Hills: how bad

[Alexios]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I'd be really grateful for your advice. I'm planning a mini cycling tour in Turkey. The problem is that my route crosses a range of hills 2000m high. It takes 10 miles to rise from sea level to 2000m, then another 10 to drop back to 1000m on the inland plain.

Based on a recent trip from Hampshire to Somerset and back I reckon that on fairly flat terrain with a loaded bike I can average 50-60 miles a day.

The question is how hard am I going to find crossing the hills? Should I work on the basis that the 10 miles climbing upwards counts the same as 30 roughly flat miles? Or perhaps 50? I'm trying to work out how much further I'm going to be able to travel that day and I suspect it won't be very far. I've only got a week off work so need to plan my route reasonably accurately.

And is there a rule of thumb for how much hills slow you down? I seem to remember from hill walking at school that crossing one countour on an OS 1:25 000 map added ten minutes, or something like that. Is there a similar rule for cycling?

Thank you very much.

Alexios

 

[ColinJ]

Those aren't hills, they are big mountains and very steep ones too!

I don't like to worry you, but if those numbers are correct, then that mountain is an absolute brute! You are talking an average of 12.4% for 10 miles (that's 1-in-8). If you are having to ask the question, then I think it will be too much for you unless you use a tiny gear and take about 3 or 4 hours to climb it!

There are some hills round here that are really tough but that thing is about 10 times as long.

PS To put it in perspective - my longest day's ride with a loaded bike was 140 miles straight down the Pennines, through some of the worst hills in West Yorkshire and the Peak District but I wouldn't dream of tackling a mountain as tough as that without some very serious preparation! 

 

[PpPete]

Is there a similar rule for cycling?

Alexios

I asked a similar question a while ago, nobody came up with one that was as simple as Naismith's (the walking one)

Allowing for stopping at junctions etc I average (lightly loaded but a heavy old bike) 20kph on flattish roads. I'm pretty crap at uphills, say 10 kph on a steady gentle incline, dropping to 5 or 6 kph on a steep one.

If my calcs are right your hill is about 13%. That's steep in my book. Coming down the far side on a loaded bike you'll have to take it gently too.

I would allow all of one day to cross that range of hills.

 

[PpPete]

Colin sort of beat me to it....

I was assuming you have a gear small enough. FWIW I use a 23" gear on 12 or 13% hill, and I would not be ashamed to take 3 hours over that 10 mile, but then I'm softy southerner, not like them yorkshire folks.

 

[TheDoctor]

Ruddy heck!!! I've done a few mountains, including Ventoux, but I'd never, ever take on 10 miles of one-in-eight.
Not even on an unladen road bike, let alone with luggage.
If it were me, I'd find another route.
Seriously, if you're having to ask about it, you'll not enjoy it. That calls for advanced levels of fitness and masochism.
Massive respect for even contemplating it!!!

 

[ColinJ]

To answer the question - I'd say that climbing that mountain on a loaded bike would be like cycling more like 200 miles on the flat! I'd certainly be less intimidated by a flat double century ride, even with a loaded bike.

 

[willem]

Agreed with all the others. As a rule of thumb, it is better to calculate with time to cover altitude rather than distance. Very fit touring cyclists can climb about 400 metres in an hour. The rest of us some 300 metres. You do your maths. Climbing is about beating gravity, and this is really steep. Last month I did a 1300 metre climb in Norway over a similar distance, and it took me four hours. Any steeper, and I would not have made it. A lot depends on weight, however.
Willem

 

[hubbike]

are you sure thats right? seems very steep. maybe it is 10miles as the crow flies but the road has lots and lots of wiggles?

anyway you will manage it just slowly thats all. I've climbed many passes, including over 10 at above 4000m on this trip. so it is doable. with regards to the time it will take you should be able to use a version of naismith's rule as it is.

Naismith rule is that 1 unit of vertical travel is equivilent to 7.92 units of horizontal. (use miles, kms, feet, inches, bananas as you wish.)

Analysis of cycling data suggests a similar rule (1:8.2) for cycling on mountainous roads and tracks.

So going up 2000m is equivalent to adding an extra 16km. no matter how steep.

However, going down speeds you up much more on a bike than on foot and this is unaccounted for in Naismith.

