Originally Posted by
DrIsotope
But isn't there some notable difference between "hills" and "climbs?" Where I live, "really steep" means something in the 17-18% area... but we have climbs where it's 10-12% sustained for 5+ miles, "hors categorie," as they say. I just don't think I'm the type to go out and look for the steepest hill I can find just to see if I can make it to the top. I did a Cat2 climb last week (2030ft in 4.6 miles-- 441ft/mi) and questioned my decision making the entire way-- and that's an average grade of about 8%. If I found myself in an area dotted with +20% grades, I'd be carefully plotting my routes to go around them. I WANT TO LIVE.
An article which explains some of the climbing categorisations:
How to Categorize Climbs for Cycling | LIVESTRONG.COM
There are other similar articles.
[HR][/HR]
And I have discovered that it is helpful to do a little calculation on a ride to determine whether or not I'll be able to handle the climbing in general. I can comfortably handle rides under 1.
So, if the ride is 40 km long and there's 400 metres of climbing ... 400 metres/40,000 metres = 0.1 * 100 = 1. That's a good ride.
I struggle with rides between 1 and 2, and there's a good chance I won't finish them within randonneuring time.
So, if the ride is 40 km long and there's 800 metres of climbing ... 800 metres/40,000 metres = 0.2 * 100 = 2. That's a doable, but slow and tough ride.
Anything more than that is out of my league.
However, that calculation says nothing about the steepness of one hill.