patentcad

With this new Garmin Joule 2.0 head unit I've been paying attention to altitude gain on my rides. I've come to the conclusion (through observation all summer while riding hills and mountains) that for me a real hilly ride is one that features about 1,000 feet (or as close to it as I can get) of vertical gain for every 10 miles ridden. For example 5,000 vertical feet of gain in 50 miles is very hilly, you have to really hit a lot of climbs to get there. In Greece for example, where I was really doing nothing but going up and down mountain passes, I had one ride that was 6500 feet of gain in 70 miles. I did one ride here in Orange County hitting every big hill we have around here, and I think it came to 7500 vertical feet in 80 miles.

That's a rough formula, but it seems about right. On those two rides above, I was doing a load of climbing. Interestingly, although Greece was more mountainous (longer climbs) I do a similar amount of total vertical here in NY, but here the longest climbs tend to only gain 400-800 feet in elevation (in Greece the climbs were more like 2000 feet in gain). But there are just a ton of rollers and smaller hills here with 50-200 feet in gain. In some ways I find that harder than the longer climbs I was doing in Europe, where you can settle into a rhythm and just climb for 30-50 minutes at a clip....

scattered73

in houston at least four bridges.

Cromulent

Around here, in the mountainous region of the Midwest known as Milwaukee, I can often ride for 50 miles with as much as 80 - 100 ft of climbing. Sometimes more. It's exhausting.

robertc3

I think 100 vertical feet per mile is a bit too high of standard for a hilly ride. Finding a ride that gets to 100'/mile is really quite hard unless you are just doing hill repeats. I have a hill training route from my house that climbs or descends pretty much constantly it just makes that standard. I live on top of a hill and have 500' of decent and climbing in every direction. 100'/per mile is very hilly. I would say hilly would be 75'/mile.

patentcad

The hilliest rides I've done here and in Greece tend to be about 90' of gain per mile, I was using 100' for round numbers and to impress the girl(s) on BF.

AngryScientist 

eh, why define these things anyway? i rode the 80 out to bear mountain from alpine last weekend - that was about 6200 feet of climbing over 80 miles, i think that counts...but its really all about your own fitness anyway.

hey pcad, is it upsetting that your addiction thread has been taken over by the "kids"?

hammond9705

"So what constitutes a 'hilly' ride?"

In N Texas any ride where you need to get out of the big ring

patentcad

It's humiliating.


I like it.

wanders

confederate flags in the front yard.

patentcad

It's about the Schwag.

aham23

you said hilly, then classify real hilly, but not hilly.

the question still stands; So what constitutes a 'hilly' ride?

later.

AngryScientist 

agreed. i just got new schwagtastic wheels myself. they practically climbed bear mountain for me.

mrbUSA

In Fort Lauderdale, at least 2.

cappuccino911

i asked a similar question a few years ago because here in NYC i ride across the GWB and go up 9w and i'm astounded at the amount of elevation gain my runkeeper device claims because I don't think the ride is all that hard because they are rollers and often times your momentum gets you a good portion of the way up the next hill. But if I go down into Palisades park there is an extended climb all the way back up to the police station in Alpine that does me in pretty good but that one stretch is probably about 400 feet of climbing in a 2 mile stretch relatively consistently straight up but with a couple of rollers.

Dr. Banzai

I live in a hilly city. So I rode all over it. I included a bridge.

300m of elevation in 30kms. That's hilly. Not mountainous, but hilly.

scotch

because there are nothing but hills where i live, and because i suck at riding up them, all my rides are hilly. so for me, the question is whether or not a particular hill is made of chip-seal or something less nasty.

that thing is like a 7th grade lunch table.

valygrl

So, if I leave home and ride 28 miles and climb 4800 feet to the top of Lefthand Canyon, and take the bus home, it's a hilly ride, but if I turn around and ride the 28 miles back home it's no longer hilly.

I'm confused.

brianbeech

Hilly around the Louisville/So. Indiana:

36 miles = 1584 feet elevation
38 miles = 1320 feet elevation
11 miles = 426 feet elevation

Depends on the route - obviously. I'm sure someone in Colorado or parts of Cali would laugh at these numbers and say I'm a flat-lander.

So, it's all relative.

teterider

I would say 1,000 ft of climbing per 10 miles (or a 10,000' century), is classified as a mountainous ride.
In Mass, I average around 500-600 feet per 10 miles and I would call it hilly.

cappuccino911

no, altitude gain is measured as how much you actually ascend. So you don't decrease the number when you go down a hill

brianbeech

surely you see that if you only ride 28 miles and climb that much, the entire ride was very hilly, but as you go down the hill, and ride the 28 back, your ride had half as much elevation gain...right?!?!

bosoxmrkn

Hilliest ride i've done.. 3600+ feet in 52 miles.. Around 70ft per mile. That was relatively hilly...

patentcad

Yeah, well it's not mountainous around here, but I can get pretty close.

nycphotography

He didn't even classify "really hilly", rather he gave a number (100' per mile avg) that is higher than any of the really hilly rides he's actually done (which he later states as being around 90' / mile).

I can say that 3500ft in 35 miles was a bigger butt kicker than I expected (having done lots of longer hillier rides). Probably because at 35 miles, I didn't pace myself for a long day ;-)

I might consider a hilly ride as starting at 75' per mile on average.

patentcad

In other words it has become arguably far too high brow for BF.