Originally Posted by
indyfabz
While there are certainly PA hills steeper than 10% (there are hills in NJ with ruling grades in the high teens to low 20s), I think the OP is overestimating the grade, probably due to the fact that he doesn't seem to ride big hills often.
+1
We've got a lot of steep hills in our area too, and with my Manitoba eyes, they all look more than 30% ... but with my newly trained Australian eyes, I knew they were probably in the vicinity of 15%.
We measured the steepest one in our immediate area and it came to 18%.
It's a tough climb walking, and I haven't even entertained the idea of cycling up it yet.
Originally Posted by
Steamer
+1. That's my interpretation too.
Riding in western and central PA doesn't involve any huge mountains (our longest distinct climbs are in the area of 1500 feet), but the total climbing over the course of a route that doesn't take pains to avoid climbing usually ends up somewhere in the 60 to 100 feet per mile range. Routes take their toll in the form of a large number of hills in close succession, some of which are steep* (* I define steep as anything over 10% or so).
Most parts of the country would yield less climbing than the aforementioned 60 to 100, or only in the 60 to 70 feet per mile range.
I base this assertion partly on looking at randonneuring routes and brevet completion times in various places scattered about the USA.
I also define steep as anything over 10% or so.
I can, with some effort, get up a 10% ... but much more than that may well involve walking.