What is a lot of climbing?
03-31-14, 07:26 AM
#26
Senior Member
That's what I thought... until I did the math: 30 mile ride * 151 feet/mile = 4,530 feet of elevation gain. For a ride that short, that's quite a bit of climbing!
For perspective, the Everest Challenge bicycle race is 29,000 feet of climbing spread across 200 miles (and 2 days): 29,000 feet / 200 miles = 145 feet/mile.
For perspective, the Everest Challenge bicycle race is 29,000 feet of climbing spread across 200 miles (and 2 days): 29,000 feet / 200 miles = 145 feet/mile.
03-31-14, 08:22 AM
#27
Senior Member
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
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
Last edited by CommuteCommando; 03-31-14 at 08:29 AM.
03-31-14, 08:31 AM
#28
Shredding Grandma!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,803
Bikes: I don't own any bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
__________________
______________________________________________________________
Private docent led mountain bike rides through Limestone Canyon. Go to letsgooutside.org and register today! Also available: hikes, equestrian rides and family events as well as trail maintenance and science study.
Private docent led mountain bike rides through Limestone Canyon. Go to letsgooutside.org and register today! Also available: hikes, equestrian rides and family events as well as trail maintenance and science study.
Last edited by Pamestique; 03-31-14 at 08:38 AM.
03-31-14, 07:59 PM
#29
Senior Member
Thread Starter
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.
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.
03-31-14, 08:36 PM
#30
Senior Member
03-31-14, 09:19 PM
#31
Senior Member
I used to avoid hills. Five miles was a push. I have lost about 100 lb in the last five years. There is one route I used to take to the coast that was as flat as I could get it. After about a year I took off on a ride, and instead of turning right, I looked ahead at a hill that had been taunting me, and went straight.
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.
YMMV.
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.
YMMV.
03-31-14, 09:21 PM
#32
Senior Member
I used to avoid hills. Five miles was a push. I have lost about 100 lb in the last five years. There is one route I used to take to the coast that was as flat as I could get it. After about a year I took off on a ride, and instead of turning right, I looked ahead at a hill that had been taunting me, and went straight.
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.
YMMV.
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.
YMMV.
03-31-14, 10:36 PM
#33
SuperGimp
Me too, until I was about 40. Go figure.
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.
Le Sigh.
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.
Le Sigh.
03-31-14, 11:20 PM
#34
got the climbing bug
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,204
Bikes: one for everything
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked 908 Times
in
273 Posts
I need a power tap so I can see what little power my legs churn out.....excuse to build another wheelset? LOL
__________________
Rule #10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster.
Rule #10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster.
03-31-14, 11:47 PM
#35
SuperGimp
04-01-14, 08:31 AM
#36
Senior Member
Me too, until I was about 40. Go figure.
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.
Le Sigh.
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.
Le Sigh.
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.
04-01-14, 08:32 AM
#37
Senior Member
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.
Le Sigh.
Le Sigh.
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.
04-01-14, 09:00 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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."
That said, if I were describing it to someone new to cycling, I'd say my commute is "decently hilly."
04-01-14, 09:25 AM
#39
got the climbing bug
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,204
Bikes: one for everything
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked 908 Times
in
273 Posts
If I were to get another Powertap wheel I'd build a Stages crank arm...
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.
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.
__________________
Rule #10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster.
Rule #10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster.
04-01-14, 11:00 AM
#40
Senior Member
You'd be 'escorted' to the back?
Heck, I'm shelled off the back in a dag gum trainer session much less a real race. No need for an escort.
04-01-14, 03:55 PM
#41
SuperGimp
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)
04-01-14, 08:27 PM
#42
Senior Member
They do sell an Apex crank. I'm sure it would clash with my beat-up Red cranks though.
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)
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)
04-01-14, 09:51 PM
#43
got the climbing bug
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,204
Bikes: one for everything
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked 908 Times
in
273 Posts
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
__________________
Rule #10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster.
Rule #10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster.
04-01-14, 10:04 PM
#44
SuperGimp
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.
04-02-14, 09:28 AM
#45
Senior Member
Who me? No snadbaggin' here. My power is the lowest it's been since the first time I did an FTP test. I'm about to send you those chain rings back. I'm not worthy.
I'm paltry on both sides. I know my power is down 14% since the surgery in Feb. While I'm sure the food intake I've been doing plays a part in that reduction it's not all of it.
All said and done it would cost me ~$1300 for the Power2Max setup
All said and done it would cost me ~$1300 for the Power2Max setup
04-02-14, 03:41 PM
#46
got the climbing bug
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,204
Bikes: one for everything
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked 908 Times
in
273 Posts
my pFTP what ever that means is 0
__________________
Rule #10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster.
Rule #10 // It never gets easier, you just go faster.
02-27-20, 09:27 PM
#47
Member
I was wondering what you folks consider a lot of climbing during a ride. I live in nothing but hills and I will be riding on the road with this new bike as opposed to riding the flat bike trail along the river on the old junk bike. So far, I've done 2 rides on the 2 nice days we've had this month out on the road and love it. It is so much easier riding up the hills compared to the heavy old worn out Walmart bike. Along with that, I can actually shift it in preparation for getting into the next hill. The old bike was really slow to shift and I would have to stop 90% of the time to lift up the back tire and spin the cranks around to get it to shift down as I lost momentum too fast.
