Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-19-04, 07:30 AM   #1
live311
Heeeeeere's Johnny!
Thread Starter
 
live311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central CT
Bikes: DeBernardi Zona, Trek 7.1 FX
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Gradient calculator?

Anyone know how to calculate the grade of a road? There's this access road I like to take sometimes that gains about 526 feet in about 1.5 miles. Do I divide the distance in feet by the elevation gain? That gave me about 15%, which feels about right (it's a nice little hill good for interval training). Are my calculations correct?
live311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-04, 07:34 AM   #2
live311
Heeeeeere's Johnny!
Thread Starter
 
live311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central CT
Bikes: DeBernardi Zona, Trek 7.1 FX
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Actually, never mind. I just found one, and I am correct. Google is your friend

http://phoenix.liu.edu/~divenere/res...s_gradient.htm
live311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-04, 07:50 AM   #3
DPS3749
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Villa Park, IL
Bikes: Cannondale F300 (Mountain)
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by live311
Anyone know how to calculate the grade of a road? There's this access road I like to take sometimes that gains about 526 feet in about 1.5 miles. Do I divide the distance in feet by the elevation gain? That gave me about 15%, which feels about right (it's a nice little hill good for interval training). Are my calculations correct?
Your computations are correct.
DPS3749 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-04, 08:19 AM   #4
AndrewP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Montreal
Bikes: Peugeot Hybrid, Minelli Hybrid
Posts: 6,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Your have the calculation the wrong way around. It should be height gained divided by distance travelled times 100. In this case 526/7920*100=6.64%. I find that hills always seem steeper than they actually are, but that is just because I am an out of shape old fart - I can only climb a 15% hill for about 100 ft gain before I am poofed.
AndrewP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-04, 09:05 AM   #5
ExMachina
Senior, Senior Member
 
ExMachina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Bikes: "MyBike" (metamorphosed Trek 2200)
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yup, around 6.6% *average* gradient--that website is wrong.
ExMachina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-04, 09:42 AM   #6
bradw
Slow and unsteady
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St Louis, MO
Bikes: Bacchetta Agio, Bacchetta Giro 20, Trek 520
Posts: 473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExMachina
Yup, around 6.6% *average* gradient--that website is wrong.
The website expresses the gradient as a ratio.

In this case it's 1:15.05. If I assume that means one foot of elevation for every 15.05 ft of progress, that works out to (1/15.05)*100 or 6.64%

So it's not an error, just an expression of gradient different than what we are used to.
bradw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-04, 10:30 AM   #7
live311
Heeeeeere's Johnny!
Thread Starter
 
live311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central CT
Bikes: DeBernardi Zona, Trek 7.1 FX
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow. Guess I have a long way to go before I can make it up Alpe D'Huez
live311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-07, 07:36 PM   #8
rickthebike
smell down slow the roses
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: colorado
Bikes: gary fisher klein khs cannadale
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank u

I have been tryinig to do the same thing and i had it all wrong too. Thanks for the info...I ride a road in colorado once a week called magnolia road and i have been trying to figure out the grade of that suker for a while...rick the bike....out on a ride
rickthebike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-07, 08:57 PM   #9
deraltekluge
Senior Member
 
deraltekluge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Bikes: Kona Cinder Cone, Sun EZ-3 AX
Posts: 1,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To be strictly correct, it's the vertical distance divided by the horizontal distance, not the slant distance; but for the small angles you'll see on the streets, there's not much difference. Mathematically, it's the difference between the tangent of the angle and the sine of the angle. Slope in percent is the tangent of the angle multiplied by 100. An angle of 45 would rise 1 unit for every unit traveled horizontally, for a slope of 100%, but you'd travel 1.414 units along the road. A 10% slope would be 5.71 and you'd travel 1.005 units on the road for each unit horizontally. A 20% slope would be 11.31 and you'd travel 1.02 units on the road for each unit horizontally.
deraltekluge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:47 AM.