SparkyGA

You summarized exactly my method to "planning" while touring. I love hills though and have learned to embraced them on tour

1= Easy
2= Medium
3= Hard
4= Crying on the side of the road.
5+= Good times.... Good times...

I guess I could also this method to determine the amount of extra calories I eat that day

mev

Everyone is different, but for me:

I've found more than 1000m of climb (3300ft) makes for a reasonably full day when fully loaded, regardless of distance. I've done more, but it definitely adds up and a >1000m day is often reason to trim the distance for that day.

I find it not too difficult to ride 5-6% grades for extended periods (e.g. 10km) and ride short distances of ~8% (e.g. 100m) particularly when I am fresh in the morning. If it gets much steeper, then unless the hill is very short (e.g. <50m) then I will often walk.

In general, I would much rather tackle a 500m+ climb first thing in the morning. I am fresher and better able to climb than late in the day. Also depends a bit on temperatures, e.g. if it is hot region than I might prefer to be a little higher overnight and in a colder region might prefer to sleep lower down.

DropBarFan

Another thread mentioned power meters; I've thought about trying a gym stationary bike to see wattage. Didn't realize it took so many watts for slower-speed climbing. Mountain touring can be grueling, makes sense to know one's limits. I have some regional mountainous areas that are scenic but I'd have to do serious training first.

andrewclaus

Exactly how I feel, as I mentioned in post #10. Getting prepared for mountain touring makes the difference between grueling and fun when on tour. In the months before my Northern Tier trip, I ramped up my weekly mileage from 100 to 200, and included 3000' of climbing in the local foothills at least twice a week. Climbing became fun, and I was ready for the successive pass ascents in the North Cascades.

(It seemed I was the only cyclist on that popular route truly enjoying myself. Why someone would invest so much (money, family time, career time) into the trip of a lifetime and not get ready for it, or know one's limits as you said, is beyond me.)

And in my case, that preparation not only included gaining fitness, but also reducing packed weight. I'm not as young as I once was and I got some free wattage by carrying less stuff.

Happy Feet

I agree.
Before my last trip I made a point to spend time working my way into greater fitness. I live 45 minutes drive away from Hope which is the gateway to 3 big mountain routes, and would do weekend day trips up the passes. It made for fun training and social activities as some friends wanted a challenge but could not do a whole trip.

dh024

Pardon my question - it is not meant as a challenge or criticism, but rather I am trying to figure out your method above. Isn't the formula you posted at the top actually computing grade percentages? For example, if I have an elevation gain of 100 m in 1 km, that's 100m/1000m*100% = 10% grade. You mention 10% grade as being challenging at the bottom of the post, so I am trying to figure out what the other numbers above mean (e.g., <1, 1 - 1.25, 1.25 - 1.5, >1.5). Thanks.

IK_biker

Correct, those were grade percentages, but Machka meant them as averages for the entire trip/ride (as was the intent in the 1st post in this thread), while her mention of 10% being too harsh was meant for a single climb during the ride.

Most of us cope well with occasional 10-12% and even short 20% slopes, but I dislike rides/trips with more than 100 ft/mile averages.

dh024

Oh. I guess I just can't relate because most of my trips have been multi-day trips in a big loop, so the net change in elevation is exactly zero (you finish at the exact same elevation at which you started). But that could be with almost no climbs on the route, like on a big rail trail loop, or some huge climbs, like loops through the Rockies. I guess this method won't work there, eh? Or am I still missing something?

Machka 

Yes, as IK_biker says the calculation is the average grade for the entire ride. The ride could be entirely flat except for one massive climb ... or it could be a set of rolling hills ... or two or three pretty significant climbs ...

But for me, something that averages a "1" or less indicates that there's enough flat ground or descents that I'll be able to rest up and make up some time.


So, for example, if I were to do a ride I used to do in the Canadian Rockies fairly frequently ... Nordegg to Saskatchewan River Cross and back to Nordegg ...

According to Google Maps, that's 184 km with 1407 metres of climbing in total.

