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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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"

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]

Originally Posted by joosttx

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.