10,000 feet of climbing in 100 miles ....

[Fixed]

10,000 feet of climbing in 100 miles Hard just right or not enough ?
On my daily ride I gain a bit more than 1000 feet every 10 miles
Thanks
Cheers to All

[verticaldoug]

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/33097138

It's a nice amount of rolling climbs. We have to hit the hudson highlands and the parks to get that close to NYC

[mass_biker]

A little north of where I live, it's right around 1000 feet of climbing for every 10 miles of ride time. And it's all up and down. No huge climbs like SoCal, but shorter stingers in the 10%+ range consistently. A recent century I did from home was something like ~8500 feet over 100 miles. Maximum elevation for that climb was a smidge over 1000 feet to put that in context. I contrast that to the last time I did Palomar (SoCal) from the Pala Casino - that was like ~6500 feet over 53 miles - but that was mainly all up from Pala to the observatory (with a few drops on the way out - Marion Canyon) and mainly all down from the top (with the exception of that drag out Marion Canyon on the way back).
FWIW - I was totally blown on both rides. So yes, for me, 1000 feet of climbing in 10 miles is hard.

m_b

[pdmtong]

My out and back yesterday started with 10.5/1800 and ended with a total of 21/2100. That's how it is around here.

[echappist]

Agreed with above.

Anything where the cumulative ascent > 1.5% of distance is hilly in my books.

[bigbill]

https://theassaults.com/assault-on-mt-mitchell/

[joosttx]

Definitely not enough.... :) and I prefer to do it on a mountain bike



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50076422281_16e91ed557_b.jpg

[Tickdoc]

Damn you guys I have to ride all day here to get 3000 ft.

[Bob Ross]

10,000 feet of climbing in 100 miles Hard just right or not enough ?

When I was first getting into recreational road cycling I was taught that 100'/mile was the metric to use for identifying a "hard" ride. iow, if the elevation gain was at or near 100' per total mile you could probably count on the ride being physically challenging, and if it was over 100'/mile you could definitely count on the ride being physically challenging, and if it was less than 100'/mile...

aye, well there's the rub: How much lower than 100'/mile does a ride profile need to be before it's considered "not hard"? 75'/mile? 50'/mile? Nobody ever taught me that metric!

Still, I tend to look at ride profiles with that 100'/mile figure somewhere in the back of my mind. It's a nice benchmark.

[Dave]

My easy ride to Estes Park has about 3000 feet in 22 miles. That's only 2.6%. My old regular route of 10 miles up Deer Creek Canyon road was much steeper

The 28 mile climb up Mt. Evan's is not considered to be very steep, at about 4% average, but the 14,000 foot elevation and temps in the forties at the top make it challenging. That's 6500 feet of gain.

What can be tough is rolling hills in the foothill areas where some of the long grades are 10%. That's why I need a 32/34 low gear. I have no idea what the total feet of climbing is, but 40 miles of it wears me out.

There's a short but much steeper than 10% winding section if I go to Estes through Glen Haven. I've seen speeds as low as 3.7 mph.

[Tony T]

Used to be a ride called the Gunks 10k — 10,000 ft in the first 75 miles. (The Shawangunk Ridge in the Hudson Valley)

I ride there all the time, but could never do this climb. I’ll settle on a 50 mile, 3k climb as one of my usual rides.

[R3awak3n]

Definitely not enough.... :) and I prefer to do it on a mountain bike



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50076422281_16e91ed557_b.jpg

ridding that much in a MTB sound aweful.


to the OP -

1000k elevation per 10 miles is the golden ratio they say. Its definitely hard miles, anyone that say its not are full of it.

[p nut]

1000k elevation per 10 miles ... Its definitely hard miles, anyone that say its not are full of it.

Boy, I’ll say......

[smead]

It of course all depends on how ya do it. 100' per mile over 50-100 miles at a hard training pace is what you need to go faster. Ride it with friends at a social pace - no big deal. You can hurt yourself doing 20 flat miles - pace and intensity matters.

