jinws

Just looking for some input on hills around the bay. I have no idea how steep a hill actually is by normal descriptions. Like 10% grade or 1200 feet of climbing.

So here's the plan, I'll describe where I've actually ridden and it would be great if someone can tell me what the grade is.

I've only ridden in and around SF. So first up, going across the GG bridge to Marin, go left and climb to the top of the headlands.

the little hill coming back to the bridge from Sausalito.

the short one in Presidio coming out to Arguello in SF

That's about it.

thanks

jeffremer

Unless I'm doing my math wrong...

Headlands, GG Bridge to the top of Conzelman: ~ 1.8 miles, ~950ft climbing, ~10% avg grade (doesn't seem that steep...what gives?)

Sausalito lateral, ~1.1 miles, ~360ft climbing, ~6% avg grade.

Arguello gate, ~0.08 miles ~50ft climbing, ~10% avg grade. (1 block is hardly a climb, unless you do it 10 times ).

These figures are just gleened from my own training data - I can do some specific laps with my Edge to confirm them, but they should give you a good ballpark estimate.

If you want to do some real climbing come out to Mt. Tam with me. I'm not a spectacular climber but I do take great joy in the fact that the longer you go up the more you get to go down .

jinws

thanks for the info. but I tell you what, when you have 6 screws and a plate in your foot, then dislocate your knee during rehab, a block of a small hill is a climb.

mnt. tam, sure, someday. but I wouldnt' want to slow you down or make you wait for me at the top.

terrymorse 

Just keep on climbing, jinws. It will get easier.

My hip looks like this, but it doesn't slow me down much:

ConstantRider

The actual peak of Hawk Hill, where the raptor observatory is, is around 920 feet, but you have to go up a trail to get there, and I think that trail is off-limits to bikes. Google Earth puts the "cyclist summit" of Conzelman at 750 ft. Routeslip says 815 ft.

Also, if you're starting from the bridge, you're already 250 feet above sea level. If you're starting from that road we take beneath the bridge, then it's 0 feet.

If you're starting from the bridge, the grade is more like 4 - 5%. Stretches of it are probably 10%, though, as the long portion in the middle is almost flat.

It sounds like the OP is talking about going up Arguello from the other direction, i.e., the main post of the Presidio. If you start from where the Officers Club is, you can take Arguello up to that stop sign that intersects with Washington (Arguello continues to the Arguello Gate). From the Officers Club to the stop sign, which is where the road flattens out, it's about .4 miles and an 8 - 9 % grade.

jinws

Oh now I get it. he was talking about going into Presidio, that 1 block. I was talking about coming out of Presidio, starting from the Tennis courts.

jinws

holy crap! nice hardware.

dmitrivich

A good way to figure this out (without GPS) is with Google Earth. You can measure the distance along the road by tracing it with the path tool, and find out the elevation gain or loss by mousing over the start and endpoints. Grade is simply rise over run expressed as a percent. I think Google Earth calculates distance as surface distance instead of distance parallel to the Earth's surface (needed for true rise over run), but this will get you pretty close.

Actually, if you care to use the Pythagorean Theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2), the difference between the starting and ending elevation is a, and the distance Google Earth gives you is c (the hypotenuse). So, if I'm thinking about this correctly, you can then calculate b (the actual horizontal distance), which can then be used to calculate the true grade. I believe this works even if the grade is curvy - if you think about the cross section, all you're doing is taking a triangle and folding it. It doesn't change the parameters.

The difference between the grade calculated this way and the way I described before would be small for lesser grades and increase to be quite different for steep grades.

Rincewind8

Or you could just try this:

https://www.heywhatsthat.com/profiler.html

dmitrivich

That's pretty good. Still not sure it's more useful than Google Earth though, because you can't just mouse over and find where a particular hill starts, so it's more clicking around where you think it is and estimating the elevations from the graph. EDIT: ah, I see that you can turn profiles on. Also, you have to estimate distances with the graph whereas Google Earth gives them to you in hundredths of a mile.

If the route finder feature worked that would be awesome.

spingineer

and I bet he'll still outclimb most of us.

8Lives

I'm jealous - I don't have cool pix of the rods and screws holding my back together! Need to find that last x-ray and scan it.

jeffremer

Maybe I need to get one of those - today was one of my "off/recovery days" where I just do a 15RT ride to school and back, but I couldn't resist hammering up some of the steeper hills, my hip starting flaring up a little.

terrymorse 

To be honest, that's not my x-ray. My film was so dark that it didn't show up very well in a scan. That's somebody else's, but my device is identical.

ken cummings

If you would like to see a whole lot of hill profiles go to www.srcc.com , then over to the sidebar and click on ride elevations. You go from gentle strolls to most of the horrors featured on the Terrible Two ride.

SaiKaiTai

I found myself doing this so much -still do- that I wrote a stupid little PERL script to calculate it out for me.