DiabloScott

I used to tell people Diablo isn't quite steep enough to be a Hor'se Category - but I won't be doing that anymore.
First graph is my own data collected from Tour de France over 4 years. Second graph is Sunday's stage... that was some fine racing.

gw_12

I recall reading somewhere years ago that it the Tour classifications also depend on where in the ride the climb occurs. In other words a climb could be Hors one year, and 1 the next.

DiabloScott

Yeah, I remember reading that too... It probably came from Rec.bicycles... this look familiar?

5.3 Rating the Tour de France Climbs

He names one specific mountain regarding "category creep" and he lists off some grades and elevation changes without any data to back it up. Maybe there has been category creep since year 2000 but I've got 4 TdFs worth of every 2,1,and HC climb data and it does not match what he wrote.

The POINTS you get for a mountain top finish are double, but that's not what we're talking about.

Most of the HC climbs are over 7% so that is going against a Diablo HC, but there are a handful that are in the low 6's, eg:

2005 Col de la Madeleine HC 2,000 (elev) 25.4 (dist) 6.1%
2007 Col de l'Iserean HC 2,770 (elev) 15.0 (dist) 6.0%

Dalai

Surprised they classed Col del'Iseran as HC in 2007 as they started the stage half way up the climb in Val d'sere. Probably more French pride not wanting to downgrade it given their claim that it is the highest pass in Europe! Although a climb in two parts, the climb really starts in Bourg Saint Maurice making for a 48km climb!

The Col de la Madeleine is HC because it isn't just the gradient that matters, it is also the length.

Sorry to disappoint, but I've ridden many of the HC's in France and although a great climb readily accessible to may in SF I'd still say it's Cat 1.

DiabloScott

Hey it's all in fun.

But other than the altitude (2200m vs 1100m), and the previous climbs on the stage - there is almost no difference between Diablo and Arcalis (HC) - how can you argue with that?



No doubt there are many harder HC climbs, Diablo is on the low end of the category, but if Arcalis deserves it, so does Diablo.

blt

I think it is correct that classifications vary depending on when the ride occurs.

I don't have any good data like you do, only anecdotal evidence, but I am confident that I have ridden Diablo when it should have been classified Hor'se Category. I have also ridden it, however, when it should have been classified Tarantula Category. And worse yet, IMO, when it should have been classified Gnat Category.

caloso

Arcalis was the fifth of five climbs and the end of a 184km stage. That bumps it from 1 to HC.

DiabloScott

Strava gives both Diablo and Arcalis an HC rating, and Strava is completely objective with no "fifth of five climbs" bonus points.


https://www.strava.com/segments/7967598

https://www.strava.com/segments/4314687

Diablo: 17,700 * 6.0 = 106,200
Arcalis: 16,300 * 6.0 = 97,800

Dalai

All I can say to that is Vive la France...

Lanceoldstrong

January: Diablo ☑
February: Diablo ☑
March: Diablo ☑
April: Diablo ☑
May: Diablo ☑
June: Diablo ☑ ☑
July: Diablo -doing it this Sunday for sure now.

Leinster

Truth is, the altitude does make a difference, though.

Arcalis isn't considered a particularly hard HC climb, it's the length and altitude that gain it status, also the fact that it's a dead-end road; it has to be a summit finish as there's no other way back down.

I think the "category creep" is a factor not so much in the same climb at different parts of the stage, but that a 2km, 6% climb in Brittany or Loire valley might get rated a cat 4 or even 3, because there are no other climbs on the road to Quimper or Nantes, so it's the biggest obstacle of the day. But if you put that same climb in the southwest, it doesnt get categorized because it's in the valley between the Telegraphe and Madeleine or Tourmalet and Aubisque, so in terms of the day's overall elevation gain it's a rounding error.

DiabloScott

Of course altitude matters. But Arcalis is roughly the altitude of Lake Tahoe... not Telluride - a minor bump in category cred. Also, Diablo includes 400+ more meters of climbing than Arcalis - advantage Diablo.

Nobody cares about Cat 3 and 4 climbs - red herring.

Diablo is also a dead-end road if you do the Summit. Equal to Arcalis.

And I found ZERO instances of the same climb with two different categories ever. I saw one reference of a climb that was rated differently in two different, non TdF races... and it wasn't a HC vs Cat 1 difference so moot point.

Diablo est:

Leinster

To be clear, I wasn't trying to say Diablo ISN'T a Horsey, but that some of the reasons given for it not being so may be legit.

Others may not; as you point out, for elevation gain it has to be up there (though you're showing a 400 feet difference, not metres, which is a significant difference in the difference).

I didn't claim that the same climb would have 2 different categories, but maybe I should have phrased it that a climb of the same magnitude in 2 different regions of France might have a different category; a 12km 10% road is a HC anywhere in the world. A 2km 6% road is barely noticeable in the Alps or Pyrenees but would be a big deal in Northern France.

