Farmer Alfalfa said:I have noticed that none of the ITV commentators ever seem to give you any indication of how steep
a given climb is (either in old or new money).
Is this not considered important to most viewers?
I've wondered about that too, but I just saw on letour.fr that:
"The cat-1 Col du Lauteret climbs for 34.5km at an average gradient of 3.8%. The maximum gradient of
this col which rises to 2,058m, is 8.5% in the first kilometer.
The 'Hors Category' Col d'Izoard climbs for 19.4km at an average gradient of
5.9%. The maximum gradient of this col which rises to 2,360m is 9%. This steep section is in the
15th kilometer.
The cat-2 Cote de St-Apollinaire rises to 1,253m after climbing for 6.7kkm at an average gradient of
7.4%. It peaks at the 156km mark.
The cat-3 Cote de la Rochette climbs for 4km at an average gradient of 7.4% and peaks at the
176.5km mark."
I also found this, a year or two back, from Bruce Hildenbrand's article "Rating the Climbs of the
Tour de France":
"One of the most frequently asked questions is how do the organizers determine the ratings for the
climbs in the Tour de France (TIOOYK). The Tour organizers use two criteria: 1) the length and
steepness of the climb and 2) the position of the climb in the stage. A third, and much lesser
criteria, is the quality of the road surface.
It is important to note several things before this discussion begins. First, the organizers of the
Tour have been very erratic in their classifications of climbs. The north side of the Col de la
Madeleine has flip-flopped between a 1st Category to an Hors Category climb, even though it seems to
be in the same position of a stage every year.
Secondly, rating inflation, so rampant in other sports has raised its ugly head here. Climbs that
used to be a 2nd Category are now a 1st Category, even though, like the Madeleine, they occupy the
same position in a stage year after year.
Let's talk about the ratings. I will give you my impressions on what I think the criteria are for
rating the climbs based on having ridden over 100 of the rated climbs in the major European tours.
Note that gradual climbs do not receive grades. It has been my observation that about a 4% grade is
necessary for a climb to get rated. Also, a climb must gain at least 100m for it to be rated.
Categories:
4th Category - the lowest category, climbs of 300-1000 feet (100-300m). 3rd Category - climbs of
1000-2000 feet (300-600m). 2nd Category - climbs of 2000-3500 feet (600-1100m). 1st Category -
climbs of 3500-5000 feet (1100-1500m). Hors Category - the hardest, climbs of 5000 feet+ (1500m+).
The organizers of the Tour de France also claim that the quality of the road surface can
influence the rating of a climb. If the surface is very poor, like some of the more obscure
climbs in the Pyrenees, then the rating may be bumped up. Also, remember we are rating only paved
(i.e. asphalt) roads.
Dirt roads vary considerably in their layout, condition and maintenance because there really are no
guidelines for their construction. This makes it difficult to compare these climbs and inappropriate
to lump them with paved roads.
Steepness also plays a factor in the rating. Most of the big climbs in the Alps average 7-8% where
the big climbs in the Pyrenees average 8-9%.
Please remember that I am giving very, very rough guidelines and that there are exceptions to every
rule. For example, L'Alpe D'Huez climbs 3700ft
(5a), but is an Hors Category climb. This is because it usually comes at the end of a very tough
stage and the climb itself is unusually steep (~9%) by Alpine standards.
More confusing is the Col de Borderes, a mere 1000 feet (300m) climb outside of Arrens in the
Pyrenees mountains. I have seen it rated anywhere from a 3rd Category to a 1st Category !!! This is
most likely due again, to its placement on the stage. The 3rd Category rating came when it was near
the beginning of a stage where its 1st Category rating came when it was near the end.
Flat or downhill sections can also affect a climb's rating. Such sections offer a rest to the weary
and can reduce the difficulty of the climb considerably. This may be one of the reasons that the
aforementioned Col de la Madeleine, which has a 1 mile downhill/flat section at mid-height,
flip-flops in its rating.
European vs. United States Climbs
I am often asked how climbs in the United States compare to those in Europe. Most of the US climbs
are either steep enough by European standards (6-8% grade), but are short (5-10km) so they fall
into the 3rd Category or 2nd possibly; or the climbs gain enough altitude, but are too long (they
average <5%) so again they would fail to break the 1st Category barrier and end up most likely a
2nd or 3rd Category.
Fear not, there are exceptions. Most notable to Californians is the south side of Palomar Mountain
which from Pauma Valley climbs 4200' in 11 miles, a potential 1st Category ascent, though it may
fall prey to downgrading because of the flat section at mile four. The east side of Towne Pass in
Death Valley is definitely a 1st Category climb! A popular Northern California climb, Mount
Hamilton, is similar to Palomar Mountain but, fails to be a 1st Category climb because of two
offending downhill sections on the ascent and an overall gradient of 5%.
For Coloradoans, you can thank the ski industry for creating long, but relatively gradual climbs
that rarely exceed 5% for any substantial length (5+ miles). I never had to use anything bigger than
a 42x23 on any climb in Colorado, regardless of altitude. Gear ratios of 39x24 or 26 are commonplace
in the Alps and Pyrenees and give a very telling indication as to the difficulty of European climbs.
One potential 1st Category climb for Coloradoans may be the 4000 ft. climb in about 15 miles from
Ouray to the top of Red Mountain Pass.
Other Rating Systems
Also, it should be noted that there is not a single uniform rating scheme for all the races on the
UCI calendar. What one race might call a 1st Category climb, may be called a 2nd Category climb,
even though the stages of the two races are almost identical.
Riding vs. Racing Climbs
One last note. I think it is inappropriate to compare the ascents of climbs by the European pros
with the efforts of us mere mortals. I have said this time and time again and I will repeat it now.
It is very, very hard for the average person to comprehend just how fast the pros climb the big
passes. Pace makes all the difference. Riding a climb is very different than racing
it."
Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
