First ... I do this calculation:

Metres of climbing/Kilometres of riding distance in metres * 100 to determine the difficulty level of a ride.

So for example, the ride we've got planned on the weekend has about 700 metres of climbing over 100 km. That's (700/100,000)*100 = 0.7

The century we did a couple weekends ago had about 1700 metres of climbing over 165 km. That's (1700/165,000)*100 = 1.03


And then I rank those numbers.

... if a ride is less than 0.5 ... it is a flat ride.
... if a ride is less than 1 ... it is a little bit hilly, but doable.
... if a ride is less than 1.5 ... it is a hilly ride and will be a bit of a struggle, but I can manage it. Just.
... if a ride is over 1.5 ... it's too hilly for me right now.

Most of our rides are somewhere around 1. It's challenging finding rides in this area that come in much less than that ... takes a bit of strategic planning to avoid the hills.


This calculation and rating system says nothing about the steepness of a particular hill or the distribution of the hills. For me, this just indicates whether or not I can do a ride within the 15 km/h time limit on randonnees.

As far as individual hills goes ... if it is under 10%, it's fine. I can do that without too much effort. If it is over 10%, it starts to become a struggle.



Second, regarding Strava ... I map the route using Google Maps and it comes up with an elevation number. Then we ride it and Strava comes up with an elevation number that is considerably higher. There's a chance the Google number is low. There's a chance the Strava number is high. The real number is likely somewhere in between.


Third, using the calculation above ... 20 miles is 32 km. 800 feet is 243 metres.
(243/32,000)*100 = 0.76