prj71

Can't say I disagree.

That was my average. It went up and down during the (MTB) race. ~2.5 miles of climbing each lap was a contributing factor.

Koyote

I'm calling BS. 2.5 miles (13,200 feet) of climbing over an entire 19 mile race is nonsense, unless your race was up Mount Everest. Utterly unbelievable.

prj71

Huh? What? Where are you getting 13,200 feet of climbing from? Who said that?

Dude...what are you smoking?

WhyFi

Given your self-proclaimed qualifications, you're confusing pretty common stuff.

Again, Heart Rate Zone 4 is *not* the same as Power Zone 4. GhostRider is and has been talking exclusively about Power.

When a cyclist is talking about climbing, they'll commonly cite elevation gain; this is why Koyote is calling BS. I assume that you're citing the length of a climb and with no indication of gradient... that's a big noop.

prj71

My apologies. I thought GhostRider was talking about heart rate zones. My fault for misunderstanding what he was referring to. I was referring to my heart rate average being in Zone 4 for the race I participated in.

I have no interest in power, wattage or owning a power meter.

Koyote

You said that.

​​​​​​As ​​​WhyFi has already explained, cyclists universally measure climbing in terms of elevation change; that's also how Strava, ridewithgps, and every other mapping site and every GPS cycling computer measure climbing. But apparently you've never figured that out.

In a couple recent threads, you've tried to impress us with your vast cycling experience. Perhaps you should just be quiet on that topic.

prj71

No ****. Tell me something I don't already know. I use Strava all the time. Again...I thought you were talking heart rate zone and I clarified that above in my reply to WhyFi.

I never said anything about doing 13,200 ft of climbing. So for clarification...I participated in a ~19 mile race and each lap had about 2.5 miles of climbing and my average HR was in zone 4 for the entire race.

Koyote

I'm going to explain this as if you are four years old:

2.5 miles = 13,200 feet.

Cyclists measure climbing as elevation change. Elevation change means vertical change.

You are claiming to have climbed 13,200 feet in each lap of a 19 mile race. You are claiming this NOT because you actually climbed that much (because that is utterly inconceivable), but because you don't understand how "climbing" is measured.

If you want to know how much climbing you actually did on each lap, go into your Strava file from the ride, look in the upper right corner at the "Elevation" number, and divide by the number of laps.That quotient will be the amount of climbing you did in each lap.

prj71

I NEVER claimed to have climbed 13,200 feet in each lap of a 19 mile race. Please show where I said that. You keep throwing out a number I never said. And I know how climbing and strava works so no need for you to explain.

So let me clarify this further since you are having trouble understanding. Each lap on the loop (approximately 6.63 mile loop) had a section that was 2-1/2 miles of climbing. Do you get that?! There was a ~2-1/2 mile section on the 6.63 mile loop that was all climbing. Understand now? The elevation change over the 2-1/2 miles section (all switchbacks, not straight up) is approximately 520 ft.

genejockey 

You're wrong and he's right on this one. I think the vast majority of riders would assume that 2.5 miles of climbing/lap means DISTANCE, not ELEVATION.

WhyFi

I assumed that, but only because I assumed that he didn't know what he was talking about. Otherwise, if any cyclist tells me that they did X units of climbing, I assume that they're talking about elevation gain.

genejockey 

What does "I did a 3 mile climb" convey to you?

EDIT: IME, we all talk of distance in miles and climbing in feet.

Koyote

You said it right here:
And also right here:

You're both wrong, and you've missed the actual point. prj71 has used the "appeal to authority" fallacy in a few recent threads, including citing his riding stats. And, as I think you understand, in cycling (as in running, mountain climbing, flying, etc), "climbing" is always measured as vertical feet ascended.

genejockey 

Nonsense. You made a mistake, and now you can't climb down off it. He clarified and you're STILL insisting you're right. Do you find this works well for you in interpersonal relations, either professional or personal?

Koyote

False equivalence. Read the posts -- that's not what he wrote.

Koyote

So the guy who blows his stack over someone writing "data is" instead of "data are" is now claiming that others are too pedantic? Wow.

The difference is that when someone says "data is...", everyone understands their meaning. But if the poster had claimed that there was 1000 feet of climbing in each lap, most (practically all) cyclists would construe that as 1000 vertical feet. The only reason we knew better is because 2.5 miles was completely unbelievable.

It's only pedantry if it's pointless -- like your data snit.

Mojo31

The recovery drink for the path this thread has taken is a couple of shots of Tito's, mixed with a bit of tonic and garnished with a lime wedge.

genejockey 

Dude, your own quotes of his posts don't convey what you say they do, AND he clarified when you posted your cockamamie interpretation of 2.5 miles of climbing per lap. The polite thing to do, you having been wrong, would be to say, "Oops! Sorry!".

genejockey 

Stack not blown, dude.

And it's not that you're being pedantic. It's that you're being WRONG.

WhyFi

"I did a X [unit] climb" != "I climbed X [units]"

genejockey 

Swap in The Botanist for the Tito's and we can talk.

genejockey 

But again, we use miles as the unit for distance and feet as the unit for climbing.

Mojo31

You ain't gittin The Botanist out of a dumpster.

genejockey 

So, if I said, "Old La Honda is a 3 mile climb", you'd think it was 15,000 feet, not 3 miles of distance?

Seriously?

genejockey 

I don't know ANYONE who routinely uses miles as the unit for vertical ascent in cycling, which is why assuming that 2.5 miles of climbing/ lap, in a 13 mile race, is ludicrous. But hey, you do you.