[Clean39T]

It of course all depends on how ya do it. 100' per mile over 50-100 miles at a hard training pace is what you need to go faster. Ride it with friends at a social pace - no big deal. You can hurt yourself doing 20 flat miles - pace and intensity matters.

This. A solo 100mi with that kind of climbing and pushing the pace is a hard day's work. With friends, a lunch stop, and easy gears, still impressive, but much more doable.

[unterhausen]

I have a 200km route where I have tried to get it up to 10000 ft of climbing. Problem is that if you want to do unique climbs, they are a little too far apart and I stalled out at 9700 feet. If you just want to go up and down the eastern side of the Allegheny Plateau, it's probably doable.

[Robot870]

It's a big day out of NYC - Did it with my wife 3 weeks ago and was not easy.......

[philhan89]

apologies to others in different areas but its easy enough in Marin. not hard at all to make a climbers day out in Marin/Sonoma/Mendo. hell, even East Bay with Diablo and Hamilton. check out the challenging ride known as "Friends of Tam"

[R3awak3n]

I feel like its much easier out in the west coast where you can climb a big mountain for a while, some not that steep but you are climbing for a while.

East coast, to get 10k in 100 miles you are going up and down a lot, steep stuff.

D2R2 160k is 10k elevation and never heard anyone finish that ride and say was easy.

[joosttx]

I feel like its much easier out in the west coast where you can climb a big mountain for a while, some not that steep but you are climbing for a while.

East coast, to get 10k in 100 miles you are going up and down a lot, steep stuff.

D2R2 160k is 10k elevation and never heard anyone finish that ride and say was easy.

What I enjoyed about the east coast dirt road and country climbs was that there was always flat sections within the climbs if the roads were old. I was told that it was to allow the horses catch their breathe before there were cars, as well as, cyclists today.

I have done the 180K D2R2 three or four times and ridden plenty of 200K and 300K randos in eastern PA and New England. I would say they are no more tougher than climbing the dirts road and country roads out here in NorCal. In fact, I felt training out here made D2R2 seemed easier.

[SneakyFast1]

Try this if 10k in 100 miles isn’t hard enough. :)

http://www.niftytenfifty.com/

[makoti]

I feel like its much easier out in the west coast where you can climb a big mountain for a while, some not that steep but you are climbing for a while.

East coast, to get 10k in 100 miles you are going up and down a lot, steep stuff.


Always thought this, too. I tell people the difference is out west, they built the roads after they knew how

[redir]

Sounds like plenty of climbing to me. There was a century ride here in the mountains of Virginia that was billed out at 100miles and 10,000ft and that was enough climbing for most that's for sure.

[martl]

In rolling, hilly country it is very easy to get a high alt/distance ratio when there are enough roads. Where I live, at the edge of the black forest which is a low mountain range that tops out at ~3200ft above sea level, I can climb my first 3000ft up within 15 miles from the doorstep and just keep on going at an almost similar rate. It is actually hard to plot a route of 100mls that doesn't have 10000ft.

As they say it isn't the terrain or the route that makes a ride hard, it's the speed (or your riding companions)

[XXtwindad]

apologies to others in different areas but its easy enough in Marin. not hard at all to make a climbers day out in Marin/Sonoma/Mendo. hell, even East Bay with Diablo and Hamilton. check out the challenging ride known as "Friends of Tam"

Ahem. Have to take exception with your qualifier of “even.” My daily East Bay (Oakland Hills) ride is 18.2 miles and 1,873 feet.

[Mark McM]

What I enjoyed about the east coast dirt road and country climbs was that there was always flat sections within the climbs if the roads were old. I was told that it was to allow the horses catch their breathe before there were cars, as well as, cyclists today.

That sounds too apocryphal to be true. It also doesn't explain why so many east coast climbs have downhill sections (which are also tough on horses).
A far more likely reason that older east coast roads have flat sections is that they were set down before motorized road grading equipment was developed, so they simply follow the natural contours of the terrains. As the northeast terrain was largely shaped by ebb and flow of glaciers, the natural contours are very irregular and "lumpy".

[smontanaro]

Here in Chicagoland, there's no way I'd get 10k feet in 100 miles, more like 1.5k feet.

