Bike hike

[helston90]

Not sure if there is a guide anywhere- couldn't find one on their site, but just wondering how much difference ascent heights make.

The commute route I'm planning is circa 800ft but there's a few tweaks I can do to lose 20ft here, 50ft there but those aren't the quickest routes (more corners etc.) how much difference would this make? Would I even notice the difference or is just the shortest route the best use of energy?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[Paul_L]

800 ft is about 250m.

I guess it depends on over what distance you're climbing that ascent? My commute in has 195m and commute home 290m of climbing and these are over 14 miles. I consider the ride in to be flat and the ride home to be gentle uphill. Commute home takes about 10mins longer.

If you've got that climb over say 5 miles then i'd say that might be considered hilly, otherwise i wouldn't worry as the time you'll lose won't be significant.

 

[helston90]

Shoot yeah- sorry would be useful if I mentioned- the route is 13 miles long with an 865 ft (260m) inwards and 817 ft (250m) homeward- so near enough the same.

I suppose with the 50ft diversion being only 6% of the climb there's not a lot to be saved but could bring my average speed down.

 

[fossyant]

Use all the routes, makes a change.

 

[Norm]

I found more of an issue to be the placement of junctions.

I commuted (once) across the Chilterns and the last 8 miles had me climbing & falling around 660ft in 4 large-ish hills and every one had a road at the bottom of the valley. It was a double whammy as I was on the brakes for the downhills and I had to hit the gradients from a standing start. I would have happily taken an option which added a mile to that part of the journey if it could cut out the hills.

 

[helston90]

Good point on the using all the routes- just tracked another one on a slightly busier road but which is 1 mile less distance 65ft less there and 100ft less back so may mix them up depending on the weather/ my effort levels!