squatchy

I think if I thought about it I could find someway to figure this out. It would be better if someone better at math could give me an example to use in the future. I am riding a 3 day tour in June with lots of climbing. Tonight I figured how much elevational gain I will do each day and in how many miles. So I tried to imagine rides I am familiar with to get some comparisons. I don't know of any that are as long as my "event" Comming in June.

Here is my question! Can you help me to figure what my average % gradient would be to make my numbers add up please for the 3 different days or just a grand total of days. I can plug in the other numbers if you only want to figure things once.

Total elevational gains 16'500 ft in 103 miles based on the web site info

https://www.deathridetour.com/course.php

I tried a different methoud to find day rates and here is what I came up with. (i know my totals are not the same as the web info) , anyway

Day one 4200 ft Elevation gains in 40 miles.

Day 2 5100 ft elevationa gains in 40 miles.

Day three 49 EL gain in 23 miles.

What is the average gradient for each day ??

FeartheReign

Grade is simply total elevation divided by total distance.

Your first day is 4200 feet divided by 211,200 feet (5,280 feet/mile times 40 miles) which equals 1.99% grade.

Your second day is 5100 feet divided by 211,200 feet which equals 2.42% grade.

Your third day is an easy day, unless you missed a zero or two, 49 feet divided by 121,440 feet which equals 0.05% grade.

I'm pretty sure I got that right but I'm open for corrections...

Have a great ride!

squatchy

Hey thanks for the reply. After I posted this and went to bed I was lying there unable to fall to sleep and it dawned on me what the answer was. I guess I should have just played with the idea a few mins before I threw up a post.

prathmann

That would be the grade if you started each day at a certain elevation and then went up a long gradual uphill all day long to end at the original elevation plus the elevation gain. But the actual ride will be very different from that - usually you end at about the same elevation after having done a series of climbs and descents plus some flat parts in between. So that elevation gain is done over a much shorter distance than the total distance for the day. At least double the grade numbers to account for doing about as much distance descending as climbing.

Chris_W

Meters and kms are so much easier for these calculations! Plus, metres climbed per 100 km is the metric I find more useful than average gradient.

My general rules of thumb are as follows:

0-500 metres of ascent per 100 km = really flat.
500-1000 metres of ascent per 100 km = relatively flat, not too strenuous.
1000-1500 metres of ascent per 100 km = hilly ride, descent amount of climbing.
1500-2000 metres of ascent per 100 km = mountainous ride, lots of climbing, lots of fun.
2000-3000 metres of ascent per 100 km = seriously mountainous ride, nearly all climbing, gotta be prepared for the challenge.
>3000 metres of ascent per 100 km = You have to look REALLY hard to find such routes; I've very rarely done this rate of climbing for more than 100 km.

To convert metres climbed per 100 km to an average percentage you just take the ascent (measured in kms) and double it! E.g., 1500 m per 100 km -> 1.5 x 2 = 3% average (either up or down); but again I don't find this as meaningful. I don't know how you Americans put up with non-metric units, they make even simple calculations incredibly and unnecessarily complicated.

One problem with total ascent figures is that there can be big differences in the projected amount of total ascent from one mapping site to another, and also from one bike computer to another, especially in rolling terrain - everything tends to be more consistent when the climbs are longer. I therefore just make comparisons from one ride to another using the data from my own bike computer only (the above values are based on what my Garmin Edge 800 reads), and stick with one mapping site, which I know approximately by how much to adjust it in order to get a more accurate prediction of what my computer will say at the end of the route.