I think that riding on the roads around me is pretty extreme for climbing. I read all the time people posting climbing numbers and average speed on rides and I wonder about what the climbing actually is. It seems to me that it would be far easier to climb 500 feet over the long run if it was a more consistant low grade climb rather than constant up and down.
My example is behind my house. I want to ride about an hour or so daily. I have done this on the old bike, but haven't tried it yet on the new bike. I marked out 5 miles on this road on RidewithGPS.com and it tells me for 5 miles, it is 414 feet of climbing. The elevation difference between home and the turnaround point is only 64 feet with home being the higher. If I look at this correctly, it tells me I am going uphill 414 feet and downhill 478 feet. At that point I turn around so I climb up on the way back 478 feet and am going downhill 414 feet. Total climbing is 892 feet climbing for a 10 mile ride, but because it is almost a constant up and down, that is more 892 feet of climbing in half of the ride or 5 miles.
Is this what you would consider a lot of climbing? Last year on the flat bike trail, I averaged 14-15 mph over 12 miles. When I rode on the roads, I averaged 5 to 6 mph, less than half. One of the problems I have with riding on the road is there really is no break or recovery from the previous climbing because I am back down that same elevation change on the downhill in mere seconds then trudging up the next hill. It was pretty normal for the downhill to be coasting on the brakes at 28 mph at times. The next hill would almost immediately stop the momentum from the 24-28 mph coasting and I would only get about 1/8th or less of the way up the hill before having to pedal again, so the coasting didn't help on the uphills nor did I want it to because there's no exercise gained in just coasting. I certainly couldn't pedal anywhere near 24+ mph on that old bike to get anything out of going down the hills. I could on the new bike, but I don't want to be going that fast anyways, as I said, that was coasting while on the brakes to slow me down. It also would make a lot more gear changes to get to being able to pedal up the hill if I tried to pedal on the downhills.
I can't figure out with a map what the average grade of my hills are, but it appears to be a lot of 5-6% worth of grades. The constant hills would be approximately up about a quarter mile and back down a quarter mile, so like I said, the decents take just a few seconds and then it takes me 10 or 15 minutes to climb back up the next one.
I understand that climbing gets easier and better the more you do, but dagnabbit, I sure would like even an 1/8th mile of flat to ride on every now and then rather than constant coasting and climbing. It is real nice to just take off from the garage rather than leave the kids alone (the youngest won't come for a bike ride with me) and travel to the bike trail but the constant up and down I think will just wear me out.
Sorry, I'm long winded. What do you consider a lot of climbing and would you consider my example a lot of climbing?
I think that riding on the roads around me is pretty extreme for climbing. I read all the time people posting climbing numbers and average speed on rides and I wonder about what the climbing actually is. It seems to me that it would be far easier to climb 500 feet over the long run if it was a more consistant low grade climb rather than constant up and down.
My example is behind my house. I want to ride about an hour or so daily. I have done this on the old bike, but haven't tried it yet on the new bike. I marked out 5 miles on this road on RidewithGPS.com and it tells me for 5 miles, it is 414 feet of climbing. The elevation difference between home and the turnaround point is only 64 feet with home being the higher. If I look at this correctly, it tells me I am going uphill 414 feet and downhill 478 feet. At that point I turn around so I climb up on the way back 478 feet and am going downhill 414 feet. Total climbing is 892 feet climbing for a 10 mile ride, but because it is almost a constant up and down, that is more 892 feet of climbing in half of the ride or 5 miles.
Is this what you would consider a lot of climbing? Last year on the flat bike trail, I averaged 14-15 mph over 12 miles. When I rode on the roads, I averaged 5 to 6 mph, less than half. One of the problems I have with riding on the road is there really is no break or recovery from the previous climbing because I am back down that same elevation change on the downhill in mere seconds then trudging up the next hill. It was pretty normal for the downhill to be coasting on the brakes at 28 mph at times. The next hill would almost immediately stop the momentum from the 24-28 mph coasting and I would only get about 1/8th or less of the way up the hill before having to pedal again, so the coasting didn't help on the uphills nor did I want it to because there's no exercise gained in just coasting. I certainly couldn't pedal anywhere near 24+ mph on that old bike to get anything out of going down the hills. I could on the new bike, but I don't want to be going that fast anyways, as I said, that was coasting while on the brakes to slow me down. It also would make a lot more gear changes to get to being able to pedal up the hill if I tried to pedal on the downhills.
I can't figure out with a map what the average grade of my hills are, but it appears to be a lot of 5-6% worth of grades. The constant hills would be approximately up about a quarter mile and back down a quarter mile, so like I said, the decents take just a few seconds and then it takes me 10 or 15 minutes to climb back up the next one.
I understand that climbing gets easier and better the more you do, but dagnabbit, I sure would like even an 1/8th mile of flat to ride on every now and then rather than constant coasting and climbing. It is real nice to just take off from the garage rather than leave the kids alone (the youngest won't come for a bike ride with me) and travel to the bike trail but the constant up and down I think will just wear me out.
Sorry, I'm long winded. What do you consider a lot of climbing and would you consider my example a lot of climbing?
02-28-20, 09:02 AM
#48
Senior Member
03-03-20, 10:54 PM
#49
Senior Member
Thread Starter
03-04-20, 09:04 AM
#50
Senior Member