rcapilli

Here is a link of a climb that I will be doing this summer in Georgia. The grade came out to be .04. Which does not sound right. Rise over Run, correct? Did I do this right? Do you think this is a tough climb?

1 miles = 5280 feet

5,280ft * 6.73mi = 35534.40 ft

1504/35534.40 = 0.04

zzzwillzzz

x100 to get %

0.04 x 100 = 4% not too tough

rcapilli

Tour climbs are classified in five somewhat arbitrary categories:

CAT. 4 Usually less than 3km in length, an easy pitch that amounts to no more than a sustained rise in the road.
CAT. 3 Slightly harder, up to 5km in length.
CAT. 2 Between 5km and 10km, and steeper than a 4-percent grade.
CAT. 1 Long and steep. Between 10km and 20km, and steeper than a 5-percent grade.
HORS CATÉGORIE (HC) or Above Category -The longest, steepest mountain climbs. Extremely difficult, sometimes 15km to 20km, with grades often exceeding 10 percent.


It kinda sounds hard to me

Retro Grouch 

You're kidding, right? I think that some guys waste too much time going to school that would be better spent riding their bicycles. this looks to me like a case where just doing the math is going to give you a wrong answer.

uppose you start at the top of a mile high hill. Coast down the hill, ride around the bottom and climb back up the other side. Since you started and ended in the same place, the percent of grade for the whole ride is zero. The steepness of the last little uphill segment is what is going to determine how hard the ride is.

Jet-man

nope, looks pretty easy. I'd put on a 12-21 cassette for that one.

jschen

You did your math right. 4% average grade is not tough as long as you have a bit of practice climbing and pace yourself. If you blow up trying to keep your pace up where it would be on level ground, though, you can get yourself in trouble. Also note that though the average grade is 4%, there may be steeper portions that will get to you.

rcapilli

Yeah, I read that also. Looks like I will have to do some training for this.

rcapilli

This thread below suggests a 32% grade.... I cannot imagine how this looks.... This must be crazy.

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/180693-30-club.html

Miller2

I'm in GA as well. I need to get in some climbing. Where is this climb located?

jazzy_cyclist

Average grade can be deceptive sometimes if it's not uniform. I notice that you have Topo 5 (at least the elevation profile comes from Topo 5). If you display both route and profile and run the cursor along the route, it will display the instantaneous grade in the stats box, and you can easily see the max and what you will encounter along the route - much more useful than an average. I think the stats will also display average grade as well, but my concern is usually with the steepest portion.

zzzwillzzz

well he listed the length of the climb and change in elevation.

grouch, you may be technically right, but no one cares what the overall change is. they want to know how long and steep the climbs are. few rides only go uphill (or downhill)

in willowglen

Tough? We could all give you our answers for that but it would be an opinion. Looks like ~1500ft/7mi. Give it a shot.

Retro Grouch 

Well DUH! That was my whole point. Look at the profile that was originally posted. He did the math and came up with 4%. That might be true overall, but that profile looks like it's going to be a hard ride to me.

umd

The profile he posted was for the whole ride but the grade calc was just for the final hill. I'm with the others that say 1500 feet over 7 miles isn't hard, but YFMV

Retro Grouch 

So you're telling me that maybe I should have studied harder in school insted of playing hooky to ride my bike?

55/Rad

I played hockey while riding my bike too.

umd

I'm sure there's a joke in there, somewhere...

gapowermike

I did some recon work today in North Georgia. Every Gap is a monster. And Brasstown is inhuman. The century should be a lot of fun. I'm not sure I can walk up Brasstown but I'll find out in May.

Michael

kingsfan4life

tha last part does not look fun

fmw

Few climbs are constant in pitch. They vary as they go. The steep parts can still be pretty tough even though the overall grade is not too severe. Where I live, there are no mountains. There isn't any truly flat land either. I guess you would call it rolling countryside. We have no long climbs but plenty of short ones. Some the short ones can be pretty tough.

