Which is Hilly-er?

OK, Silver and I rode a metric this weekend in Evansville. It was 65 miles with (to our total surprise...because SW Indiana is fairly flat) 4,000 feet of climbing (about 61 ft/mile). Click "Dashboard" on this Garmin Link.

The question comes when compared to the seemingly Hilly-er Day 2 of the Hilly Hundred last year on this Garmin Link. This ride had 3,700 feet of climbing in 50 miles (about 74 feet/mile).

Garmin "Elevation" indicates that the Hilly Hundred had an average ascent of 3.6% with a max of 18.7% while the Pumpkin Metric was 2.4% with a max of 13%.

Granted, a 15 mile distance is a huge one in measuring climbing. But it begs the question: How do you gauge hilliness? Feet Climbed? Average Ascent? Max Grade? Ascent/mile? ...or whether you simply want to yak at the top?;)

Ummm... All of the above? ;)

I live in a relatively hilly area, so my idea of a good "climbing ride" has a minimum 5000 feet of gain, typically on very long climbs that average 4.5% or more. Anything averaging 7-8% over many miles is pretty tough, as that usually means long stretches of double digit grades.

In comparison, I would consider a "flattish century" to be around 4000 feet (I don't know if anything less is possible without doing loops). I think the first century I ever did had about 4800 feet, and my friends were being easy on me.

As for feet/mile, it would depend on the distance. Under 60 miles, 100 ft/mile average is fun. Extend that over a century and it would be classified as a real butt-kicker (or in Brandy's case... Tuesday) :p

I consider yakking definitive.

You can have a route with lots of rollers that gives you a higher number, but then a route with one evil climb but lower total ascent. I consider the 2nd worse.

Of course I seldom get to ride anything considered flat, but there are few long climbs here either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthernBelle

I consider the 2nd worse.

---

Worse? Better! Funner! :D

I'll admit I'm a stats junky. I keep track of feet/mile on most rides. For the really hilly rides, I keep track of the average climb gradient and the max gradient (I'd do it for more, but I really, really detest garmin's website). I also like to track the number of hills that exceed 10% as this seems to really correlate with the pain in my legs.

Interestingly, I've found that the simple feet/mile "adjusted for statistical error" does give a pretty good indication. Ties come through with the max gradient and # of climbs over 10%. Not to start a "my hills are worse than your hills" war, but I find that a long, sustained climb of 4-6% is always easier than rollers with 0.5 to 1.5 mile climbs that hover near 8-12%. It is just me; others believe otherwise.

The guy that runs the Dairyland Dare has a formula where he takes the feet/mile and adjusts for distance. ( www.dairylanddare.com ) That doesn't cover SouthernBelle's argument....if it is a flat route with one killer climb.

^^^ Have to agree, a 20-mile climb at 5-6% can be very comfortable, whereas periodic 15-20% segments mixed in with brief respites can seem more like interval training.

Yeah, I have a route with an over 20%, yak if you finish it hill that is truly evil. But it isn't a long hill.

It's all relative. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorn

I find that a long, sustained climb of 4-6% is always easier than rollers with 0.5 to 1.5 mile climbs that hover near 8-12%. It is just me; others believe otherwise.

---

I'm one of the "otherwise." As I said in another thread, the shallow grades on the Lone Star Ride were really kicking my butt... my legs just don't have that gear, because we don't have that kind of hills around here. They weren't long hills either, not much longer than the much steeper hills we have in Ohio. I finally had to think of it as similar to riding into a headwind, and that helped me on the second day. Because you're pushing too hard to spin, but your body position relative to the bike and gravity is more similar to what it is on the flats.

But even though the little climbs were kicking my butt in terms of speed, fatigue at the end of the day was no comparison to riding our local rollers. So I'd have to say feet per mile. Still, over a longer ride, if my legs are already trashed from a lot of climbing early on, then a lot of descents or flats late in the ride aren't really enough to zero it out.

I think the ASO or whoever categorizes the climbs in the TdF would tend to agree... considering that a climb is put into a higher category if it's later in the stage or comes after some other significant climbings.