(1407/184,000)*100 = 0.76 ... that's a nice doable ride for me. And indeed, was. I miss that road.

If I were to map that in Ride with GPS, so I could see the elevation profile and elevation details ... I see that it does basically consist of rolling hills, with the steepest climb being just over 6%. And that's good too.


I've got another route here in Tasmania ... out and back like the one I've just mentioned in Canada. It's 161 km with 1272 metres of climbing = 0.77 ... so about the same as the ride above, which is good.

However the elevation profile is quite different ... steeper climbs with flatter sections in between. The steepest climb is 10% with a couple 8%s in there too. Those will be a challenge, but because the overall route is a 0.77, there should be enough flat stuff in between those climbs for me to recover.

dh024

Ah, now I understand. It is not really average gradient for the entire trip, but rather just the climbs (i.e., uphill gradients) normalized by the distance. That makes perfect sense now - I'll have to try this out. Many thanks.

And yes, Highway 11 (David Thompson Highway) into the Rockies is a wonderful ride - I live at the far northwest part of Calgary, so I have easy access to that region and know that area well - I always enjoy exploring the highways and backcountry roads all in that area for biking and fly fishing.

Machka 

Yes, that's it.

Someone in the Road forum mentioned that formula a couple years ago and I too was sceptical about it, but I needed some way of figuring out whether or not I could do the rides here in Tasmania, where it is very hilly. I was attempting some, but was going way over the time limits and really struggling. So I started experimenting with that formula and discovered what I could do and what was too challenging for me.


And I lived much of my life in Alberta, most recently 5 years in Red Deer ... great for accessing Hwy 11.


I've got to toss this in here ... one of my favourite photos I took of one of my favourite roads ...

79pmooney

You've got it all backwards. RPM matters 1) when you are picking your gears and 2) when you hacve lower gears to choose from. Once you are in your bottom gear, forget about it! Watch your breathing and your legs. Breathing too high? Slow down. Legs feeling it? Consider a rest or walking. But once you are in that last gear, DON"T look at your RPM. It will depress you. And pedaling faster to make it look batter is playing the fool.

Take it from someone who has climbed hundreds of hills in a bottom gear that was too high. Racing back in the day when I geared my 5 cogs on back so I could hang on flat ground and not get dropped. Usually a 13-19 FW. Even as a hard 25 yo mountain goat, there was no way I was spinning that gear (42-19) up any hard hill. Plus I have ridden fix gear up gain hundreds of hills. RPMs get very low!

I'm not saying do what I do. Pick your gears carefully. But once you leave, you are ridding what you got. If you are doing real hills that you do not know, you WILL hit one that tests that bottom gear. Just ride it. Again, watch your breathing. Too hard - slow down. Starting to get ragged. You are well past redline and you will pay. Better yet, do some hard practice hills that are too much for your bottom gear and touring load (or without the touring load on your other bike with a higher gear. Do this to get acquainted with your breathing and your body so you know what is too hard and will hurt you later. (A heartrate monitor is actually better but you have to practice with it too. And your breathing is always there. It does change as the ride goes on but if you know it you have a guide as to how close to "redline" you are riding.)

Now, how deeply you can breath and not go over the edge will change as your conditioning improves. (THat's fun to observe.)

Above all, remember to have fun!

Ben

fietsbob

Yup, Just ride, enjoy the day see the Scenery, when its evening find a place to stay/camp.

Paper maps with topographic marking have been published for decades.. with Aerial /Sattellite Photos, Maps are better than in the 19th Century..

DropBarFan

& I see that one can download topo maps for free now. Haven't used them myself but seems like they could give some good quick info about terrain.

jaacco

I'm a bit late to this thread but...We live in a flat country and while we do occasional local touring we have very little experience on real hill climbing.

We are now planning our first tour in a hilly country and are a bit scared excited about hard it will be? I created one potential route with elevation profiles here: https://www.bikemap.net/en/routecoll...an-adventures/ (Start in Pula, route is split in three parts).

Could someone help and make a bit of an assessment about what to expect? We are both average fitness cyclists and like to relaxed cycling with old MTB's and camping gear. I am bit concerned about having the wrong expectations for the tour.

