Without starting a p*ssing contest about "my hills are bigger than your hills," some of those threads, plus the thrashing I got yesterday :rolleyes:, got me to wondering what each of us considers to be a hilly ride.
So whaddaya think?
Printable View
Without starting a p*ssing contest about "my hills are bigger than your hills," some of those threads, plus the thrashing I got yesterday :rolleyes:, got me to wondering what each of us considers to be a hilly ride.
So whaddaya think?
I used to live in the Adirondacks where every ride was a hilly ride... so it became necessary to distinguish. You could carefully avoid the mountain climbs, but if you decided to tackle them, that's a hilly ride!
Now that I'm in the gently rolling hills of Missouri, I'd consider any hilly ride any ~20 mile ride that's got at least five >10% hills that are at least 100 yards long.
lol i was surprised to see my definition (100 feet of climb per mile) as one of the choices.
But there are hills and there are hills.
I figure it's all relative to where you live and ride. My perspective changes every time I move!
I can't answer your poll because I don't think of my rides that way. I tend to think of my rides in terms of total elevation gain. But then, that's only for the really hilly rides like on the Blue Ridge Parkway, Vermont, and in the mountains of Arizona. Otherwise, I just ride and when there's a hill, I get over it.
Interesting.
You made me go and download my bike journal into an excel spreadsheet and play around with it.
I classify road rides as "flat" (such as my commute), "rolling" (such as my weekend club rides), and "hilly" (such as no ride I've yet done this year, but I would think the Civil War Century would fall under that category).
I then looked at total elevation gain, as measured by my Garmin, divided by total miles for the ride, also measured by my Garmin - except for my commutes, which use my Cateye computer.
My "flat" rides have an average of 46.85 feet of gain per mile, with a span of 5.5 ft/mi (Eastern shore of Maryland, anyone? :rolleyes:) to 56.8 ft/mi for an extended commute of mine.
My "rolling" rides have an average of 48.86 ft/mi, with a span of 41.7 to 57.0 ft/mi.
I'm no statistician.....but I'd be willing to bet there's no significant difference b/t what I call "flat" and what I call "rolling".
Which leads me to believe that - at least for me - "flat" vs. "rolling" is all in the eye of the beholder!
It's hard for me to answer your poll. I think of "hilly" in terms of locale, not by how much actual climbing. Rides in and around Indianapolis, where I live, are all flat and are listed as such on my Bikejournal entries. There may be a minor hill or two, but you REALLY have to go out of your way to find them.
If I head about 30 to 40 miles south of Indy, it's what I consider to be hilly--of the short and steep variety. I list most of those rides as "hilly" although the total altitude gain is still pretty low.
If I head even farther south--to Kentucky or Tennessee--then I can really hit some hills, but it's rare that I get to climb an actual "mountain." I think the longest sustained climb I've done is about 3 miles. :( I'd really like to climb more.
Because I don't climb much, I'm liable to view any ride that has at least 4 or 5good climbs as "hilly."
You know, I used to think that what was 'hilly' to me didn't change (which doesn't mean that my 'hilly' is the same as someone else's 'hilly', of course). A hilly ride in the rolling foothills of NC is the same a a hilly ride here in the valley/hills on the edge of the Cascades. And I also use the terms 'rolling', 'flat', 'hills' and then 'mountainous' to distinguish amongst them (for my own records). For the record, I defined 'hilly' as 100 ft per mile by your categories, but that leaves 'very hilly' and 'mountainous' as rides that have more climbing than that.
BUT, what I am finding out lately that rides that used to be rolling to flat for me now feel decidedly hilly. :o Weight gain, lack of fitness, and lack of solid saddle time really mess with my definitions more than I thought they would. I think that these days what I used to call a 'mountainous' ride I would now call a 'I need to drive the car' ride. *cry*
I actually keep feet/mile statistics. I find it an interesting statistic yet very subjective. I tend to think that if I have a gear that I can comfortably ride most of the hills in, then it wasn't too hilly (hilly, but not too much). If I run out of gears too often, that is a hilly ride.
Around home, that means 50 feet/mile (about the max I can get) is hilly if I refuse to use my low gears. But, if I use the right gear, 50 feet/mile is just a nice ride to me. I've never been on a ride with 75 feet/mile where I've had enough gears---yet--I'm still hoping for the day.
I have to vote for "Totally subjective and unrelated to actual statistics." One ride might feel hilly one day and not so bad the next. If it FEELS hilly, darn it, it WAS! :D:p That said, the King's Tour of the Quabbin, with 7,000 feet of (extremely short, steep, rolling hill-type) climbing in 100 miles, qualified as Definitely Hilly in my book. I compare all other rides to that and determine hilliness from that completely non-empirical scale.
Plus, I usually just look at total ascent and maybe steepest climb, so I can't really choose one of the options because I don't know how my rides fall on that scale.
Gosh girls could you have done it metric? I had to do a spreadsheet! and ended up at 85 ft/mile.
please let me to be the first one to apologize for typical American "we're the only ones here" mentality.
i'm glad you were able to do the conversion.
I use the same "thinking" as Kfergos, probably because we live in the same area.
Every ride I do from my house includes a 10-15% grade short climb to get home. My regular loop rides all include small hills that are medium steep (but short). There is only one ride that I classify as "flat" that I do out of my door.
What I have found is that what some people call rolling, I call hilly, but they are short rollers that are 5-6%. It's just that there's a lot of those around here.
I have done rides with 4-6 thousand feet of climbing that usually involve very steep climbs that are short, but come one right after the other. Those are "very hilly" to me.
Unlike others here, I liberally use my granny gear and last summer I saw 4 mph on Mudgett Hill Rd. in Charlton, MA. It was about 1.5 miles, with some spots at 18-20%. I don't care how slow I go, my goal is to get up the hill. I have only walked once, and that also occurred last summer, in Blanford, MA. It was about 1/2 a mile of 15-20% grades, which then crested, so I got back on my bike. Of course, then there was about 2 miles of 10-15% climbing, but I did that one..
I don't do numbers or use gadgets. I don't even have a computer on my bike yet. Not sure if I will.
I just ride.
Sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's easy.
I agree. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by alpinerabbit