Printable View
I voted 75 ft/per mile, because my rides are all round trips from home, so any big climbs also have their equally big descents. That brings the average for the ride down 'per mile'.
Besides, it said to vote for 'hilly rides' not 'extreme hills' rides. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biciclista
Oh, goodness, everyone posts in her local units, don't we? It certainly wasn't meant as an insult and I don't take it as an insult when one of the non-American gals posts something in km...
Anyway:
I can't edit the poll choices, but it's even simpler in metric,
50 feet/mile is close enough as never mind to 10 m/km
75 feet/mile say 15 m/km
100 feet/mile 20 m/km
Mmmmkay?
I'm not quite sure how to figure out all the numbers, but I count a ride as hilly if it crosses my mind more than a few times that I could be going faster if I got off and walked. Of course, with a good headwind, this can happen to me on nice flat roads.
Sarah
It all depends on my state of mind. Sometimes i have days that hills seem like they are flat and other days flat rides seem like hilly rides...
http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/midi/konfus/c022.gif
I don't measure these things, so I can't choose an answer to the poll. I do know that "hilly" has changed for me over the years. The first time I did the Patuxent River Rural Legacy ride, I thought it was really hilly. But now, well it's not flat, but it's not really hilly either.
It's the same thing with ride distance. When I first got a bike after moving to DC, most of my rides were about 10 miles, I considered 25 miles to be a long ride, and a century was just crazy. Then someone asked if I wanted to join him for a ride from Harpers Ferry to Georgetown on the C&O Canal towpath, which is over 60 miles. After that I decided I wanted to do a century. So now for me 25 miles is a short-ish ride, and 10 miles is really short. But I expect that to change in time, and at some point I will be back to thinking that 10 miles is more than enough.
This is hilly to me. I think some of the hillier rides 'round here average in the 60-80 feet/mile category, but I'm not sure. All I know... is it's hilly. :p
Indysteel and I rode this a couple weeks ago together:Quote:
Originally Posted by indysteel
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...villehilly.jpg
The scale didn't copy, but it's 600 ft on the low end and 950ft on the top (and 65 mile distance).
I count it as hilly, but frankly, I'd probably be more exhausted by a 10 mile continuous 2% grade.
Here's what we did yesterday. And I agree, actually, the total climbing was like 4700 feet over 80 miles, but so much of it was in the first half that our legs were pretty trashed for the flatter return trip.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_3vDkQwuSTy0/Sh...-19%20ride.jpg
Gee, I'm not sure. I guess it's hilly if I stand up on a lot of hills? My ride last Sunday was hilly. One huge hill (series of steep climbs - not a mountain, but it has "mountain" in its name - from the opposite direction it is right at my limit), one very big hill, one major grinder, and lots and lots of rollers and lesser grinders. We don't have mountains, but we do have what I consider to be big hills. It is possible to find flat routes, but generally, if I ride from home or for much distance, I will hit at least one big climb. If you plan it carefully, you can map out a 50 mile route that will hit 5 significant climbs. I haven't found anything around here that I can't ride with my standard double, but a couple are touch & go, standing up and giving it everything I have. Twice last year (on the afore-mentioned hill, coming up the steep side) I had what felt like split-second wooziness - like all the blood suddenly flowed out of my brain, but then I was okay.
I didn't do the survey - I haven't ever measured the elevation changes on my rides.
I want to choose one of the poll questions but I know nothing about how many feet etc I do on a ride. I just want to ride uphill :) no matter how hilly the area is.
Yay for hills!
My definition has changed over the years...I grew up in Chicago and thought an overpass was a hill. :o
Now I live in the mountains and most rides are at least 100 ft/mile. Love my hills! :)
Umm I not a number geek enough to answer but I consider hilly anything west of me in the "Texas Hill Country". I personally live on a plateau but can venture just a bit to find hills.
If I am sore after a ride it was either hilly or windy. I have sent one visiting TE'r on my favorite ride just a bit west and she was sore like I am every time I do it. I don't know the stats on it though.
I don't ride mountains but when the mood strikes me I can find some lumpy rides.
I kind of have a love/hate relationship with hills, so sometimes the fact that to get out of my street I need to climb at 14% is enough to make any ride a hilly ride!
So I fondly expected that my answer to the poll should be at the very flat end! And frankly I was going to say that any bike with a 42-18 as its lowest gear would be unacceptable, until I realised that my ancient roadie that sits on the mag-trainer is exactly that. And that's WHY I dislike hills so much and am so convinced I can't climb them!
But then I loaded up good old Garmin Training Centre and worked out all my favourite rides in feet/mile (gosh I love my Garmin toy!) and I must like hills more than I thought, since most of my usual road rides are at least 36feet/mile and are frequently 63feet/mile.
But when I go out on the mountain bike I was surprised to find they range from125-148feet/mile and the very special one I had a breakthrough on the other week rates 177feet/mile with several climbs at 18%! No WONDER I hate that puppy!!:eek:
So I think I have to go with anything with more than three 15% bits. That means I almost knock one over getting out of my street, so I only need two more to get to a "hilly ride" by my definition!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkbikes
:eek::eek::eek: I think I'd be good for about ten miles of that. Maybe. :p
Moi aussi ... Go metric FFS!Quote:
Originally Posted by papaver