It looks like I really need to step my game up then. I guess Ill have to map out some new routes with more hills. So tell me beanz what is your gear setup (crank rings and cassette)?

if this is true: "If there are three 100 foot hills on the ride, that's 300 feet of elevation gain. You don't subtract the downhill parts."

then how do you acknowledge a route that is mostly uphill or mostly downhill. for example an old commute to work was largely downhill and my avrg speed was always higher and my commute time always shorter. my trip home was always largely uphill with a slower avrg speed and longer commute time. wouldn't Ia cknowledge these factors by using the phrase "elevation gain" or "loss"?

If you go on a point-to-point ride it's entirely possible that you'll finish at a different elevation. Let's imagine your house is at 100 feet elevation and your office is at 500 feet elevation, 10 miles away. If it's a nice flat 10 miles with a steady gain of 400 feet, namely 40 feet per mile, the ride is easy and you gain 400 feet on the way to work and lose 400 feet on the way home from work. If there's a mountain in the middle you might go up to 4000 feet and back down to 500 feet, in which case assuming the gradients are straight up followed by straight down your total elevation gain is 3900 feet and your total elevation loss is 3500 feet. On the way back home your total ascent is 3500 feet and your total descent is 3900 feet. You've still got a stonking great mountain to go over however you look at it.

It's funny but I have a triple and a double. I use the triple for the flats and the double for climbing rides. Mainly because the double is on my Cannondale, very stiff and a good climber.

I've done The Bear 4 times and Breathless Agony once. All 5 rides using the standard double (53-39/ 12/25 cassette). I don't really see much difference in the gearing once I start training. If I want to do a certain speed on the ride, it's that certain gear combo I need, not a bail out gear.

Ride Around the Bear and Breathless Agony on the standard double 39/25

Ride Around the Bear
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...b7be410168.jpg

Breathless Agony
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...xtreme/ba6.jpg


The bike

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...nnondale-1.jpg

Ride around the Bear...10,000 ft gain
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2508/3...7aae20fe15.jpg
Bear by gulpxtreme, on Flickr

Breathless Agony.....12,000 ft gain

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3550/3...e88363f634.jpg
onyxsummit by gulpxtreme, on Flickr


Mr. Beans Mobile. I had to use "Beanz" on the forums, "Beans" was already taken.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5252/5...deacdc6e91.jpg
VID00001 by gulpxtreme, on Flickr

Please help me out with my math.

25 fpm would be about 0.5%
50 fpm is about 1%
75 fpm is 1.5%
100 fpm is 2%

is this correct?

One of my local big hills goes up about 650 ft in 3 miles:

http://www.mapmyride.com/routes/view/52084294

So that's about 225 fpm or 4.5%. That's plenty hill for me! MapMyRide calls it a Cat 3. But most folks seem to be calling 4% just the start of real hill climbing. Ouch! Then again, my BMI is 25 and I think it was Friel's site where I read folks like me should "avoid hills" - I'd rather lose some pounds! But that seems even harder than climbing the 4% hills!

alright So I have determined that I need some serious ride coaching. I would like to do the courage classic here in Denver on June 21-23 ( Or right around those dates). I currently do lots of rides that are about 45 miles or so but they dont have much climbing. Give me some general training and climbing tips.

I think I see my confusion. There is the grade of a specific hill, and then there is the amount of climbing on an entire ride. My loop has 1535 ft of climbing over 23.4 miles, which is about 66 fpm. Particular hills along the way might be 4% or 5% or 6%, but the 66 fpm is a measure of the hilliness of the entire ride.

Yep, that's it. But the feet per mile is only a rough estimate of the hilliness of the ride. For instance, here's the elevation profile of my 27-mile ride yesterday (click to enlarge):

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=244224

According to my Garmin Edge 800, that ride had 1486 feet of climbing, or about 54.6 feet per mile. However, if you look at the profile, it's obvious that the first half was a lot worse than the second half. In particular, there was a climb of 1.8 miles at an average 5% grade, which was really two shorter, steeper climbs with a mostly flat bit in between. It started out with 0.4 miles at 12%. That was a killer. Fortunately there was a lovely dolmen next to a picnic area shortly after the end of the steep bit where I could eat my lunch, admire the megalith, and recover.

(Shameless self-promotion: photos from the ride are on my Flickr site.)

... is a world-class nasty bastard of a hill that will have various evil nicknames and will be surrounded by local lore. Is there a particular hill you are thinking of?

A couple of hills come to mind, unfortunately the web site I'd use to show the elevation profile isn't working.

One was an uphill that went up to about 20-25% - before I attempted it I'd heard it was "20% for a mile" although it turned out to be easier than that. The other was a downhill that varied between about 15-25% for two miles.

http://cprr.org/Museum/Elevations.html

This is a big map of the ELEVATION of the Central Pacific Rail Road. It will give you some idea.

http://cprr.org/Museum/Elevations.html