Kitt Peak is a pretty solid choice. I'd ask if I could join you guys but I really don't want to. That's a tough climb, and I find it vastly more interesting than Lemmon.

https://www.strava.com/segments/762186

That calculator is cool. This is probably somewhat realistic, although another stop might be necessary although it won't be super hot this weekend. http://bit.ly/2nSpuk3

Kitt Peak is a great climb for this, enjoy. Looks like you'll have to do a full 6x based on my interpretation of those rules (no half laps). Though I don't understand your concern about kinetic gain. The route is up and down the same road is it not?

---

2017 races: St. George 70.3 May 6 | Madison 70.3 June 11 | IM Zurich July 30 | Chicago Marathon October 8

Kitt Peak seems like a better choice than Mt Lemmon for a number of reasons:
1) Less ascents/flat areas on the descent.
2) Less elevation- which means less variable weather and less physical difficulties associated with the elevation
3) Good length of time- ridden conservatively each lap should be about 2 hrs. This is good for food/water and rest logistics.

It seems that the only climb in the Tucson area that has been done is A mountain.
(It could be that I just don't know how to use the search function).

Yes it is up and down the same road.

I am a bit confused on the rules.
I thought a fraction of an ascent was OK on the last lap?

The website says something about "good judgment" and checking with them about kinetic gain on the descent?

My memory is that the ascent is straight up and straight down. (That is why I chose it).
But when I use the calendar and I eliminate the descent... I have to do the climb 6.5 times.

I sent an email. Not sure if they will get back to me.

Yup, I'm no expert on this Everesting phenomenon, but would hate to see you go through all the effort only to realize you botched a rule.

I like Lemmon better :) but you illustrated good reasons to choose Kitt for this endeavor.

---

2017 races: St. George 70.3 May 6 | Madison 70.3 June 11 | IM Zurich July 30 | Chicago Marathon October 8

I have researched this a decent amount. The issue seems to be with a longer climb is the time of decent. It is basically full recovery. Think about the style on a flat road of going harder 1 hour and then just coasting for 20 minutes in an imaginary tailwind.

I am also getting 8.2 times up the mountain or 9 if you have to do the whole thing. 29029/3512

I don't know where that calculator is getting 4500 of climbing. Is this the kinetic gain you are talking about?

Good observation.

How could this make sense?
Elevation difference = 3525
Calculator says ascent gain = 4519
Calculator says total lap gain = 5486

I get that there can be descents during the ascent (and vice Versace).
But I don't believe their is 1,000 feet of descent on THIS ascent.

I was thinking "kinetic gain" applied to ascents on the descent. That one could use speed from going down hill to climb these ascents with little or no energy.

What - I was asking is do I need to use the calculator with the "remove descent" function.

Now I wonder if their is some error between Strava and the calculator,

Yeah, something is up on that one. Used the calc on two climbs in my area I had calced manually and it came out fine. From what I remember you do not have to do the whole climb on the last one but I am not sure. Wouldn't really be fair.

If you do the whole 8.2 how long are you thinking it is gonna take you. I may try to do half of one this year to get a feel. There are a couple around here that are 100 repeats for 100 miles so easy to break it into chunks mentally and practicing. Since they are 10% I would prolly need to put a Mtn bike crank on the front so I have a couple gears in the middle of the cassette to work with.

Interesting there are a whole lot of strategies you can use for different terrain or to find a course that suits your strengths.

Yes, once you get to the magic 8848mtrs of gain on your last ascent you can turn around and head to the bottom. Judgement call for you whether you want to finish that ascent or not really. Err on the side of caution though I'd suggest.

The calculator can be way off I found. Possibly due to the way Strava handles elevation in segments, or perhaps when the segment was created, which device etc. For a segment I chose I found the calculator giving me a lot more gain on the descent than true. I created a new segment from one of my rides and it had a much flatter and accurate elevation profile so I used that in the calculator which worked much more accurately for me. It's handy to know how many you need to do, so that if you have a device issue you can rely on the maths - again err on the side of caution and do more than you think.
If you get kinetic gain on the descent that's all good, so long as it's not too much. As they say, if you think you might be gaming it, you probably are.

I reckon the biggest issue especially on long climbs is thermal regulation. You don't want to overheat, but likewise you need to keep warm on the way down. It's also good to keep your legs moving on the way down, so that they don't shut down on you and make the start of every ascent hard work to get in a rhythm again.
For me, we don't have any super long climbs in Wellington so I did a climb that would take me 6.5 - 7.00 minutes, and a descent that was less that 2 minutes. The short descent meant I had no issues with thermal regulation and getting the legs going again. 91 repeats though!! Here's the link to my ride - https://www.strava.com/activities/810758668

Factor in longer time for stops than you'd think while sitting at your desk, they add up really fast and can add an hour to your total time before you know it! It's key to minimise time not moving.

Take photos of your device and the total elevation gain at various points during your ride in case something happens. Use an OTG cable so you can charge your device while you're using it.

Most of all though enjoy it! :-) And then buy some cool kit!

Any other questions feel free to ask. All the best!

cheers
Mike

Ok.

The planning for this is not good.

When I use the everesting calculator on Kitt Peak http://www.everesting.io
(Strava segment 762186).
I get that I only need 5.3 laps (5486 ft)
Or 6.5 lap (if I hit remove decent button)

I feel this would be a reasonable ask. A moderate 11 -13 hour effort with daylight and reasonable temperatures.