Machka 

Croatia 1 is 168 km with 1740 metres of climbing

Croatia 2 is 293 km with 2170 metres of climbing

Croatia 3 is 326 km with 3120 metres of climbing

According to the calculation I mentioned earlier in the thread,

Croatia 1 is 1.03 (1740/168000)*100

Croatia 2 is 0.74

Croatia 3 is 0.96

What does this mean? Well, it kind of depends on you.

For me, right now, anything around the 1 mark is doable within the Audax/Randonneuring minimum time limit of 15 km/h. It may be somewhat difficult, but it is doable.

Down around the 0.75 range is close to a flat ride ... for me, a flatlander who has recently learned how to climb.

Once a ride gets up around 1.25 or so, I know it's going to be a tough and fairly slow ride.

The way to find out what it means for you is to map out a reasonably challenging ride in your local area and do the calculation above on the route to see what number you get. Then go ride it and see how you feel. Try it with other routes. Soon you'll discover what number is a reasonably doable ride for you, and you can use that as a comparison with other routes.


That said ... all routes are different. A 1.03 route could contain one big hill and the rest flat, or a whole series of rollers. So you would want to use the calculation above with an elevation profile. I also look at grade percentages. I can handle 1 or 2 hills with grades around 10% or slightly over, but too many of them, and I'm not happy.

But start with the calculation and then have a look at elevation and grade ... and compare it with what you know in your local area.

rm -rf

Power and hills

(For steep hills, there's a limit of how slow you can ride without falling over, so that determines a lower limit on your power required there.)

I have a few recent rides recorded with a power meter. The free Golden Cheetah software has a power curve graph, showing my maximum power over different time periods.

Now, in early springtime, my best 1-hour average power on those rides is 119 watts. On flat ground, that's a little more than 17 mph / 28 kph riding in the drops on a road bike.

For two hours, it's 109 watts, and I didn't record any rides where I was pedaling much longer than that .
The best 10 minutes is 144 watts.
The best 1 minute is 280 watts.
The 1 to 15 second readings are from standing up, pushing hard on the pedals, while pulling on the bars.

It's interesting how flat the power curve is for time periods over 30 minutes or so. And high power efforts have to be quite short (but can later repeat after a recovery).

Even somewhat higher power efforts have to be a fairly short time period. A long, steep climb will be difficult, and needs rest stops along the way.

The graph. The shaded-in parts are actual best watts, the dashed line is the fitted power curve.

gauvins

Great nugget of info.

I hope to be in a position to do something similar (i.e. capturing + analyzing data) this spring. But our schedule being what it is, I may have to wait until September. My expectation is that my power curve will look quite a bit like yours.

jefnvk

Out of curiosity, are there any sites (whether bike specific or not) that show elevation profiles for regular roads, for areas that lie outside of Google Map's bike option? Or am I just stuck with looking at topo maps if I want a clue on the detailed elevation profile?


EDIT: Nevermind, answered my own question, never realized Strava could be used to plot routes that were a couple hundred miles long!

jaacco

Try bikemap.net I linked above. It gives bicycle routing and elevation profile on locations not yet in google maps bike routing.

jefnvk

Yeah, I gave it a shot when I saw it, but it still doesn't have elevation where I am looking.

jaacco

Thanks! So on average not too hardcore but it's kinda hard to grasp the grade difficulties as for example route 1 elevation chart shows many 5km+ long 10%+ hills and we have nothing even close here

Machka 

Also have a look at Ride with GPS.

Machka 

From what I can see in the elevation profile, the routes starts with a long gradual climb ... 300 metres in elevation gain over 40 km.

The next climb is 200 metres over 20 km.

Then it is flat for quite a while.

Then you've got a 150 metre climb over about 7 km.

Then some rollers.

I'm not seeing anything that is 5 km long with 10% grade all the way. 10% over 5 km would involve a 500 metre elevation gain in 5 km.

Are we looking at the same elevation profile?

jaacco

Whoops made a math error there