For the hill riders...
For the hill riders...
Author
Discussion

McFsC

Original Poster:

578 posts

181 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
What would you class this hill/bank as?

Hard, easy, what speed would you be looking to average up it? I'm trying to improve my fitness and do a few longer rides over the Lakes/Pennines and thinking that this is a good starting point for trianing.


nammynake

2,658 posts

202 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
I can't read the numbers on the picture. What is the distance, ascent and average gradient?

Is the climb a Strava segment? Look at the times if so.

McFsC

Original Poster:

578 posts

181 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
Distance: 3.05km or 1.89mile
Total Climb: 160m
Average Gradient: 5.8%
Steepest Gradient: 16.8%

Good shout with Strava, I'll check that out.


Rocksteadyeddie

7,971 posts

256 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
That'll do you. 5 x repeat wink

anonymous-user

83 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
the big hill on my usual ride is 1.7km long and has 102m of height gain, average gradient is 7.4% and its a bit of a stinker...

I found this online, not sure if its right though.

Category 4 – the lowest category, climbs of 200-500 feet (70-150m). Length usually less that 2 miles (3km)
Category 3 – climbs of 500-1600 feet (150-500m). Between 2 and 3 miles (3km and 4.5km) in length.
Category 2 – climbs of 1600-2700 feet (500-800m). Between 3 and 6 miles (4.5km and 10km) in length.
Category 1 - climbs of 2700-5000 feet (800-1500m). Between 6 and 12 miles (10km and 20km) in length
Hors Category – the hardest, climbs of 5000+ feet (1500m+). Usually more than 12 miles (20km) in length

McFsC

Original Poster:

578 posts

181 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
Intresting, Pablo.

I've road that hill a few times, I feel it's good to get a gauge of whether I'm really unfit or climbing it well, like I said, just a gauge.

It seems Strava is the best for this after having a quick look. What stops someone putting their GPS device in a car and driving segments?

Anyone else want to share their 'hill/bank' experience?

Jimbo.

4,220 posts

218 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
There's nothing to stop people doing as you describe. IIRC you can "report" any suspect times.

However, step away from Strava and concentrate on what *you* are doing. Hill reps, repeat until smashed, continue until faster/longer lasting/more confident.

nammynake

2,658 posts

202 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
I love riding up hills. The two that stand out are Cragg Vale and Hardknott Pass. Cragg Vale because it is reputedly the longest continual gradient in the country (approx 5.5 miles but only 1000ft ascent). Hardknott because it's the steepest most painful hill I've ever ridden. Bloody hard work even on a 34-27 compact.

Kermit power

29,622 posts

242 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
pablo said:
the big hill on my usual ride is 1.7km long and has 102m of height gain, average gradient is 7.4% and its a bit of a stinker...
Wouldn't a height gain of 102m over 1,700m be an average gradient of 6%? Or have I got the maths wrong? confused

nammynake

2,658 posts

202 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
Kermit power said:
Wouldn't a height gain of 102m over 1,700m be an average gradient of 6%? Or have I got the maths wrong? confused
tangent(angle) = 102/1700 = 3.4deg

3.4deg / 90deg = 3.8% (where 100% defines 90 deg, i.e. vertical),

I think.....!

Kermit power

29,622 posts

242 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
nammynake said:
tangent(angle) = 102/1700 = 3.4deg

3.4deg / 90deg = 3.8% (where 100% defines 90 deg, i.e. vertical),

I think.....!
Oh. I'd assumed it was as simple as 102/1700*100 = 6%

IroningMan

10,598 posts

275 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
Kermit power said:
Oh. I'd assumed it was as simple as 102/1700*100 = 6%
It is.

nammynake

2,658 posts

202 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
IroningMan said:
It is.
If you climbed 150m vertical metres and 150m horizontally, i.e. 45 degrees then that calculation would yield:

(150/150)x100=100%. Surely 1 in 1 gradient equates to 50%?

Kermit power

29,622 posts

242 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
nammynake said:
If you climbed 150m vertical metres and 150m horizontally, i.e. 45 degrees then that calculation would yield:

(150/150)x100=100%. Surely 1 in 1 gradient equates to 50%?
You've hurt my brain now!

CaptainSlow

13,179 posts

241 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
nammynake said:
IroningMan said:
It is.
If you climbed 150m vertical metres and 150m horizontally, i.e. 45 degrees then that calculation would yield:

(150/150)x100=100%. Surely 1 in 1 gradient equates to 50%?
No a 1 in 1 is 100%.

Kermit power

29,622 posts

242 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
CaptainSlow said:
nammynake said:
IroningMan said:
It is.
If you climbed 150m vertical metres and 150m horizontally, i.e. 45 degrees then that calculation would yield:

(150/150)x100=100%. Surely 1 in 1 gradient equates to 50%?
No a 1 in 1 is 100%.
Correct. My brain has stopped hurting. All explained here.

Nammynake, I think you're confusing gradient with angle of slope?

nammynake

2,658 posts

202 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
Kermit power said:
Correct. My brain has stopped hurting. All explained here.

Nammynake, I think you're confusing gradient with angle of slope?
That link makes perfect sense. Gradient and angle are connected but not one and the same. To me the angle is a more intuitive measure than gradient, but I'm not goin to argue with convention!

Jayfish

6,795 posts

232 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
@OP checkout mapmyride you plot your route on the map and it gives you an elevation graph, free to use.

yellowjack

18,441 posts

195 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
Gradient is the vertical elevation expressed as a percentage of horizontal distance. Using the method in the link, and the figures from the OP, the average gradient comes out at 5.246% - a gradient of 5.8% would result in a climb of 176.9metres over the given 3,050 metres travelled. This presumes that the distance travelled is measured horizontally. If, however, the measured distance is that travelled while on the climb, that would explain the difference between the maths and the actual route. Anyone's brain hurting more now than it was earlier? Me too.

TKF

6,232 posts

264 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all