Cycling UK Forum

I'll take my Goretex.

fishfright wrote:CLIMBBYBIKE-INDEX
(H*100/D)*2 + H²/D + D/1000 + (T-1000)/100

Whereby: H = difference in height; D = distance in meters; T = top of mountain in meters
The last part of the formula does only apply to mountains above 1000 meters.
http://www.climbbybike.com/climb_difficulty.asp

Thanks for that, don't know why I couldn't find it.

That's a pretty crude index, because it only takes into account the total climb and the average steepness, plus an altitude adjustment. I'm sure the site I used to consult a number of years ago had a much more sophisticated index that took account of the actual steepness of each section of the climb. Thus a two mountains the same climb over the same road distance could get a rather different scores according to the profile of the climb. And to me that would be realistic - a climb made up of really steep sections with a gentle approach is a lot worse than an even climb.

Mick F wrote:

andrew_s wrote:

Mick F wrote:New innertubes arrived today.
Where is this hill?

It looks fun, but not difficult.

Schwalbe.jpeg

In the Tianmen Mountain National Park, northwestern Hunan province
http://www.dangerousroads.org/asia/chin ... china.html
200m to 1300m in 11 km, so fairly steep.

200m to 1300m in 11km in normal units is .......................................

http://www.calculateme.com

656ft to 4,256ft in 6.8miles
That's a total ascent of 3,870ft.
That's 570ft per mile ...................... ie VERY VERY VERY steep.

The photo doesn't look steep at all.
Are we sure the facts are correct?

You have bamboozled yourself by using complicated units. In metric, it is obvious at a glance that the average steepness is 1:10. That's why most of the world uses them. It's people like you that cause things like this to happen, the loss of a $125m spaceship due to a mistake in a calculation with imperial units made by a stubborn engineer who refused to use metric units http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/ ... metric.02/

ooooooooo ......... you're telling me off!

I thought about that climb later, and considered it wasn't as bad as I'd initially calculated.
If you look at the picture, it doesn't look bad at all.

Going on a bit further, considering Gunnislake Hill compared to Mont Ventoux:
Gunny Hill main part is 50ft to 600ft in 1.2miles.
That is (550ft ascent) 168m in 2Km ....... or thereabouts.
If Gunny Hill was 22Km just like MV, it would have a total ascent of 1850m

MV from Bédoin has a total ascent of (only) 1617m

Easy peasy!

re units; I will happily use whichever measurement system is most convenient in terms of making the calculations straightforward. Sometimes that is metric, sometimes imperial.

cheers

It doesn't matter how you measure it, a stiff climb still gets higher with age.

cycleruk wrote:It doesn't matter how you measure it, a stiff climb still gets higher with age.

Exactly.
That's why triples were invented.

If a hill is too steep, you're in the wrong gear.
If the hill is too long, get off for a minute or two and admire the view.

Mick F wrote:

cycleruk wrote:It doesn't matter how you measure it, a stiff climb still gets higher with age.

Exactly.
That's why triples were invented.

If a hill is too steep, you're in the wrong gear.
If the hill is too long, get off for a minute or two and admire the view.

Minute or two? I've spent entire days off and admiring the view when cycling up really long hills.

cycleruk wrote:It doesn't matter how you measure it, a stiff climb still gets higher with age.

It did for me until I lost 40lb two years ago. Got a lot easier, but within that, IS getting harder with age!

A loose surface can make a climb difficult as can one where you can see the top from a long way away.

But what about the ones where you think you are seeing the top, but on rounding the bend discover to your horror that you weren't?

Sweep wrote:But what about the ones where you think you are seeing the top, but on rounding the bend discover to your horror that you weren't?

The first time you climb any hill is the hardest for that reason - you don't know where the top is until you've reached it.

Difficulty of a climb depends entirely on a rider's ability. For some a slight gradient might be a major climb. I passed someone (younger than me) struggling on one recently.

It's where mobile phone masts are a blessing - you don't get them on every hill, but they are rarely on false summits...

Gearoidmuar wrote:3. Holme Moss fully-laden into a strong wind from Holmefirth having done 78 miles with a 30mph crosswind the day before.

Yes, its' a sod, as you're climbing essentially from the traffic-lights in Holmfirth, with the gradient increasing from Holmbridge


quote="mattsccm"]Not so much no tarmac as very bad tarmac, coupled with holes, grass, moss and sticks. Throw in too many cars to allow you to pick a sensible line and a gradient that means you need to stand up when the surface doesn't have the grip to allow you to do so.[/quote]
Agreed
Bad tarmac, that's casing you to skip about, making tiny alterations to direction, it's distracting & demoralising

Mick F wrote:656ft to 4,256ft in 6.8miles
That's a total ascent of 3,870ft.
That's 570ft per mile ...................... ie VERY VERY VERY steep.

The photo doesn't look steep at all.
Are we sure the facts are correct?

Trooper Lane, in Halifax is stated to gain 550 feet (or so)_ in half-a-mile, & that's bloody tough
I've not ridden it, but have 'run' up it (partly, anyway, during the 'Bluebell Trail 10 Mile')

http://thehelloftheworth.blogspot.co.uk ... -lane.html

A snapped chain, grrrrr