What do you consider "hilly" ?

sparknote_s said:

I found this 8-mile loop near where I live. On the loop, there are about 7 climbs. About 4 of them are climbs where there is an initial climb, it levels off to almost flat, but then there is another part of the climb. I would say each is about...250-500 yards long. Medium grade, not crazy steep but more than just an incline.

And on a hilly course, is your avg speed lower or does it even out with the declines?

"What is hilly?" I believe to be very subjective, it depends on what you're used to.

I don't think the average works out (with the descents). Based upon my rides around here.. I can average 215-230 watts over a 40 mile ride, yet only achieve a 16.5 - 17.5 mph average. On flat ground(with comparable wind).. that same 215 watts gives me a much higher average speed.

Most of my rides have 12-15 hills with anywhere from 2500 - 3500 vertical ft not counting the small stuff. I suspect the lower the grade of ascent, the more the "average" thing would work out. When I'm riding, I may be descending anywhere from 25-28 mph on the average, but I'm also using the time to recover for the next hill. If the hills were not as steep, I would most likely apply more power on the descents and keep the average overall speed higher.

FWIW

John

sparknote_s said:

I found this 8-mile loop near where I live. On the loop, there are about 7 climbs. About 4 of them are climbs where there is an initial climb, it levels off to almost flat, but then there is another part of the climb. I would say each is about...250-500 yards long. Medium grade, not crazy steep but more than just an incline.

And on a hilly course, is your avg speed lower or does it even out with the declines?

I live in an extremely hilly area. Ever heard of the Hilly Hundred century in Bloomington, IN? This is my backyard.
That being said, hills slow your ave speed by quite a bit. I have several climbs where I climb at about 8mph and descend the other side at about 40+ mph (grade of 20% or more in some places). My average is about 16-18 mph on this hilly terrain. On flats, I can average about 22-24 depending on wind, number of riders, etc.

sparknote_s said:

I found this 8-mile loop near where I live. On the loop, there are about 7 climbs. About 4 of them are climbs where there is an initial climb, it levels off to almost flat, but then there is another part of the climb. I would say each is about...250-500 yards long. Medium grade, not crazy steep but more than just an incline.

And on a hilly course, is your avg speed lower or does it even out with the declines?

Yes...your average speed will be lower on a hilly course, even if it's a loop where you do as much downhill as uphill. That's because you spend more time climbing than descending, so the climbing has more of an impact on your average speed.

I've made a minor study of this issue, as part of the development of my CycliStats training diary. I ride where it's fairly hilly, and have a cycle computer that includes a recording altimeter (a Vetta V100A).

My standard descriptions for "hilliness" are based on the number of feet climbed per mile of riding:

0 To 10 feet of climbing/mile = "Very Flat"

11 To 20= "Mostly Flat"

21 To 30 = "Flat to Rolling"

31 To 40 = "Rolling"

41 To 50 = "Rolling with Hills"

51 To 60 = "Hilly"

61 To 70 = "Hilly to Mountainous"

71 To 80 = "Mountainous"

81 To 90 = "More Mountainous"

91 To 100 = "Very Mountainous"

101 To 110 = "Very, Very Mountainous"

111 To 160 = "Extremely Mountainous"

Quoted message said:

160 = "Hors Categorie"

Note: these designations are for the overall ride, not any one particular climb (even a modest 6% grade will have 316 feet of climbing per mile).

Is that in vertical feet or linear feet for climbing?

gbrandon said:

Is that in vertical feet or linear feet for climbing?

Vertical feet for the climbing. Distance travelled on the road for the mileage.

ShastaPrez said:

Vertical feet for the climbing. Distance travelled on the road for the mileage.

Interesting breakdown, is this just something you came up with or have used other data/opinions?

Mansmind said:

Interesting breakdown, is this just something you came up with or have used other data/opinions?

It was developed from three primary sources:

1) Discussions with other cyclists

2) Bike club ride rating systems
I googled quite a few clubs, to see how they characterize their rides.

3) 5+ years of riding with an altimeter and recording elevation gain for each ride (along with distance, time, etc.).

I developed this scale because I wanted to allow users of my CycliStats program to be able to estimate their climbing, even if they don't ride with an altimeter. With the climbing descriptions, they can use a "slider" to select one of the descriptions, which will then automatically enter an estimate for total elevation gain (based on the slider position, and ride distance). Kind of hard to describe, but here's a screenshot that should make it more clear.

Interesting scale; sounds about right to me too based on our local conditions. The local club century route rates about 56 feet per mile, which is just moderately hilly for around here. The tough mountain century rides typically have 9000-10000 or more.

nice scale, a good way to rate rides.

grampy bone said:

I live in an extremely hilly area. Ever heard of the Hilly Hundred century in Bloomington, IN? This is my backyard.
That being said, hills slow your ave speed by quite a bit. I have several climbs where I climb at about 8mph and descend the other side at about 40+ mph (grade of 20% or more in some places). My average is about 16-18 mph on this hilly terrain. On flats, I can average about 22-24 depending on wind, number of riders, etc.

