... are rated more to length than grade?

I live in East Tennessee. There are several hills around my house that are less than a mile long but have sections of 15-20% grades. One, in particular, actually rates as a 5 as it is just long enough to be rated. It's profile is akin to a set of stairs with the last 75 meters being above 20%. Really, really hard at the top. I had been avoiding anything even remotely more difficult than this until today.

I rode a parkway in the Smoky Mountains with a categorized 2 and 3 section. I wanted to see how far I could go. To my surprise, I went right to the top without that much of an effort. Both sections are around 5-6% and 3-4 miles long without any leveling. One has to continue to pump without coasting but the effort was not that difficult to me.

Ok, so I'm not ready for the Alpe d'huez; however, I am surprised that climbs are rated in this manner. For two years, I've avoided any and all rides that even approach the foothills of the Smoky Mountains because I've seen them riddled with category 2-4 sections. I know there are sections of the Tour that have switchbacks with extremely steep parts. Though I felt pretty comfortable today, I know I would have struggled had I reached any 9% and above sections.

I don't really have a point to this post other than to ask about y'all's experience with climbing. I'm sure there are sections of NC, VA and several states out West that are laughable compared to my "big climbing" story.

The biggest factor in categorizing a climb is the total elevation climbed. It doesn't matter how steep a hill is, if its well under a mile you just can't rack up much elevation at all.

My climbing is laughable. A large % of the climbs here that are technically rated HC based on ridewithgps or strava or something, but rated as "moderate" by the club (social riding club mostly consisiting of old retired folks) that I'm in. I can do it...very very slowly vs some people 2x my age.....

To start with a categorized climb has to be part of a stage race. The climbs are categorized based on which stage in which they occur, when in each stage they occur. how long they are, and how steep they are. Any thing else (Strava) is total bulls**t.

Just so I follow your logic here race directors come up with a sliding scale that in essence means nothing from day to day or hill to hill because it is all reletive and yet computer programs that attempt to quantify climbs based on their reletive challenge vs flat ground are BS.......

The redeeming qulity of Strava and MapMyRide and others are they should be consistant from hill to hill. Longer grades are in essence harder than short steep ones IMHO.

I guess that's what I'm trying to determine. The climbs I did today totaled something like 3,000 feet in less than 9 miles. So, a thousand feet per 3 miles. I know this is nothing compared to some of the stuff I've seen out West or in Europe. I'm just trying to get a feel for where I stand per future invitations and events. Up until today, there's no way I would have joined in any ride that headed into the Smoky Mountains. For example, there's a ride called the Cherohala Challenge that I've always wanted to do but assumed was way, WAY out of my league based on the fact that I struggled in the local shorter but steeper hills. It's a century ride with lots of climbing.

I do get your take about categorization because, according to MapMyRide, this ride has 8 categorized 5 climbs, 2 3's and a 1 but only has a total elevation gained of just over 7,000 feet. That seems like a lot of categorized climbs for 7,000 feet. Though, the Alpe d'Huez climbs 6,100 feet and has a 5, 3, 2 and an HC climb so maybe that's accurate.

Just keep in mind that there is no "standard" for categorizing climbs even though there are more common practices. Take them as a rough estimate much like ski runs are labeled green to black but are not really equally comparable between and among different ski areas, regions and countries. The best way IMO to approach new rides/climbs using sites like strava is to note the categorization but defer to the actual elevation/ride profile. Doesn't matter if the climb is Cat-whatever as long as you assess the actual profile and know what to expect. Comparing categories WITHIN a single site like Strava is somewhat useful but not really helpful comparing to climb categorizations done by other people/groups/tours etc.

Did a ride in June that was 6500 feet climbed in only 57 miles and there wasn't a single climb classed as more than a cat4. I'll be honest this ride almost killed me with 34-28. I am not a climber...
https://app.strava.com/rides/11606773

[h=3]Moving Companies – Local & Long Distance Movers[/h]

that is some gnarly climbing. the most i have ever done is
https://app.strava.com/rides/2446466
i did this climb witha 53/39 in the front and an 11-26 on the back (to be fair i did ride this climb with some 1,000 gram carbon tubulars)

Looks good but my first question is how did you get back down? Descending is the only thing I climb for! ;-)

i had my girl drive me down. as you can see by the date on the ride this was done in november last year and it was pretty darn cloudy and the road was damped in some streches. it was too long of a descent and i was too tired and that combination was just asking for trouble.
i climb for the pain and endorphins that come with it. i kind of had a premonition that something was going to happen and it did 2 weeks later on a local climb which left me with a grade 2 ac separtion.

We tend to measure in percent grade and total elevation gained, but there are a lot of ways to stack up numbers that look big on routes that aren't that bad and to have things that don't look that bad but really are. If someone tells you they climbed 10K feet in 100 miles, you can reasonably deduce that the ride is reasonably hilly. But you can't tell how hard it is since some routes with those stats will be way easier than others.

3K feet in 9 miles averages out to about 6%. Not particularly steep but it's certainly a real grade. If that's the only climb you have to do, it's no big deal. But try doing it 3 or 4 times and you'll find it gets way harder as you go along. What you can get away with for an hour (or even three) is way different than what you can do all day. Weather also makes a big difference in difficulty. There's no comparison between doing that kind of riding in 55 and 95 degree weather.

^^ I understand what you are saying. I was making the climb without having to breathe out of my mouth - nostrils only. But, I could tell that even the shortest span of +10% would have been extremely difficult. It was actually raining when I started and I got a little chilled toward the top.

Sounds like you need to come ride out west. We have the equivalent to that in basically a straight road. Average 9.2%, 8.4 miles and just under 3500 feet. I have heard Colorado also has some awesome climbs. Californian's like to brag about Mt Baldy, but it's still easier than the 2nd hardest climb just in the Salt Lake valley.

^^ Ugh. Straight road? I thought the hardest part of my ride today was boredom. Since it's so hilly where I live, I had never ridden at 12mph for so long. I'm used to toughing out a short climb and then zooming down the other side.

mt baldy is kind of hard but riding up to lake arrowhead from highway 18 feels a lot harder than mt baldy.
the only thing that mt baldy has going for it is how many different stops or points of reference you have, so a lot of people have the sense of acomplishment of riden mt baldy, but they might have not finishe the whole thing. i have only ridden up untils 5000+ft of elevation, but i do believe that it can go up to 7000+ft