride felt much easier.

Eastern PA 200k coming up has 7500 feet of climbing. I'm hoping to make a 200k with 10000 feet of climbing, but I'm getting stuck.

The Atlanta Audax group has a fall 200K that has 22,800 ft of climbing. I've not done it yet, but it's a goal.

Accoring to VeloRoutes, the SiR 300k tomorrow has ~8900' of climbing.

The Atlanta Audax group has a fall 200K that has 22,800 ft of climbing. I've not done it yet, but it's a goal.

Holy crap! Do you bring ropes and a climbing harness? :lol:

The Atlanta Audax group has a fall 200K that has 22,800 ft of climbing. I've not done it yet, but it's a goal.

My scepticism led me to do a little research on this. The 22,800 ft of gain you refer to was derived from Topo map software, which from every comparison I have ever seen, estimates HIGH. The real world numbers from multiple gps and hrm units are in the 16 - 17K area. Anyway, sounds like a brutal ride.

Here is a ride story on it... http://randoboy.blogspot.com/2008/09/hardest-ride-in-america.html

Although not a brevet, we have a similar ride here in Vermont called Six-Gaps.

Read about it here... http://www.northeastcycling.com/six_gaps.html

~

Accoring to VeloRoutes, the SiR 300k tomorrow has ~8900' of climbing.

thanks for mapping out the route! i assume this (http://veloroutes.org/bikemaps/?route=28288) is it.

bikeroutetoaster says (http://bikeroutetoaster.com/Course.aspx?course=40288) a little over 10k of gain for the same 300. actually not too painful sounding for almost 200 miles..

but it will be a lot of little ups and downs, that's for sure. i prefer the long grades in the passes... but there's plenty of time for that later this season.

My scepticism led me to do a little research on this. The 22,800 ft of gain you refer to was derived from Topo map software, which from every comparison I have ever seen, estimates HIGH. The real world numbers from multiple gps and hrm units are in the 16 - 17K area. Anyway, sounds like a brutal ride.

Here is a ride story on it... http://randoboy.blogspot.com/2008/09/hardest-ride-in-america.html

Although not a brevet, we have a similar ride here in Vermont called Six-Gaps.

Read about it here... http://www.northeastcycling.com/six_gaps.html

~

Thanks for the good link. The 22,800 came off the group's forum, and I suspect it might be a bit high. But it's a tremendous amount of climbing. It's listed as a 10 gap ride, the midpoint being the top of Brasstown Bald, highest spot in GA.

Your second link has the following, leading me to believe the actual climb is between the two numbers above:
"* Per DeLorme Topo 6.0. Barometric altimeters typically measure 11,000 to 13,000 feet, but these tend to under-measure accumulated vertical due to hysteresis built into measurement technique. Topo tends to over-estimate accumulated vertical due to straight line approximating curvy roads in rugged terrain. Actual vertical for this ride likely lies between these two values."

thanks for mapping out the route! i assume this (http://veloroutes.org/bikemaps/?route=28288) is it.

That is it. The map's a little sloppy on the long stretches (like Rt 20 and Rt 9) because it was getting late and I was tired, but I made sure to get the "in town" segments precise.


PS - could you PM me about the parking situation for the ferry, if you know anything? I want to leave my Jeep on the finish line side, but I'm probably not getting back until midnight so I don't think I can leave it at Mukilteo Park.

If I were to ride a bike from my house to Paris, Texas, I'd go by the state highways, which are fairly rideable. i'd hit a few hills out by Rockwall, then it's pretty flat all the rest of the way. On the other hand, the Permanent route from Rockwall to Paris shows to have 6,700' of climbing (for there and back). I think it's pretty obvious someone went looking for the hills when they set this route.

I grew up down south of Houston, which is all just as flat as a pancake. But, I understand the brevets down there start up north of Houston and head for the hills, and they'll likewise have several thousand feet of climbing in a 200k ride.

So around here, there may not be any mountains, but seems the brevets and permanents all intentionally go over a thousand little hills.

