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
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
Funnily OakLeaf, I am right with you there because that is probably about as far as I've made it! It really is quite horrid. But a ride up there every week or two and my legs are the toughest they've ever been. I'm still slow as a slug though!
It is actually a 14.3mile climb at 213feet/mile and if you do it in the down direction you still get 142feet/mile of climbing! It is pretty horrid in either direction and has 18% climbs in both directions.
I have done the whole thing in the down direction and survived (I got deposited at the top and left my car at the bottom). But I have never managed the whole way up because I just don't think I could face all the climbing involved in coming down again!
The ride I quoted is going "up" as far as a certain sidetrack and then turning around and coming back "down" again and it works out at 177feet/mile over both directions. As you can understand, I use the terms "up" and "down" quite loosely!
PS: Now I've actually worked out how damned steep it is I never want to go there again. I am a wimp at heart!
Me too. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinerabbit
Why not using "Grade"? That way it is regardless of the unit.
My definition of "hilly" is that the average grade is 8+ % for a distance of 4+ km (2.5+ ml).
After conversion, that's a climb of 422+ feet per mile, for 2.5+ miles.
Hilly for me is when there's an obvious high point - you know it when you get there - and also when the grade's steep enough that I'm consistently pushing hard in low gears. Around here that's usually a route with a total climb of around 300m (1000 ft) or more.
LOL :D:D:D Know how you feel :oQuote:
Originally Posted by sfa
This was frickin' hilly for me:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3357/...8ebc05b4a1.jpg
(bigger image)
Added up it totaled to 3,600 feet of climbing in 70 miles, with at least three climbs with grades over 15%. That's plenty, in my book.
Hilly climb, try 9 miles of unreal hill from Rio Verde to what becomes Scottsdale, AZ. It's the hill that never ends, and part of the Tour de Scottsdale.
Lisa :)
No computer, no idea, but I live at 2600 meters above sea level (Bogota) and we go up, it gets chilly and altiplano like, and we go down and it gets hot and humid with mango and coffee trees. It all seems hilly to me, but I have never ridden anywhere else, so not really sure.
I'm such a duh in terms of hill elevation in our area. But finally answered this poll, after consulting dearie on some regular hills that I do nearly daily. I tend to know hills only by grade.
I dislike hills that are heavy road traffic hills ascending and there are 4-way traffic lights along the way. Nothing more annoying than breaking one's cycling rhythm.
I've never thought of it in terms of ft/mile, always in total feet climbed. Living in the mountains almost all of my rides are hilly. I have to go way out of my way to find a flat ride. An "easy" ride will have over 1000 feet of climbing in 20 miles.
Here is the elevation chart for Trans Iowa (320 mile non stop gravel race). It averaged out to 5,000 feet of gain per century. But it was the toughest 5k per century I ever remember doing--steep continuous rollers on gravel. Starting elevation was 741ft and max elevation was 1050 ft.
That was much harder and much more painful than doing a long long 30 mile climb.
So while I love 10,000 feet of gain centuries I HATE short steep rollers. And while I used to say 5,000 foot centuries weren't hilly centuries I am now a convert. :)