 

[Crankarm]

To be brutally honest I think you are mad. You say you have only 1 week's holiday and presumably in this time you have to arrive and depart your destination - Turkey. So this may well take the best part of two days leaving you 4 or 5 days. How much cycling have you actually done? Lifting yourself and your loaded bike up the gradients you seem to be suggesting is a totally different proposition to cycling in relatively flat terrain. I am sure you will realise that everyone's fitness varies, but most fit touring cyclists could cycle all the daylight hours in a day on flatish terrain, but stick a few serious hills or mountains in then many will struggle some might even crack and give up. If you could give some indication of your cycling experience, type of bicycle and likely load then we might be able to be of more assistance. But on the information you provide it is not really possible to give you adequate or sufficient advice other than to tell you to take a coach, hire a car or get a ride on a motorbike instead.

Dont' take this the wrong way, but is this a wind up or are you trolling? It is your first post. Apologies if you are genuinely in need of advice. More info please. What is the mountain range in Turkey you are planning to cross?

 

[Kirstie]

I just did a few days of pyreneen climbs with a camping load. One of them, port de pailheres, averaged 9% over 15k (just the col, there was another 30k to get to the bottom which was also all uphill) and it took me around 3.5 hrs of proper painful slow pedalling to get to the top. My lowest gear is 22-28, and I'm a reasonably fit and healthy female just under 40 with lots of cycling experience behind me. It was very hard. Another day we did around 90k with 2,500m of climbing and it took us 7.5 hrs of pedalling, including descents.

I'm not sure I'd fancy that hill you're proposing to ride....

 

[dan_bo]

And let's not be forgetting that it'll be 40+ celcius out there. I took the bike to greece a couple of years ago and during one ride that stretched past midday I really really REALLY suffered.

 

[andym]

2000 metres in altitude in 16 kilometres is more than 1 in ten so v steep. If you (and the roads!) are in reasonable condition I'd reckon on a good day to get over them. 2000 metres climbing is a big day by most people's standards especially when it's steep. I'd expect to be pushing for a good chunk of that.

So going up 2000m is equivalent to adding an extra 16km. no matter how steep.

I think your calculations must have gone somewhat awry there. Riding 50 miles with a 2000 metre climb is the same as riding 60 miles on the flat? Hmm doesn't sound very plausible to me.

 

[Alexios]

Guys, thank you very much for your answers. I should have joined this forum ages ago! All points read carefully and taken onboard. Plan will be revised to stay well one side of the mountains.

Some specific answers:

Colin J: thank you very much. I'm sure I'm not as fit as you, so if you're not sure you'd like it....

Porkypete: thank you very much for pointing me to Naismith. So thats where my geography teacher got it from!

The Doctor: you're very kind but perhaps we should identify stupidity rather than either fitness or masochism!

Hubbike: you are of course entirely right, its 10 miles as the crow flies, not by road. I should have made that clear. The best scale map I can get (still looking) is 1:75,000 and doesn't give quite as much detail as I'd like.

Danbo: yes, good point about the heat. I've been looking at climate websites and tried to choose a period between summer and winter that tied in with work. Having spent a bit of time in the Middle East I've done proper physical work in more than 40C, but its still something to consider. I've been planning on a 2 hour siesta in early afternoon to avoid the worst of it.

Kirstie: point about hard days taken entirely, particularly as I want to do see some of the sights as well. Thank you.

Crankark: not a troll I promise you! Bike is a Trek 1.5 tripple with luggage amounting to 11kg including rack (I travel very light). The mountains are the ridge between the Cilician plain and Antakya (Hatay). My cycling touring experience is two 5 day trips in the UK, but I have been to Turkey plenty of times before.

Everyone else: thank you. Most grateful.

 

[asterix]

In 2007 I did the touring raid Pyrenean with tent, etc. You get 10 days to climb 28 cols over 800km.

The biggest obstacle was indeed the weather, especially the hot stuff. Climbing with the hot sun on your back and no for shade for hours is a lot harder than doing it in cold weather. OTOH descending in cold weather is definitely harder than descending in hot weather so long as the roads aren't actually melting. Learn to use low gears and the actual climbing is no problem.

 

[doog]

enjoy your trip! and dont worry about getting off an walking on them hills (ask anyone who has done the Exmoor back roads

)