Sluggo

I thought you all might be amused by this. It is a chart of all of the climbs in the TDF by grade and length, with best-fit lines for each category. You can compare your favorite rides easily.

F1_Fan

That's interesting. Matches my theory that Hurricane Ridge in WA state is nearly Cat 1. However, there's a big difference between my pounding back a latte and riding it vs. the pros doing 4 additional climbs and 200 km before hitting the base.

jschen

That's an interesting graph. Thanks!

psuaero

Don't forget the speeds the Pro's ascend those monster climbs compared to us mere mortals. I'd be happy just to say I climbed a few of the same mountains as the Pros.

56/12 and 22/28

There's a hill about a mile from my apartment that I measured.

It's a 24% grade and a quarter mile to the top, but I can handle it with my hardtail mountain bike in 44T/15T at about 16 mph.

Eh?

26mi235

That graph makes Mt Baldy an Hors Category climb (4500 feet, 12.6 miles w/ 3 downhill sections from Upland side; a little more climbing and shorter distance from the Claremont side).

gmason

A am amazed at how little time they spent over 9%!

It will be interesting to see the same chart for the 2006 Giro.

socalrider

Baldy is one of the toughest climbs.. The 1st 3 miles is actually pretty easy but once you hit baldy road, the game is on and it is tough all the way to the ski lifts.. So Cal Velo did a comparison of Mt. Baldy to Alpe de Huez

https://www.socalvelo.com/sub/mount_baldy_road.htm

Sluggo

Bear in mind that these are average slopes from the entire climb (from the TDF web sites), so the really steep sections get lost.

My Italian is not real good, but a quick look at the Giro web site indicates the same thing in general. Among the big climbs that are displayed in detail, only the Colle delle Finestre (cateogoria speciale) averages over 9%, and that is how it would show up on the graph (this climb also includes 7.9 km of gravel, just like the old days). But there are segments of 11, 14, and 16% on some of these big climbs. This factor is lost in my simplistic graph.

gmason

I clearly must have misunderstood the greph.

It looked to me as though only a Cat 2 had an average over 9% (as the only symbol shown above 9% was a single Cat 2). And that the total distance climbed over 9% was a bit less than 2.5 miles. No other line (or symbol) appeared past 9%.

How should I have understood that stat?

Sluggo

Sorry, I must not be being clear.

A climb that averages 7.5% may be half 10%, but the other half would be "only" 5%. So a rider on the TDF course would spend significantly more time at over 9% than shows on the graph, because these are only averages.

For example, look at the plat d'adet: https://www.climbbybike.com/climb.asp...untainID=6929:

jschen

Keep in mind that longer climbs simply cannot have really steep average grades, though they can have very nasty steep sections. There simply aren't enough mountains that are that high above the surrounding terrain for there to be many climbs that can average really steep grades for really long distances.

TCR

I forget the name, couldn't spell it anyway, but one of those mountains in the Alpes is a sustained 20%.

gmason

I am perfectly willing to blame my ageing brain for this.

I understand the concept of averaging. And to some degree the fitting you did to the data points to arrive at the curves for each category (LS perhaps?). I guess that explains the curves.

But what meaning is inferred by the fact that there is only one data point on the whole graph (and a Cat 2 at that) appearing above the 9% mark?

Sincitycycler

That graph is a$$backward isn't it?

Prince9931

Word!

EURO

You get very little indication of the difficulty of a climb from cross-referencing slope and distance. These aren’t ramps.

For instance, the Galibier is 6.9% for 35km (taking into account the Telegraphe as well), but the last 12km are all nearly 9% and at altitude. Most people look very grey and ill at the top of that mountain.

Similarly the southern ascent of the Glandon/Croix is 4.8% average, but there's over a kilometre of descent in the middle followed by an immediate 13% section. The opening section of the climb is close to 10% for several kms.

This table

https://www.bertevers.nl/Profiles/profiles.htm

Is much better because it takes into account altitude - but it still ranks the Bonnette 13 places above the Galibier, which nobody would ever agree with. The Bonnette is a breeze in comparison.

bbattle

It's those steep sections that get you every time. My practice climb is 3.5 miles long and according to local club it's 5.5-5.8% average grade. That includes some flat sections and a nasty section in the middle of over 8%. It's in this part that I'm huffin' and puffin' and those on triples are spinning away, waiting for it to be over so they can drop me.

Fun part of the climb is the descent. I was behind a car yesterday on top of the mountain and as we headed to the descent I was telling the car it better move as I didn't want to be riding my brakes down the mountain. She must've heard me because she pulled over and let me pass!

oboeguy

Nice table. I didn't find that wicked climb from this year's Tour of Germany that, IIRC, was something like 10% average over a significant distance (like 10+km) at a serious altitude.

merlinextraligh

As pointed out, the chart deals with averages. However, there isn't that much climbing in the traditional tour stages over 10%. The arguably hardest TDF, Ventoux, is almost all under 10%. What makes the climbs hard are sustained grades for miles and miles. For just steepness there are steeper climbs in the Eastern US (e.g. Brastown at 21% for 3 miles). But there's nothing that is a sustained climb for miles and miles.

EURO

FYI the climbs they ride in the tour aren't steep because the roads were designed to be passable in crappy cars. After driving uphill for 20ks, a section at over 10% is going to be impossible in a little Citroen.


The lead groups go very very fast, but it is quite possible to attain the speed of the groupetto if you are a relatively strong amateur rider. For instance, Matt Wilson of FdJeux rode the 2004 alpe d'huez time trial in the tour in last place at 52 minutes (two riders were slower than him but were outside of the maximum time). I know people who can consistently ride it in under 45, and many amateurs (myself included) have ridden it at around an hour (within 2km/h of Wilson's average speed).

The main difference of course is that the guys in the tdf are riding these mountains after already thousands of miles of racing in the tour, and many of them are riding deliberately at a slow pace, to save themselves for other stages.

Another comparison is the Etape and Marmotte, where often new pros or ex pros ride in a cyclosportif race with amateurs. These events are often won by the new or ex pros, but they are often followed quite closely by top amateurs.

Albany-12303

In the winter, I dont think that cars could make it up a 24% grade; even with chains on the wheels.

EURO

That's around 1500 watts, or on the flat - 45mph in the drops on a road bike. Puts you in about the top 2000 in the world. Congrats!

gmason

That is true. Also true was EURO's (?) point about places like Telegraphe/Galibier - it is the distance of the climb, not necessarily the grade.

However, the 2006 Giro has quite a few sections over 16%, and a few over 24%, some of which are many hundreds of meters long. As usual, they are near the end of the stage as well. Not easy.

CyLowe97

Euro... have you ridden an edition of the Etape or La Marmotte? A Belgian co-worker of mine has done La Marmotte twice. This past July he achieved a Silver (?) Diploma and is anxious to earn a Gold in the future.

I would love to try La Marmotte. Telegraphe, Galibier, Croix de Fer, and finish on Alpe d'Huez. Now that's a century!