There is a town 6 miles west of my farm that is about 600 ft. lower in elevation. That's a very mild pitch. Almost barely discernable. You can calculate it. In a car it seems pretty flat with some rolling hills. But it is a pretty steady pitch and I can tell you the difference between riding there and back is really meaningful. I can get there significantly faster than I can get back. It does make a difference.

I drove through Tennessee and Georgia just about 5 weeks ago. The drop from the top of the ridge South and down into Chattanooga (just north of the Georgia border) is marked as 6% so it is in the same ball park as the climb you are talking about and a whole lot steeper than the trip to North Liberty near my farm. They have escape roads for trucks and warnings about using lower gears to descend. I'll bet I would be dog tired after climbing from Chatanooga to the summit of that ridge for several miles. I know I would be. It might be a piece of cake for a pro racer but It is nothing at which to sneeze for we mere mortals. I think you'll feel every foot of that 4% pitch.

johnMfisk

Like everyone else -- double checked the OP's math and it was correct.

The reason that the climb LOOKS like you're ascending the Matterhorn is because of the severe difference in the dimensions used between the y- and x-axis.

Have a look -- for the same length up the y-axis (2200 ft), you cover a distance of roughly 22.5 miles! (that's eyeballing it) -- so the reason the pitch looks so steep is because you're using wildly different intervals on the two axes. If they were the same, the x-axis would extend out from where you're sitting to a point roughly beyond the livingroom couch and nearly to the toaster in the kitchen (at least from where I'm sitting :-)

If the x-axis used the same dimension as the y-axis, it'd look a LOT flatter and MUCH more benign.

Have fun riding!

cheers,
Johnny

rcapilli

This Climb is Miller's Gap and Wolf Pen. Located north of Dahlonega. It's a little drive from Atlanta, but great for climbimg. the roads are still painted from the Tour De Georgia

rcapilli

Yeah, the image does not represent the true pitch of the hill. johnMfisk is completely correct. I have rode SOME of this path and I have to admit that it is not easy task. I'm really suprised that no one here has mentioned altitude. I live at 950' and it is quite a difference in the mountains. Some of you have no problems at this altitude but I fatigued quickly when I gave it a shot. Thus IMHO it is a little tougher than a 4% climb at 800 - 900 feet. No one mentioned Cranks. I rode it on a traditional 53/39with a 12/25 Cassette. Standard 10 gear Shimano. I bombed before I got to the BIG hill. I just reciently changed to a compact crank 50/34. Most of my riding will be done in the 50, but that 34 will be my best friend come mountain time. For those of you that posted here and typically ride in the hills, such as California or midwest, what do you typically use for a crank/cassetts? I am a big believer in "You have to have the right tool for the job" So give me an idea of what you use to ride mountains. Thanks for the feedback it's interesting to see what people think here.

Miller2

Cool. Not to far from me.

umd

I live and work pretty much at sea level (I think my house is 120' and my office is about 30'). One of my favorite rides that I have done starts at about 200 feet but goes up about 1200 feet in 3 miles (7.5%). Then you get a break for a few seconds as it levels off and crosses a major road, before rising up another 1200 feet in 2.5 miles (9.5%). The next half mile is rolling and only has a net gain of 100 feet. A

fter all that you are on the mountain ridge at an altitude of 2600 feet, with a final NET climb of an additional 1200 feet in just over 7 miles (3.2%). In reality is 2 climbs with a downhill in between; the first is about 900 feet in 2 2/3 miles (6.5%) and second and final climb to the peak is 800 feet in 3 miles (5%), at altitude, from 3000 to 3800 feet. Here is the ridge ride on gmap-pedometer (for some reason it had a blip in the altitude data)


I have a triple (52/42/32) with a 12-25 and I used the 32 a lot more when I first started riding but I did all but the steepest sections of this ride in the 42 (and the 52 for the descents). I do the first part of this ride (1200 feet/3 miles/7.5%) a lot, 2-3 times a week and either use my 32 or 42 depending on how I feel and what my goals are. If I'm going for pure speed I can get up it pretty fast spinning in the 32, but if I want a hard workout or am riding slower with other people I will stay in a harder gear like 42x21 or 42x19) and mash my way up, usually standing.