I have been noticing postings concerning average speeds and how much they vary and many times the speeds vary because all of us live in different topographies. When I go on a bike ride in the wheat fields of Washington State...my elevation starts at about 1000 feet and as I do my bike rides I gradually climb to 1400-1600 feet over the course of 6-7 miles towards the foothills. Other times I can go upwards of 2600 feet when I decide to head on into the mountains a bit further. So....what is your elevation, and what do you consider to be tough ride?

Elevation is one thing, but slope is another. I think the max climb around here is probably 800 feet +/-.....how you get there is another story!

Exactly.
If you ride a loop route there is no elevation gain or loss but you may have 500 feet of climb. Climb in the routes in my area average 80 to 120 feet per mile.

I consider anything over 100 fpm to be difficult, anything under 75 fpm to be easy and anything under 50 fpm is flat. The easy and flat rides are further south of my area.

My club uses this rating scale for their rides. This is cumulative elevation gain along the whole loop divided by total miles. If there are extended sections of the ride over 10%, that is described separately.

0-25 feet/mile = flat
25-75 feet/mile = rolling
75-150 feet/mile = hilly
150+ feet/mile = mountainous

[QUOTE=
0-25 feet/mile = flat
25-75 feet/mile = rolling
75-150 feet/mile = hilly
150+ feet/mile = mountainous[/QUOTE]


150ft in a mile? I'd say it's a moderate/short climb, but nothing that resembles a mountain or mountain road climbing. Mountains are mountains (snow topped peaks in the summer, climbs measured in multiple miles/kilometers), hills are hills (some are really tough and pretty long..in succession, they can make a ride quite a lung burner) , and flat is flat (in a headwind, flats are hard as well).

I'm doing this ride on Saturday which has 10,000' of (accumulated) climbing over 100 miles . . . though the maximum elevation is only around 2,500', maybe even less than that and lowest elevation is around 100'. Extended sections of 10%+, some as much as 18%. We'll be going up and down a lot . . . though I haven't done it, I know it is going to be "tough".

The next closest thing I've actually done was 10,000' in 125 miles, and I considered that pretty challenging, as did quite a few other riders I talked to. I'd also personally consider it "mountainous", though it only seems to qualify as "hilly" by johnny99's club (OT: which club?).

I've done a couple of shorter rides which have exceeded 5,000' of climbing in under 30 miles (again, up-down-up-down type of deals, not 5,000' elevation), which qualify as "mountainous" . . . though I did not consider these "tough", perhaps because of the shorter distance.

I have not yet ridden above 4,000' of elevation, though I've done quite a bit of mountaineering up to about 14,000' or so. In that activity, I don't start to notice the effects of elevation (reduced oxygen) until around 7 or 8,000'. I'd expect to notice it sooner cycling

He's talking about the total accumulated elevation gain over the total mileage for the ride. Of course, when the denominator is small, it's not much, but over 100 miles, 150 feet per each mile starts to tax you pretty hard.

Edit: johnny99 is near me and I know the terrain he rides. While they are not snow-capped in winter, the climbs around here generally do run into multiple miles with some fairly steep sections and I don't think anyone would call them merely "hilly".

I tried to make it clear that this is 150 feet/mile averaged over the entire route, i.e., a 100 mile ride with 15,000 feet of climbing. If you think 15,000 feet is an easy ride, then you are a much better rider than me.

My typical training route it in foothills, 5800 ft to 6800 ft, constant up/down, many 10-15% grades. Doing say 20 mi is hard, with my heart rate at 145-170 given the hills... at sea level or there 'bouts (a similar hilly route in Neskowin, OR that I've done quite a bit at the same fitness level) I can say I could do twice or three times as far with my heart rate at 120-150ish.

Here in Memphis- when you go over a speed bump in a parking lot people talk about their uber-climbing technique. All in jest of course. It's Kansas-flat around here.

I think when you start experiencing high altitude pulmonary edema... you're in pretty good elevation gain.

yeah, "it ain't a climb 'til ya start spittin blood, eh?"

This year I started riding up Mt Diablo in the CA Bay Area. It's about a 10 mile climb of 3,700 ft gain (ending in a 17% grade) but you start nearly at sea level. I also started riding Iron Mtn Rd (Mormon-Emigrant Trail) in the Sierras which is about 21 miles and 4,000 ft gain so it is a shallower, more gentle climb than Diablo. However, it goes up to 7,000 ft altitude. I think that plus the double mileage makes it harder. Maybe it is psychological but somehow Iron Mtn just seems tougher.

My avg speed on these two rides (including the downhills) doesn't even come close to what I maintain on the flats during the week but my speed on the flats has increased because I now ride some serious hills. It's also changed my definition of a "tough" ride.

Oh gosh!!! That is exactly what our local riding is like! I'm keep swearing I'm going to do an elevation profile by riding a loop around town over every freeway bridge and through the bike tunnels. It'll be about a 20 mile ride with maybe 100 ft of elev gain. Might have to go have a beer to recover.

There are some pretty good climbs here (Boise, Idaho) One of them that I tend to ride is a 16 mile stretch with a 3300' elevation gain. Getting to the mountain is also quite a task

Yup, have ridden tandem in the Boise area up to the bird sanctuary . . . a decent climb.
Our toughest tandem ride: 325 miles in 3 days with 22,000 ft. of climbing in Arizona . . . and it was 104 degrees at the finish line (Answer to the Arizona Challenge annual ride).

"I tried to make it clear that this is 150 feet/mile averaged over the entire route, i.e., a 100 mile ride with 15,000 feet of climbing. If you think 15,000 feet is an easy ride, then you are a much better rider than me."


..my misunderstanding. Sorry about that.

Most of the riding we do here in western hills of the Bay Area is hilly, with several 8-10% grades of 4-5 miles available when desired, but what I didn't realize until I got my V100A is how much elevation gain I accumulate even on days I am "avoiding" the steeper climbs - just riding the normal two laners it is almost all in the 75-150ft/mile category and I often come back from an evening ride with 2000-2500 ft. gain on the computer.

I'd consider Tour de Blast a tough ride with about 7000 ft. of climbing in 84 miles. Here's a profile and some average speed data.

Another example is this, even though it has under 80 ft/mi. and is only about 55 miles long.

As others have said, it depends on slope, distance of climbing, and accumulation of climbing. If you're in pain, it's a hard ride (at least that part is ) .

Let's see, two feet from the floor to the bed...(pulls the throw rug over himself and unplugs the light)...

Don't for get, they are talking AVERAGE for the whole route - not just one mile.

I find a ride like that more tiring than rolling hills. You never coast for very long. I guess it's what you get used to.

I live in Holland. The highest point in the whole country is 600 feet.
I'm only above sea level right now because my office is on the second floor.
Speed bumps are elevation for me.

I live in Florida so I am thinking 35' is elevation?

We have overpasses and a few parking garages, which are among the highest buildings in town (the view is amazing from their lofty heights).