climb gain ratio

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 4315
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: climb gain ratio

Postby Audax67 » 11 Feb 2019, 11:12am

My normal yardstick is that a hilly ride is one where climb/distance is greater than 1%, i.e. 10 metres/km. As an example, the Paris-Nice has a ratio of 4% and is reckoned one of the toughest.

BTW, I noticed years ago that whatever the slope of a hill, the rate at which I rose vertically remained much the same, although of course it diminished with fatigue. If you gain 10 metres/minute on an 8% slope you'll gain 10 metres/minute on a 15% or a 5%. This breaks down on false flats because air resistance plays a bigger role.
Have we got time for another cuppa?

User avatar
foxyrider
Posts: 4440
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 10:25am
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Re: climb gain ratio

Postby foxyrider » 11 Feb 2019, 11:38am

Bmblbzzz wrote:1000m per 100km is pretty standard, above that might be considered hilly.

Working on that basis, even my 'flat' rides are hilly! I often swing across North Notts, @ 100km rides in what i'm sure pretty much anyone would consider at most rolling countryside, no steep grades at all, a few longer drags at maybe 2/3%. But I still come home with 1200m+ of ascent as there's some significant climbing in the first/last few km.

By comparison, I did a similar length ride a fortnight ago across the PD. It didn't feel particularly hilly or take any longer for that matter but it had a 2000m total ascent. That I would call hilly looking purely at the numbers.
Convention? what's that then?
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!

thelawnet
Posts: 2077
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: climb gain ratio

Postby thelawnet » 11 Feb 2019, 12:44pm

Audax67 wrote:My normal yardstick is that a hilly ride is one where climb/distance is greater than 1%, i.e. 10 metres/km. As an example, the Paris-Nice has a ratio of 4% and is reckoned one of the toughest.


Don't think it does.

1st stage - https://www.cyclingstage.com/paris-nice ... e-pn-2018/ undulating, short 100 metre hill @ the end of 6%
2nd stage - https://www.cyclingstage.com/paris-nice ... e-pn-2018/ even flatter
3rd stage - https://www.cyclingstage.com/paris-nice ... e-pn-2018/ - gains 265m, max gradient is 4.5%
4th stage - time trial
5th stage - 360m gained, up to 6.1% gradient https://www.cyclingstage.com/paris-nice ... e-pn-2018/
6th stage - some 5%-6% climbs, but loses 200 metres overall https://www.cyclingstage.com/paris-nice ... e-pn-2018/
7th stage - gains 1500m, up to 7% https://www.cyclingstage.com/paris-nice ... e-pn-2018/
8th stage - loop, hills of 4-5.5% https://www.cyclingstage.com/paris-nice ... e-pn-2018/

The difficulty with getting a ratio of 4% is if you climb at an average of 8% - steeper than anything above - and then go back down the same, you only end up with 4%. There is an elevation gain of 1900m in the 1200km race, but that's only worth 1.6m/km - not significant in the context of a supposed 40m/km.

Mountain days in the TdF will get up to 4%, but not the whole Tour.