Cycling UK Forum

Just got in from a little spin around the lanes here in the Cotswolds, and I was wondering what other people considered a "hilly" ride. I've been here a year and find that the norm is about 100 ft of elevation gain per mile, averaged over a ride. I call it "hilly". What are other peoples' experiences and categories?

I agree.
100ft per mile is hilly, trouble is, that's normal for me here!
I often do 120ft per mile.

This is one of my hilly rides - well it's hilly to me

Try this one.

yakdiver wrote:This is one of my hilly rides - well it's hilly to me

I'd say this was hilly too. At a quick glance, it seems that the up-slopes are much the same as the down.
On a ride, I prefer the hill climbing to be steep, and short, followed by plenty of gradual downhill. If I do such a ride in the opposite direction, the time taken on the long gradual up-slopes never seems to be comepensated for by the short-lived downward rush (however exciting it may be).

Mick F wrote:Try this one.

30miles and 3,200ft .png

No thanks Mick you can keep that one for yourself.

I'm a lightweight (well actually quite the reverse) as I consider anything more than 40 feet per mile of climb to be hilly

Hum. 100ft/mile works out at almost 2%. I'd certainly call that hilly. The usual here for a Sunday 100k event is around 1%, and I've noticed that people start bellyaching at around 1.5%. The Paris-Nice race is around 4% - one of the toughest in France. My ride today only averaged 1%, but I did it on an LHT so I'm reasonably chuffed.

I have 3 sets of speed humps in my road, it being only 40metres long Id say that was hilly...

fluffybunnyuk wrote:I have 3 sets of speed humps in my road, it being only 40metres long Id say that was hilly...

Chapeau

Claireysmurf wrote:I'm a lightweight (well actually quite the reverse) as I consider anything more than 40 feet per mile of climb to be hilly

I imagined that this would be the case...different people will have different definitions. I just was interested, because I'd found today's little ride more tiring (at about 110 ft per mile) than normal. But, there again my energy levels vary from day to day.

Note, Claireysmurf, that the norm I spoke about was for an average. It's the amount of climb for the whole ride, and not just for the climbing bit. For example, a little circuit I do is round to the next village and back. I start with 350ft up a 1 mile stretch. Level for2 miles. 350 ft down, and 350 ft up (in 1.5 miles of climbin) to the ridge opposite. On the ridge and down home. It's 7 miles in total, with 700 ft ascent. The way you phrased your post looks like your counting only the uphill bit.

Here's something strange, too. I'm from the Yorkshire Dales, and the hills there are much higher than here in the Cotswolds. But, my rides there average much less elevation gain per mile, because most miles are done along the long valley bottoms, and not up and down the small steep valleys that proliferate here. I winder if anyone else has noticed something similar.

yakdiver wrote:

Mick F wrote:Try this one.

30miles and 3,200ft .png

No thanks Mick you can keep that one for yourself.

+1, unless I'm riding alongside Lance

fluffybunnyuk wrote:I have 3 sets of speed humps in my road, it being only 40metres long Id say that was hilly...