- Location
- Inside my skull
>2.5% is not impossible, though I think it tends to be significantly hard in the UK
Start at bottom of 5% hill, ride to top, stop ride. That’s 5% climb ratio for the ride, does that make it extreme?
>2.5% is not impossible, though I think it tends to be significantly hard in the UK
He means an average of 2.5% over the whole ride. I'm assuming that for these purposes, going downhill counts as flat
Like this one...2.5% is 2,500m over 100km. (8,200' in 62 miles) That's definitely not flat.
Like this one...
View attachment 702631
As you can see - there is hardly any flat on that audax route, and much of the climbing IS pretty steep. I used that route to work out my formula, since it feels at least twice as hard as a flat metric century ridden at the same speed. (Roughly 2,500 m of ascent in just over 100 km.)
agree 100%When someone tells me the ride is going to be hard, I don't worry about the climbs per se, I want to know the pace - that is what dictates how hard the ride will be.
Makes sense my ride in Sunday fleet moss x2 3000ft + 1000ft of ups and downs on the valley would be a good kicking and it was.
Unrealistically easy!How does that look if you draw it to scale?
Like this one...
View attachment 702631
As you can see - there is hardly any flat on that audax route, and much of the climbing IS pretty steep. I used that route to work out my formula, since it feels at least twice as hard as a flat metric century ridden at the same speed. (Roughly 2,500 m of ascent in just over 100 km.)
The scale question is obviously relevant. I didn't plot that Season of Mists profile to make it look gnarlier than it is - I always adjust the vertical scale in my mapping software to show the 50 metre intervals as small as they will go. Any more compressed and the scale changes to 100 metre intervals.How does that look if you draw it to scale?
Going downhill counts as negative. Thus go down a 10% slope that is a climb ratio of -10%. You can have a climb with lots of 15% climbs that ends up as 1% overall unless you purposely try to avoid riding along any valleys at any point.
No. Overall ascent means just that. The number if metres ascended. Descent is not considered at all.
You assume correctly. For these purposes only ascent is of interest. Going downhill is just ignored. It doesn't really count as flat, (and certainly not as negative) It just It just doesn't count at all.He means an average of 2.5% over the whole ride. I'm assuming that for these purposes, going downhill counts as flat, as otherwise all loops would have an average of zero.
You assume correctly. For these purposes only ascent is of interest. Going downhill is just ignored. It doesn't really count as flat, (and certainly not as negative) It just It just doesn't count at all.
I would have assumed it counted as part of the distance, which is why I suggested flat. If it doesn't count against the distance either, that makes a significant difference to the formula.
You're over complicating things. Only two figures are needed. Total ascent (the total height gained) and total distance. These are the ones that are easily available on Strava etc. Jost take those two figures and divide one by the other.
Keep it simple.
No need to worry about height lost, distance travelled while losing height, or in the flat.