While out in Portland, my longest ride was 90 miles with 4800 feet of climbing (Parkrose to near Mt Hood and back, so most of the climbing was on the way out). That was a lot for me (again, remember I normally ride where a fixie has just the right number of gears). I didn't have too much problem on the steeper pitches — 10-12% — but would have been tapped out on really steep stuff, as I only had a 45-inch low gear. When I get my new-to-me Eisentraut touring frame dialed in, I think I'll wind up with something more like a 35- or 37-inch low. That should help a lot.

[thunderworks]

I'm too old to look for climbing routes like that anymore, but FWIW, 5 years ago I spent a week in the Dolemites (northern Italy) and one of the rides was 65 miles with 12,900 feet of gain. It was a loop, returning to the starting point so basically the gain was ridden in half the total distance. I don't know what the average grade was, but I do remember lengthy sections of 12-14% stuff. It was tough. I was 65 at the time and decided I didn't want to do rides that difficult again. It was all I could handle. It was hard enough that I couldn't really look at the scenery . . . just sort of stared at my stem.

[cgolvin]

I like having the 100 ft/mi ratio as a target, but the difficulty really depends on how the elevation gains are distributed.

Last week I did 106 miles and 10.4k feet and was absolutely spent. The climbing is all sandwiched in the middle 50+ miles, no climb longer than 2k feet but some really pitchy sections.

Friday I did the longest climb we have (purportedly the longest continuous climb in the continental US but I'm not sure that's true), 7k feet in 35 miles, and I didn't feel nearly as tired.

[9tubes]

I'm too old to look for climbing routes like that anymore, but FWIW, 5 years ago I spent a week in the Dolemites (northern Italy) and one of the rides was 65 miles with 12,900 feet of gain. It was a loop, returning to the starting point so basically the gain was ridden in half the total distance. I don't know what the average grade was, but I do remember lengthy sections of 12-14% stuff. It was tough. I was 65 at the time and decided I didn't want to do rides that difficult again. It was all I could handle. It was hard enough that I couldn't really look at the scenery . . . just sort of stared at my stem.

Everyone's different and I fully appreciate that some want to challenge themselves on a vacation ride in Europe. For me though, I'll pass on these organized tours that have tougher course profiles than stage races. A bit ago a friend who is an excellent climber and racer lamented spending a vacation and having the easy day be 60mi/6000ft, with the typical being 80mi and 8-10,000 feet. No time for sightseeing, no time for a nice lunch, not much interaction with the locals. Kinda like being in a stage race, not much like a vacation.

[joosttx]

This thread inspired me to do 10K of climbing to today. It was too hot and I was going through water bottles fast (not too keen on refilling bottles from public sources). I ended on with a little over 4K.

[merlinmurph]

We're in Franconia NH right now, staying for a month, and 1000' per 10 miles seems to be the norm. Man, there's some nice riding here and a fair amount of dirt.

[Clean39T]

This thread inspired me to do 10K of climbing to today. It was too hot and I was going through water bottles fast (not too keen on refilling bottles from public sources). I ended on with a little over 4K.

Ha ha, it inspired me to do as much climbing in two hours as I could, leaving from my front door and not just riding the same climb over and over again..

I got 3100 ft. in 23.4 mi and 1:54 ride time. And around 4mi of that were flat transfer miles to/from the hills.

[smontanaro]

I miss hills.

[Fixed]

Today.road repeats on my favorite local climb in the headlands Marin
About 25 miles
Cheers to All

[SlowPokePete]

I just moved to a 100'/mile area.

For me, I would say it's hard riding, especially when there's no alternatives, ie every ride is a tough one...

My preferred route at this point, since I basically live half way up a giant hill, is to take a left out of my driveway...despite there being one down hill, the first 1.5 miles requires 400' of climbing.

Tough opener....

The 30 mile route I've been doing is 3,400' of climbing when all done.

SPP

[Zackus]

This ratio is what we call the 'golden ratio' in my riding group and it's what we aim for with most rides we do. Coming close most of the time for long weekend rides.

