Seattle Forrest

Huh ... look at that. To be fair, when you google "steepest paved hill in Seattle" and get to a list of paved streets with gradient down to a fraction of a percent ... you can understand why a person would think they found what they were looking for.

How does the data become obsolete since 1969 though? They haven't built or flattened any major hills for 100 years as far as I know?

Steamer

+1. That's my interpretation too.

Riding in western and central PA doesn't involve any huge mountains (our longest distinct climbs are in the area of 1500 feet), but the total climbing over the course of a route that doesn't take pains to avoid climbing usually ends up somewhere in the 60 to 100 feet per mile range. Routes take their toll in the form of a large number of hills in close succession, some of which are steep* (* I define steep as anything over 10% or so).

Most parts of the country would yield less climbing than the aforementioned 60 to 100, or only in the 60 to 70 feet per mile range.

I base this assertion partly on looking at randonneuring routes and brevet completion times in various places scattered about the USA.

bbattle

This is the worst climb I could find in my area:



I've been on a few hills in town that were over 15%; one that I did on my fixed gear (42-15) was 17% for just a block. I was zigzagging and scraping my pedals on that one.

Machka 

+1

We've got a lot of steep hills in our area too, and with my Manitoba eyes, they all look more than 30% ... but with my newly trained Australian eyes, I knew they were probably in the vicinity of 15%.

We measured the steepest one in our immediate area and it came to 18%.

It's a tough climb walking, and I haven't even entertained the idea of cycling up it yet.


I also define steep as anything over 10% or so.

I can, with some effort, get up a 10% ... but much more than that may well involve walking.

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.

Machka 

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.

indyfabz

Tell me about it. Last year I did a self-contained cross-PA tour. Actually started in Warren, OH. Rode to Franklin, PA, picked up the Allegheny River Trail to Emlenton and then took PA Route V to Bloomsburg before turning south to Philly. There were a couple of stretches during two days where there were endless ups and down. I'd get to the top of one hill only to see the next climb not that far off in the distance. I hate that sort of climbing. I would rather have a longer, more gradual hill than short, steep hills one after the other. Physically and psychologically draining. When I headed south from Bloomsburg towards Centralia it was nice to have a sustained climb where you get some sort of rhythm, but the bigs ups and downs eventually started again.

Ridelots24

I live and ride in SW PA. according to my strava ~2,000miles has 150,000' of elevation this year.
I know many of my courses follow valley roads and inevitably deal with hills. but since you were visiting and didnt know the area, i can see where you might have stumbled into a series of hills.

Seattle Forrest

I've been meaning to ride Hurricane Ridge; you start with your back tire in the salt water at Port Angeles, and over the course of 17 miles you ascend 5,240 feet. Then it's a screaming 45 minute descent.

But it's a long freaking drive and I'd rather play in the Cascades than the Olympics.

Kindaslow

Agreed. And, I would welcome watching anyone ride a series of those hills, especially on a drizzly day.

Onuris

City streets, no charging down and up them unless wanting to be a hood ornament.

sgtdirt

not the steepest but definitely challenging.

https://bike-ohio.wildapricot.org/TheFrank

getting ready to register for the century.

Onuris

Yeah, probably am overestimating the grades, but compared to where I'm from, they are horrendous. Almost get vertigo at the top looking down. Hills were making my kids cry b/c they could not get up and down them either to get from my aunt's house to my cousins, just about 7 blocks b/t them. On one smooth long section where there were no intersecting streets, I coasted down w/ my 17 yo son. Both our bike computers were showing just under 50 mph when we reached the bottom. Crazy.

cali_axela

That's an impressive amount of climbing for a century, definitely on par with the more famous tough centuries here in NorCal.

karenashg

It's a really fun climb to do. Coming up in a couple weeks is the Ride the Hurricane event--they close the part of the road inside the National Park to cars until noon. Getting to do the climb car-free is delightful. Some people get an early enough start they climb it twice before the road reopens...

Machka 

I encountered one hill in the UK that I walked up ... too steep for me to ride ... and then I walked down because it just looked too steep to negotiate safely!

lkngro

OP found out the hard way that PA is all hills. I live in State College and some of the mountains are absolutely killer. If any of you are ever in the area, ride north to Bellefonte and climb up Purdue mountain. That will put some hair on your chest. The descents are pretty treacherous too.

Bostic

There are super steep climbs and super long climbs. The hardest paved hill in San Francisco is the 38% grade of Broderick sidewalk. It's narrow. You can barely tack. It's also long enough to make you worry about being able to unclip in time in case of failure. All these streets listed that are steep, you can tack your way up as there is room to do so.

When I had my Pedal Force carbon bike in pure weight weenie mode at 15.5 lbs I got up Broderick in a 34x26. It was 600 watts at 4mph at one point on my power meter. These days I usually use a low of 30x25 or 30x27. It still feels like the chain is going to snap at any second but just slightly less so.

A video of a young cyclist climbing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vepam0d-zH0

Me at the top of it last year after a jogger was nice enough to take a pic.

jfowler85

Um, no.

cali_axela

Nice! I love climbing the steeps here too. Seven Hells ride is ridiculous(ly awesome). I use a 34/32 on my ti touring bike (~21lbs as setup for the ride) and clean them all without too much swearing (compact cranks with 11-speed 11-32 cassette).