chaadster

Fly2High

OP,
What are you trying to ascertain with your question on what is considered hilly?

I would say it is all relative to where you live. When I think of hilly, I think of rolling hills. A single climb (long or short) is just a climb and could be a part of a hilly ride.

smarkinson

By how much time I spend in the small chainring.

MSchott

Living in SE Michigan, we have to search out elevation changes, especially long hills. I average in a 25 mile ride about 300' of elevation change. But there a few steeper sections and those can be a challenge for my 58 year old body and arthritic right knee. I used to be quite strong out of the saddle but now I am unable to climb that way due to the fear of causing more damage in that unstable area so 23, 24 and larger cogs are my friends.

Seattle Forrest

For me a lot of the difference is mental. When there's one big climb and the ride is built around it, I get to the top, usually the halfway point, and I feel like I'm done working if I want to be. Using the first ride I posted a graph from, I probably did 400 feet of rollers over the 10 miles leading up to the climb; not too much but not trivial either. I felt them on the way up, but not the way down, because the one long hill resets my sense of perspective. Rolling hills give your body time to recover but there's no telling when it's going to end. Also, for the same total elevation, people are a lot more impressed when you go over some mountain pass than when you do a cliffy coastline.

sakau2007

I guess I'm trying to determine if I'm in a mountainous area. I've never thought of Birmingham as being "mountainous" though it does sit at the base of the Appalachian Mountains I suppose. The terrain I ride is certainly not anything close to flat. I live on a ridgetop that is maybe 250 feet above a river and I ride primarily around that area, going up the hills and then back down towards the river. There are also "mountains" that I've always just thought of as hills that are hardly unique to Birmingham. They aren't extraordinarily steep but I really don't have much of a basis for comparison because I have lived almost my entire life in the same metropolitan area.

sakau2007

I guess I'm just trying to figure out if my riding has been a little more difficult than the average beginner faces. Because I see people ramping up quickly to 50+ miles and it is just hard for me to do a 50 mile route without hitting 5000 feet of elevation increase which is pretty demanding for a newbie like myself. I never thought of Birmingham as a particularly hilly place but maybe it is.

C Law

750ft/10 miles is hilly. over that is climby. 400-750ft /10 miles is rolly. below that is pancake.

bbattle

Roll Tide!

You've got plenty of hills down there in the B'ham. We've got some good climbing up here in Huntsville, and a charity ride on 9-19 where you can climb Skyline mt. or Grant mt.

I'd say you've done some nice climbing since you got your bike. That's pretty much all you've been doing.

DrIsotope

I have the pleasure/curse of living in the foothills of the tallest mountain range in Southern California, so I only know hilly. My morning loops are 22-32 miles, and will generally end up with 1400-2200 feet of climbing-- and that's not going out of my way to find them. That's just how it is-- I average around 500 miles a month, and just under 25,000ft^ a month. Now on those weird days when I do go out of my way to find hills...



I sure find 'em. The part that goes beyond "hilly" to "stupid" is the fact that 2,022 of those feet came in a 5.9 mile stretch-- about 343ft/mi.

rbrsddn

A hilly ride here in CT is 3500 ct or so in 57 miles. Thats the Sunday ride. A couple of weeks ago we rode 200 miles up in Vermont, and did 10,000 feet in 2 1/2 days. That was a good workout.

r0gue

Where I live you can't escape an average of 100 to 110 ft a mile. It keeps me busy. Not epic. But yeah, I call it hilly.

BarryJo

Just curious, where do you live? I think 100' per mile is pretty decent.
I never much thought about it, but I just did a quick calculation on Strava and my average is 63 ft of elevation gain/ mile. I've always considered 100'/ mile the standard for a "hilly ride".

KBentley57

Follow Toone on strava. He will quickly redefine what you now call hilly

kbarch

For what I'd call hilly, well, one big hill somewhere in the ride certainly doesn't make for a 'hilly' one, but neither does a bunch of up and down if there is no extended or difficult climbing involved. That's just rolling. Also, if it's one big slog, with only a few descents and brief flats thrown in, I'd just call that a slog. A hilly ride is nice. A number of distinct hills, not just dips or bumps you can crest in a single hard spin-up, but not something that's totally exhausting, either.

curtism

I live at the base of the Wasatch Mountains in Utah. Here is a ride from a few weeks ago.



Not all rides in our area have this much climbing, but 3,000 - 6,000 feet is common in 50 - 100 miles.

I've learned to like climbing.

bitingduck

100' per mile is hilly, but I live in the foothills of the San Gabriels and the ~9 mile round trip to work gets me about 400' of climbing...

Unless I do one of the river trails (which is about 1500' in 72 miles) or go out of my way to ride flat, high traffic areas, it's hard to get much less than about 50' per mile on a ride.

Long Tom

I got yer hilly right here.

HornedFrog

I live in the middle of Texas where a hilly ride would be 35ft/mile. I recently rode in Colorado up Vail and that was 150ft/mile over 15 miles in altitude and I thought I was gonna die. The last little bit is a 15% grade and I was out of gears and breath but made it to the top.

I couldn't believe we averaged 12mph up the mountain and the descent was amazing. Seriously, the best ride of my life.

a1penguin

I can't ride hills worth a darn. But from seeing a lot of decent cycling friends (200+ weekly miles) I would say that 1000 feet of elevation for each 10 miles is common. 50 miles and 5000 feet of elevation. In the bay area, a lot of the rides are similar to a lot of hikes: going up into the mountains and returning down to civilization.

Scummer

If you can descent at 50+ mph it was a good hill.
Having lived south of Chicago where a highway crossover was a hill, moving back to southern Germany close to the alps has redefined what I call a hilly ride.

opie

Birmingham is no joke, my wife is from Hoover and I take my bike when we visit family. I find the hills there if you're in the wrong (or right depending perspective) area to be VERY steep. For me I can't get up them without being well above FTP. That over 30-40-50 miles gets very taxing. Where as I can ride in N GA Mtns and climb a couple of gaps where the grade is not as steep (avoiding Hogpen) and not feel as torched after the ride

Some of the stuff in Hoover (Verdure Dr) is crazy. It's hard to keep your front wheel on the ground when climbing it

sakau2007

I'm from Hoover as well, though I haven't actually gone over to the Bluff Park side and attacked Shades Mountain yet. Yes, Verdure is going to be a heck of a hill when I try it! The majority of my riding has been on the other side of Hoover down closer to the Cahaba River. But even still, 4 of my 5 rides have exceeded 100' per mile. If I were to seek out those hills, I think it wouldn't be tough to hit 200' feet per mile. There are quite a few hills over there in the 7-12% range over a half mile long.

Fly2High

Count yourself lucky. Living on flat Long Island, I would welcome the fun and challenge of more hills or even long mountainous climbs. I have nothing like that and I am sure this sentiment is shared by many who live in a flatter area.

sakau2007

War Eagle.