[AngryScientist]

I believe that ration of miles/feet is challenging for almost anyone.

here on the east coast, i can definitely find areas, and have recently ridden in areas where that ratio is what you get and it's hard.

the issue is the old visualization of the match book. if you're out to do 100 miles, every massive climb you tick off burns another match, and you just might not have enough matches in the book when the last climb comes at mile 85.

these can be hard lessons to learn. if you know what i mean, you know what i mean.

lol

[skijoring]

Less than 1000' per 10 miles, but I am riding this on Wednesday - out and back for maximum fun.

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/501996910

[David Kirk]

There's a climb near the old Serotta factory that I used to do way back in the day called 'Lake Desolation' and it's a 5 mile climb with 1000' vertical. It's tough but doable.

Way back then a few friends and I thought it a good idea to do that climb/descent 10 times to give 100 miles total with 10,000' of vertical. How hard could that be? :)

We set out to do it and the day was a bit too hot and a lot too windy for comfort and we made 7 trips up that damn hill before we pulled the plug. The hard part was the boredom of seeing the same stretch of road and knowing how much the steep pats were going to hurt.

It seemed like a great idea but you needed to be stupid, fit and in your 20's to pull it off and i was all of those things and it still didn't work!

dave

[AngryScientist]

There's a climb near the old Serotta factory that I used to do way back in the day called 'Lake Desolation' and it's a 5 mile climb with 1000' vertical. It's tough but doable.

Way back then a few friends and I thought it a good idea to do that climb/descent 10 times to give 100 miles total with 10,000' of vertical. How hard could that be? :)

We set out to do it and the day was a bit too hot and a lot too windy for comfort and we made 7 trips up that damn hill before we pulled the plug. The hard part was the boredom of seeing the same stretch of road and knowing how much the steep pats were going to hurt.

It seemed like a great idea but you needed to be stupid, fit and in your 20's to pull it off and i was all of those things and it still didn't work!

dave

i bet your low gear back then was something like 39/23 too eh? maybe not even?

[David Kirk]

i bet your low gear back then was something like 39/23 too eh? maybe not even?

It was for sure a 42 up front.....probably a 21 in the rear because I was in my 20's and stupid/stubborn.

It's amazing how much lower gearing has become over time.

dave

[jamiec]

There's a climb near the old Serotta factory that I used to do way back in the day called 'Lake Desolation' and it's a 5 mile climb with 1000' vertical. It's tough but doable.

Way back then a few friends and I thought it a good idea to do that climb/descent 10 times to give 100 miles total with 10,000' of vertical. How hard could that be? :)

We set out to do it and the day was a bit too hot and a lot too windy for comfort and we made 7 trips up that damn hill before we pulled the plug. The hard part was the boredom of seeing the same stretch of road and knowing how much the steep pats were going to hurt.

It seemed like a great idea but you needed to be stupid, fit and in your 20's to pull it off and i was all of those things and it still didn't work!

dave

Dave, Ha, funny you bring that up! I just did the Lake D 100 two weeks ago solo. I had been taking about doing it for years after I heard someone mention the idea. Decided on a ride that I would do it the next day. Wasn't until the 5th time up that I felt like I would pull it off. 8th and 9th lap was tough. Fun to hear the idea goes back to the 90's

https://www.strava.com/activities/3650274321

[David Kirk]

Dave, Ha, funny you bring that up! I just did the Lake D 100 two weeks ago solo. I had been taking about doing it for years after I heard someone mention the idea. Decided on a ride that I would do it the next day. Wasn't until the 5th time up that I felt like I would pull it off. 8th and 9th lap was tough. Fun to hear the idea goes back to the 90's

https://www.strava.com/activities/3650274321

very cool - good on you for making it happen!


dave

[GParkes]

The density of the hills can determine the effort, for sure. I did a 52 mile ride last Saturday with only 3200' of climbing, but nearly all of the vertical was between miles 13-28. Then I got the pleasure of glorious downhill................to be destroyed by about 15 miles of headwind back. So......vertical can be deceiving, regardless of the distance.