You know, I understand that's the way things are, but I don't agree that's the way things should be. It seems to me, they'd be a lot better off to put more variety into the routes. I don't know what percentage of US randonneurs ever make it to PBP- I suspect it's rather small. The randonneuring started off as a ramble through the countryside. But when you can't ramble through your own countryside, and have to drive two hours to the hills to ramble through someone else's countryside, that just seems to miss the spirit of it all. Or if you're going from Point A to Point B, and can't follow the obvious straight route because you need to detour through 3,000' of hills, that seems to miss the spirit of it, too.

I've hiked up a lot of mountains in the past, and it was a neat experience, even though it was a lot of work. Down here in the flatlands, I've hiked up and down the slopes under bridges. Ten foot rise, do it a hundred times, there's a 1,000 feet. It's a good workout. But the problem is, it's got all the tedium of hiking up a mountain without the cool mountain air or the scenery or the sense of arriving at a worthwhile destination. And it seems to me to be a similar thing when you try to turn bike riding in the flatlands into a hillclimbing exercise.

...
is there a profile for PBP? i always imagine a series of rolling hills, but i'm sure it's more interesting than that.
...


Here's my MotionBased track for the first 716 miles of PBP (which is where I DNFd).

http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/7821374

If only I'd been able to sustain the pace that my GPS shows I briefly attained around mile 460 (325 mph, woohoo!).

I guess this is sort of like when you rode with a heart failure on that ride you posted, recently :-)

Nick

If I were to ride a bike from my house to Paris, Texas, I'd go by the state highways, which are fairly rideable. i'd hit a few hills out by Rockwall, then it's pretty flat all the rest of the way. On the other hand, the Permanent route from Rockwall to Paris shows to have 6,700' of climbing (for there and back). I think it's pretty obvious someone went looking for the hills when they set this route.

I grew up down south of Houston, which is all just as flat as a pancake. But, I understand the brevets down there start up north of Houston and head for the hills, and they'll likewise have several thousand feet of climbing in a 200k ride.

So around here, there may not be any mountains, but seems the brevets and permanents all intentionally go over a thousand little hills.

You know, I understand that's the way things are, but I don't agree that's the way things should be. It seems to me, they'd be a lot better off to put more variety into the routes. I don't know what percentage of US randonneurs ever make it to PBP- I suspect it's rather small. The randonneuring started off as a ramble through the countryside. But when you can't ramble through your own countryside, and have to drive two hours to the hills to ramble through someone else's countryside, that just seems to miss the spirit of it all. Or if you're going from Point A to Point B, and can't follow the obvious straight route because you need to detour through 3,000' of hills, that seems to miss the spirit of it, too.

I've hiked up a lot of mountains in the past, and it was a neat experience, even though it was a lot of work. Down here in the flatlands, I've hiked up and down the slopes under bridges. Ten foot rise, do it a hundred times, there's a 1,000 feet. It's a good workout. But the problem is, it's got all the tedium of hiking up a mountain without the cool mountain air or the scenery or the sense of arriving at a worthwhile destination. And it seems to me to be a similar thing when you try to turn bike riding in the flatlands into a hillclimbing exercise.

I like how you think.

I did the math on the Urbana ride. With the advertised 8,400 feet of climbing involved for 200K, that works out to 50,400 for 1200K. I estimate there was 2,000 feet of elevation gain in the first 40K - which if being averaged out - would be 60,000 feet over 1200K. That in itself isn't so bad, but there were many climbs that were over 10%, and some that were over 15%.

I do have to say though, that the terrain is pretty representative of the area, is for the most part scenic, and the course is not especially convoluted - but it was tough - especially on someone trying to get back into shape. Guess I'll just have to HTFU and get revenge next year.

There's more to riding a given route than distance and elevation changes. Often if a route has one difficult feature, it may be easy in other respects.

A recent article is Pez Cycling does a great job of giving you the "feel" for touring Flanders. Not very hilly, yet I think I understand why it is a feared among competitive cyclists. Be sure to scroll down through the pretty pictures. (http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=6922&status=True&catname=Latest%20News)