Update on elevation and mapping websites.
I had heard somewhere that many of these sites have been using Garmin data to refine the elevation profiles on a lot of popular routes. Two months ago I mapped out a ride with the goal of climbing a mile, which I accomplished. (5600 ft ride total-1 mile =5280') The route I mapped was 9100 ft, to account for profile error. I wound up cutting the ride a little short when it became apparent that I would not need to repeat a monster hill to make my total climbing goal. (That hill started about mile 15, and I would have had to turn right at about mile 53 to repeat it.)
The actual route I rode calculated to about 8500 ft just two months ago using RideWithGPS. I just remapped the actual route I rode and the calculated elevation is now a lot closer to the actual. x - San Diego, CA
Where I live its hard to do less than 1000' on any ride - road or mountain (especially mountain biking). My average ride is somewhere around 2000 - 2500' give or take. If doing a long road ride, say 40 - 50 miles and I do 3500' no problem. If doing a longish mountain bike ride, say 15 - 18 miles and 3500'+, it's a tough climb, exhausting.
I've done century with 5000+ of climbing and didn't really feel the hills. I've done MTB rides of 15 miles with 3000' of climbing was totally exhausted. Climbing is a relative thing...
did a MTB ride yesterday - 18 miles about 3100' of climbing. One of my friends was suffering... he tends to do "flat" rides; so he walked alot and did not do the "big" hills (he went around)... I told him if he wanted to suceed on hills the only way to get better is seek out hills and force yourself to do them. At one time I only liked to do flat, fast rides... now I hate those. Give me a long, sustain 5 mile climb and I am in heaven (plus usually means an awesome descent!). Like any training, start out easy and build up. Due to my weight, I am never the fastest up a hill, but I can get up them even some steep stuff in the 10 - 12% range. I admit after that if too long I may opt out to walk but am working on that.
Have to say, you folks are making me feel like a total wuss, lol.
I got a ride in late this afternoon as the weather has finally broke. 9.8 miles at an average speed of 9.2 mph. I plugged the route into ridewithgps.com to see the elevation because I am trying the mapmyride.com app and I don't see elevation numbers on the website (only the elevation graph.) It tells me 593 feet climbing along with 591 feet of decent. Average speed would have been higher on clean pavement but most of the loop is very fine sandy gravel covered along with some straight dirt road surface. I am still skittish about going downhill on this stuff but when I got to the clean pavement I was hitting 30 mph (how you folks do that all the time on roadbikes is crazy as that was crazy fast, lol.)
I came to one section that just kept going down down down. I knew it was coming from looking at the map earlier and knew for all the down, there was going to be an equal up. That was brutal. The map shows 151 feet in 0.4 miles. I guess I have a lot of work to do because I have a 26 small on the triple and 34 on the back and I used it. I thought I was going to have a heart attack from the sound of my heartrate in my ears, lol. I climbed it and saw a nice quarter mile of flat at the top but I had to stop and rest until I couldn't hear the pulse smashing in my ears.
I am very happy about this ride because last year I only rode the flat bike trail and would do 12 miles in about 55 minutes (moving time) and this 9.8 miles I rode in 64 minutes and that was with braking and holding downhill speed to under 10 mph with all the slippery sandy stuff for most of the decending.
Man, I don't think I want to ever be doing 2500, 3500, 5000 feet rides like you guys are talking about, lol.
1 - San Diego, CA
2 - San Diego, CA
Patience is key. Some will go from slug to superman in months. I went from slug to pretty good in a couple of years.
Now, like an escaped mental patient, I actually go looking for them. I actually went up 21,168 feet in March this year, which is a new personal best (my old record was 20,588) Considering that I was only trying to get my miles up this month and wasn't actively trying to hit any particular number for climbing, I'm pretty happy with the outcome.
No doubt about it though - climbing is harder when you're overweight. you can't cheat physics.
I rode up a nice little hill today - it's not quite a mile and just over 200 feet of elevation change, so the average slope is 5%. It's harder in the middle and easier at the top but I averaged about 300W and 9.4 mph at 220 lb. Some skinny malook ALSO averaged 300W and I see he's in the 125-149 weight category in Strava and he went up that daggum hill at 14 mph.
I need a power tap so I can see what little power my legs churn out.....excuse to build another wheelset? LOL
Of course no reason to do that until mid May when I'm allowed back on the bike.
Doc says I can do some 'light' jogging. Really Doc? You used the word 'light' when you see someone that tells his weight using the British Stone measurement because 14 sounds better than 200?
That there rankled me a bit.
If I can be down to 180 by June or July I am signing up for this. Giro di San Diego Granfondo ? The Gran Fondo Bike Ride That out and back at the half way is a bucket list climb. In 1986 I went up there by car at 3:00 AM with my brother and a friend to join the fewer than 5% of the earths population to actually see Haley's Comet with our bare eyes. It is still burned in my memory. Standing in the snow gazing in awe. It actually was pretty magnificent, and arced across about a quarter of the sky.
This thread inspired me to do the math. March for me was almost mostly commuting miles on a fixed gear. 21,501 feet of climbing over 357 miles, for an average of 60/ft per mile. My normal commute actually is 75ft per mile, but I often take the long route home that has some MUP riding, which lowers the overall average. I call it "rolling" rather than "moundy", but yeah, not "hilly" in the meaningful sense, as my average speed is usually about 17mph.
That said, if I were describing it to someone new to cycling, I'd say my commute is "decently hilly."
By the way, Power2Max looks like an interesting alternative. if you have a compatible crank, it's not much at all, um, relatively speaking. The ONLY thing I don't like about stages is that it only measures your left leg and I'm pretty sure I have a decent imbalance between my two legs (right knee issues)
is that still a one sided device or does it come w/ both crank arms? If so it's about a 1/3 cheaper then SRM which is nice saving for this cat7 racer
Stages is left crank only, so it estimates. For most people (ie you) it's probably perfectly fine because your power output is pretty balanced. I don't know that they can get it on carbon cranks though, which may explain why red and force cranks are MIA.
Power2Max looks interesting but I'm not sure I want a rotor crank, despite all the drooling about them on the 41.