The only reason I can think of why a climb would be rated differently at 2 points in a race would be if for some reason less than the whole climb was used; for example if a summit finish was held half way up, or if the race only joined the climb at the halfway point, or took an early turn shy of the actual summit to go to a different stage finish. In all your stats, how does the revised Ventoux from this year's Tour compare to Diablo?

Leinster

I should also mention Strava is not a reliable indicator of Tour de France rating; when I went up the Ancizan in the Pyrenees, Strava rated it HC, but the TdF only rated it Cat 1 the year before, as the final climb in a stage that included the Peyresourde (also Cat 1).

I have no doubt that if you plonked Mt Diablo's geometry into the French Alps, it would be rated a HC if they ever opted for a summit finish at the observatory. If they used it as a straight-through climb and ignored the summit turnoff, probably a Cat1.

prathmann

?? If you 'ignore the summit turnoff' you're eliminating half the climb. The only turn option is at the Junction Ranger Station - at about 2100'. And there is no observatory at the summit.

Scarbo

It does indeed. Especially if the climb in question comes as the culmination of a 184km stage spent at roughly between 1700 and 2200 meters in elevation; and it is not a small qualitative difference either. Tahoe may not be Telluride; but there is nonetheless a big difference that you can unquestionably feel between riding in the coastal range (Diablo range), of which Mt. Diablo is part, and the Sierra Nevada. I've climbed Mt. Diablo countless times over the years and you simply don't feel the effects of elevation gain in that climb (at least, I never did; and I've never heard any rider complain about the effects of elevation on that ride), while I definitely do riding in the Sierras, where I live now. On top of it all, in calculating elevation gain, one has to consider that the elevation at the Athenian School is already around 700 feet or so (probably a bit less at the North entrance).

Bottom line: 1) elevation matters--a lot, and 2) is Diablo HC? Depends on context.

BTW, this is not to take anything away from that venerable mountain, which will always remain one of my favorite rides of all time for many reasons.

DiabloScott

Right, Strava has an algorithm, TdF has a committee.

I think you're conflating Diablo with Hamilton. ATOC has had a Diablo Summit finish twice.


Yes Peyresourde is a Cat 1, but Diablo is almost twice the distance. Courchevel and Toussuire are good arguments against an HC Diablo - but they aren't finish climbs

Note the table below is from before I concluded that Diablo deserves the HC.

79pmooney

I've never ridden in Europe so I cannot comment there. I have climbed Mt Diablo and that other hill on the east coast the is considered tough, Mt Washington. Mt Washington is a LOT harder! I've ridden Mt Diablo on a 42-17 fix gear. (Yes I walked the last stretch, but i was driving the country looking for work, not riding at all. Riding that last stretch would have been stupid.) I wouldn't dream of taking on Mt Washington on that bike. I did the time trial on a TA 28t single. I also think that weather or the chance of bad weather should play a part. But rarely does Mt Diablo see real bad weather. Mt Washington regularly sees weather where people can die. The TT in 1977 was shortened to below the final pitch (which is lot harder that the final pitch of Mt Diablo)

I've always thought that Mt Washington qualified as Hors catégorie (spelling lifted from Wikipedia), but not Diablo. Maybe it is becoming one by lowering of standards or maybe I just have warped standards. As the last climb of a grueling day, OK. But just creating a grueling enough day would be a challenge.

I just remembered ... I've ridden the big Mt Diablo. Mt Ashland in Oregon. Same terrain and vegetation, similar grades, same winding road. From the city of Ashland, 13 miles, 5280 elevation gain to around 7000'. (From the Mt Ashland Road Race website.) Doesn't have the final kick of Diablo, but it is higher and steeper. (The first two or so miles from town are flat.) This also on a fix gear but I cheated. 42-23. 42-12 to come back down. Starting higher and going higher DOES make a difference.

Ben

gsa103

ToC has rated Diablo as HC for it's summit finishes.

Also, Mt. Washington isn't fair since the average grade is 2x ANY of the TdF HC climbs listed above. If Mt. Washington were half as steep it would be comparable to Madeline which is a very hard HC. Mt. Washington is more like Super-HC.

Also, weather is typically not included as a factor other than maybe the average day when an event is supposed to happen. In particularly bad conditions the race is typically aborted/shortened.

Diablo is right at the 1/HC border.

DiabloScott

Mt Washington isn't valid because we don't know what Cat it would be either.

Only rated TdF climbs and their actual TdF statistics (grade, length, altitude) are meaningful comparisons.

Of course 2200 meters elev. is harder than 1200 meters... That's practically the only distinction between HC Arcalis and Diablo... Not enough IMHO... Maybe South Gate/easy side wouldn't cut it though.