Iride01 

The OP didn't describe or categorize any of the traffic on either of these two routes. So for one to assume either of them as hazardous for bicycle travel is just ludicrous.

There are roads I don't ride on at all. There are some I avoid unless necessary. However there are many roads that will never be an issue.

mstateglfr 

60'/mile is not necessarily 'basically flat.
It could be 60 1' elevation change smooth rolls in the road which will be pretty much flat.
It could be a 40' climb at 9% and a 20' climb at 13% which would be the opposite of flat.

It's just funny you would so dismissively declare 60'/mi to be flat.

mrdelurk

I wish I could do that, but the grassy road is branching off in a totally different direction. So it is not possible.

mrdelurk

The climbing, if I pick that choice, will be in both ways. The road peaks halfway between my home and the mall.

mrdelurk

It's around $5 now, but I can tell it's gonna go way up, so I'm getting ready

livedarklions

First he said 600 feet of climbing and 600 ft of altitude gain, so I honestly don't know what he's talking about because those aren't the same thing. Second, in
​​​post #6-- he said he couldn't tell whether he's going up or downhill without measuring it. Those don't exactly sound like steep whatever they are.
So maybe you ought to actually read context a bit better before you do one of your periodic drive by shots at me. They're invariably stupid.

mstateglfr 

regardless of what the op said, you claimed 600' over 10mi is basically flat. That's what I responded to. I think it is not basically flat.

Calsun

I would avoid the gravel road but it may be much safer after 5 PM when motorists are rushing home and not paying attention to a cyclist on the shoulder. The 600 foot elevation gain means having an ultra low "granny" gear on the bike. For normal riding I have a 24T as my largest cog but for touring I go to a 28T or even a 30T. Not an expensive mod to make and you can ignore this ultra low gear when not hauling groceries.

mrdelurk

I see, so I should have said "elevation gain" then, sorry. There are many mild hills, only one section is somewhat steeper. It climbs 100ft over 2000ft, it's not a deal breaker. A nice "wheee!" roll down when going home. OK, done deal, I'll pick the pavement shoulder, then.

I was just trying to figure out if biking through gravel / grass is more tiresome in general than biking through paved hills with a 600ft elevation difference. I'm a horribly un-steady rider to compare the two. My speed may go anywhere from total snail to me racing cars, even on the same trip, depending on mood and lateness. This speed seems to make a far more memorable difference to my muscles than what I just barreled through.

livedarklions

Guess I'm just stronger than you, then.

RH Clark

I prefer less traffic and just wanted to add to try your best to avoid riding directly into a rising or setting sun. I know 2 cyclists that were killed because of no visibility from an early morning rising sun.

mstateglfr 

dk200/unbound is 48'/mile.
The upcoming '22 TDF is 77'/mile.

...but 60'/mile is 'basically flat'.flat.
It's just interesting how perspectives are so different.

livedarklions

Well, you're from Iowa, so yeah.

mstateglfr 

The upcoming TDF is only 17'/mile more than what you call 'basically flat'. Unbound is 12'/mile less than what you call 'basically flat'.

This is quite the odd flex by you and a funny hill to die on. 60'/mile is not at all 'basically flat' and such a comment is absurd.
Someone riding 50mi and doing 50 40' hills that are 9% grade and 50 20' short punchy 13% grade climbs definitely didn't ride a flat route. That is true if they live in Texas, Iowa, or North Carolina. It's true if they ride 2x11 in SoCal, 3x9 in Denver, or single speed in Boston.

mrdelurk

That's already a given. I'm biking only from 8am to 4:30pm. Even on the pavement shoulder, I bike past way many car skid marks leading into the bush not to tempt fate by biking during reduced visibility times.

livedarklions

I get that you think this nitpicky stuff matters, so would it help you if I said it could easily be basically flat? 60 feet of climb per mile averages to a grade just over 1%, do the math, that's basically rounding error. Mathematically, x per mile average is pretty meaningless, which is why I asked him to explain his hill situation. You have to know how the hills are distributed to know if the climbs really matter. And again, when I said that, post 6 was indicating he wasn't exactly climbing mountains.

Grades matter, average grade which is what feet per mile actually is, is basically a useless statistic without knowledge of the topography.
You want to keep up tediously debating half empty, half full some more?

You making a hobby out of finding things I say incidentally in order to quibble?

Oh, and given how scary you're finding the figure of 60 feet per mile, I'm pretty sure you're the one who's going to die on a hill.

wolfchild

It matters because sometimes it's safer to ride on a shoulder...

wolfchild

Choose which ever route is safer or has less traffic.

Koyote

The correct answer is instacart.

phughes

Ludicrous? No, but other than that I don't have any issues with what you are saying. But ludicrous, no, no it is not. It's simply discussion based on experience.

mstateglfr 

Yes I agree how the elevation is laid out matters. I have said as much and used specific examples.

The weak insult made me smile, so thank you for that. It's funny how you frequently take the holier than thou and pious route when pointing out the minor insults of others.
In this thread you are reducing people's accomplishments (60'/mile is a lot for many and something that is worked up to) and lobbing weak insults about my strength and current location.
Good stuff.



some poster on the general forum- 'I worked hard for mo ths to build up to a big ride and an so proud to have just finished 50mi of riding with 3000' of climb!'
​​​LDL- 'that's basically flat.'

Iride01 

The ludicrous part was you assuming that traffic was an issue for the OP and for me when you don't even know the traffic conditions. I also find it silly that you think you'll have enough time to tell if a car is going to run you over by looking in your mirror. By the time you know for certain looking in the mirror, it's likely too late.

But don't worry, I'll still drink beer, coffee or tea with you. Might be a good conversation as long as heads remain cool.

njkayaker

The OP explicitly talked about riding in the shoulder. That indicates a strong preference for riding in the shoulder over "riding in the traffic lane". The OP just might have a good reason for that preference. "Traffic" being the issue would be a very reasonable guess. (Like, why else would he prefer the shoulder?)

Yet, you ignore that and make assumptions that the road you know nothing about is the better place for the OP (who you know nothing about) to ride.

Here's you making all sorts of assumptions in offering overly-dogmatic advice. Including: that the lane of a road you know nothing about is safe (and not the sort of road you'd never "ride on at all"), that the shoulder isn't reasonable to ride on; that the OP has no idea about what's best for him.

Here's you basically contradicting the advice you were so sure about just moments before.

Here's you whinging about other people making assumptions after making all sorts of assumptions yourself.

Now, that's ludicrous.

Gravel Rider

Uber. Then go for a ride.

Iride01 

To you it is. That's okay.

Just because the OP likes to ride on the shoulder doesn't mean that traffic conditions are too bad for riding in the proper place to ride. My hope originally was that the OP would offer some more info on the actual conditions. Instead others that don't like opinions that they don't agree with want to get in a pissing contest with each other.

If my opinion wasn't twisted into I like to ride in the road and therefore I'm going to one day get run over then I wouldn't have bothered to reply to the other offended member.