"Extremely hilly"?...I think I'm going to have to disagree with that description.

According to their web page, the Hilly Hundred has 4648 feet of climbing in 98 miles (over two days). That works out to 47.4 feet of climbing per mile, which rates "Rolling with Hills" according to my scale, or "Moderate" according to http://www.geocities.com/ne_century_rides/rating_system.html.

It's certainly not flat, but it's not extremely hilly either, IMO.

grampy bone said:

I live in an extremely hilly area. Ever heard of the Hilly Hundred century in Bloomington, IN? This is my backyard.
That being said, hills slow your ave speed by quite a bit. I have several climbs where I climb at about 8mph and descend the other side at about 40+ mph (grade of 20% or more in some places). My average is about 16-18 mph on this hilly terrain. On flats, I can average about 22-24 depending on wind, number of riders, etc.

There is another Hilly Hundred except it is in Wisconsin and is know as the Horribly Hilly Hundred and is a 200KM with over 10,000 vertical feet of Climbing.

I am registed for this years. Details here: http://www.horriblyhilly.com/home.html

"The 200K version of the HHH offers 124.2 miles of wonderful riding — if you like hills! You'd better, because you'll be going up over 40 significant rises, from 50 ft bumps to the 910 ft final climb, for a total of 10,700 feet of elevation gain"

ShastaPrez said:

Yes...your average speed will be lower on a hilly course, even if it's a loop where you do as much downhill as uphill. That's because you spend more time climbing than descending, so the climbing has more of an impact on your average speed.

I've made a minor study of this issue, as part of the development of my CycliStats training diary. I ride where it's fairly hilly, and have a cycle computer that includes a recording altimeter (a Vetta V100A).

My standard descriptions for "hilliness" are based on the number of feet climbed per mile of riding:

0 To 10 feet of climbing/mile = "Very Flat"

11 To 20= "Mostly Flat"

21 To 30 = "Flat to Rolling"

31 To 40 = "Rolling"

41 To 50 = "Rolling with Hills"

51 To 60 = "Hilly"

61 To 70 = "Hilly to Mountainous"

71 To 80 = "Mountainous"

81 To 90 = "More Mountainous"

91 To 100 = "Very Mountainous"

101 To 110 = "Very, Very Mountainous"

111 To 160 = "Extremely Mountainous"

Quoted message said:

160 = "Hors Categorie"

Note: these designations are for the overall ride, not any one particular climb (even a modest 6% grade will have 316 feet of climbing per mile).

Cool.... I am in the very to extremely mountainous. There just isn't any flat here.
At least nothing of any length. I love it!

Cripes, if this scale is true (and my altimeter is accurate) then the club rides I describe as moderately hilly would be defined as "more mountainous". No wonder my riders are groaning.😠

BTW, anyone know the accuracy of the altimeter on the Specialized Elite Pro cyclometer?😕

gbrandon said:

Cripes, if this scale is true (and my altimeter is accurate) then the club rides I describe as moderately hilly would be defined as "more mountainous". No wonder my riders are groaning.😠

BTW, anyone know the accuracy of the altimeter on the Specialized Elite Pro cyclometer?😕

Note: my scale is for the *whole* ride, not any one climb. It is also oriented more towards road bike rides (mountain bike rides are typically shorter, with more climbing per mile).

As for the accuracy of your Specialized...I would assume it's reasonably accurate. Do you know what the "threshold" value is? In other words, how much climbing does it take to trigger an increase in climbing? My Vetta has a 1 meter (3 feet) threshold. I used to use an Avocet that had a 10 meter threshold (so, a 20 foot "roller" would not get counted).

Another test of accuracy is to check the elevation when you return (assuming you're doing a loop ride) - ideally, it should be the same as the elevation you started at. However, if the weather is changing due to a cold front moving in, it can be off due to the change in barometric pressure. But, on a day with stable high pressure, the finishing elevation should be equal to the starting elevation (or, very close).

FWIW I have the Polar 720i with altimeter. Based upon what I've seen from the results, and then comparing those results to a topo map, it's not all that accurate. The Polar for some reason seems to miss whole hills (significant ones) not to mention the accuracy of elevation on the ones it does see.

Understanding the basis for how it works, I suppose I can understand the accuracy problems, many things can change the atmospheric conditions. It rarely has the same altitude value upon returning from a ride, it's generally about 100 ft. off.

On the other hand, it's not "useless" as it at least gives you some idea of what kind of terrain you're encountering, but it always seems to have a value lower than what is real.

I have no knowledge of the specialized, is it better?

John