But as noted earlier this climb has only 3525 of elevation difference between summit and start.

And there does NOT seem to be enough rolling ups and down to justify the difference (5486 ft v 3525 ft)

The everesting website strongly recommends against using Garmin forerunner.
But isn't that what most Strava segments are based on?
Is this the source of the problem?

I did the same calculation on Mt Lemmon (527881) with similarly suspicious results.

The everesting calculator gives a lap elevation gain which is much greater than what seems likely given the elevation difference between the base and summit of climb.

So here are my questions:
1) Should I just do the effort as the calculator says? (I am physically and logistically prepared for this).
2) Should I discard the idea and plan to make the attempt when I have:
a) 13-18 hours to spare (not just 11-13)
b) more reliable elevation data that doesn't rely on Strava or Garmin forerunner

Everesting? Interesting - whatever you like I guess!

Slight detour. Has the road over to Kitt Peak from the western outskirts of Tucson and Gates Pass area been upgraded. Last time I was in Tucson (about 4 years back), it was a little dodgy - two lanes and no shoulder. We road out a bit one time and then turned back thinking that it was a bit unsafe.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I don't think that long climbs are optimal for something like this. That 20-40 minute descent is going to turn your legs to wood, especially later in the day.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

Not sure about the history of improvements in the last years but I doubt it is better now.

Tucson has nice scenery and winter/spring/fall weather but not very good roads.

This might be a problem with long climbs.
And also the temperature logistics problem!
And also perhaps the Garmin forerunner/Strava miscalculation problem (if there is one)!

It's quite nice once you're around Three Points. Huge shoulder and smooth almost to Sells.

You can see in some of the pictures from my ride https://www.strava.com/activities/858792755

The strava data on that segment is wonky. There is essentially no kinetic gain on the ascent or descent. You'll need to do the climb 8.2x or so. You can ask the everesting guys to vet the course beforehand to confirm elevation gain - they're usually very responsive.

Unless you're a super strong rider an everesting is going to take you 15-18 hours.

For me with a ftp of about 310W, 75 kg, and keeping my HR about 35-40 beats below threshold I was riding for about 15-16 hours plus 2 and a bit hours for breaks.

I lost a lot of time on the turnaround as I needed to do over 80 laps. Handy though as I was never far from my car. Lucked out as it was a quiet holiday weekend and there was very little traffic, weather being overcast was a big help as well.

I'd likewise be worried about legs stiffening up on the long descent.

Biggest mistake I made was not changing my bibs. Bring an extra pair and plenty of chamois creme. Try to avoid long breaks - very hard to get back into it after more than 10-15mins off the bike.

Best move I made was drinking lots and lots of pickle juice.

A Mountain might actually be better, the more I think about it. The climb is like 7-9 minutes and descending is 3ish. Pavement kind of sucks and there might be a fair amount of traffic over the course of the day but logistically that is a significantly easier location.

The calculator IS wrong for both Kitt Peak and mount Lemmon.
Problems with the Garmin forerunner altimeter transferring to Strava is the probable culprit.

Carlosflanders is also right this WILL be a 15-20 hr effort.

I am physically and logistically prepared for a 11-14 hour effort.
I am NOT logistically prepared for a 16 hr effort.

I think I need to postpone and rethink.

I think the problem stems from the device that was used to record the ride that the segment was then created from. If that device did not have a barometric altimeter, the elevation data will be based on GPS and that normally means it will be all over the place.
I was looking at a segment of only about 4kms recently and it had ~450mtrs of gain going up, and was reporting ~230mtrs coming down which I knew was rubbish. So I took a ride I had done with an Edge510 recording it and created a new segment from my ride data and the result was much different, my segment has 240mtrs of gain up, and 1mtr down.
The dodgy segment https://www.strava.com/segments/12516075
The good segment https://www.strava.com/segments/14292190
You can see in the dodgy segment the elevation profile is all over the show, whereas the good segment it is more like what you would expect. Because of the short length of this segment it is relatively obvious when you look at it. But if I look at the segment you are talking about it looks like it has a sawtoooth profile if you look closely. I'd say that it has been recorded on a device that doesn't have a barometric altimeter so the elevation data is rubbish.

When you are doing your everesting you'll need to use a device that has a barometric altimeter. eg. Edge500/510/520/800/820 or similar. Forerunner 910XT has one as well, but I think the earlier Forerunners don't.

I'd go hunting for an activity that has been done with a Edge device up that climb and try and create a segment from that data. Or, map it in a decent mapping tool and see what the elevation data looks like and just use an excel spreadsheet to calculate it yourself. But remember any calculation is just that, it probably won't 100% reflect the real world.
For mine I calculated 93 laps, but I had climbed 8853mtrs after my 91st lap. So it's good to have an idea for the number you need, but also use the right device to record it and show you the gain as it happens. I hit the lap button on my Edge at the top of each ascent so I was recording laps and gain. 91 laps to get the gain was close enough to the calculation of 93 laps so I was happy that it was all ok. I finished the last climb rather than turning round as it was a pretty short climb, and it's prudent to do a little bit more anyway.

I have no idea about that climb but I'd suggest you're up for more than 11-13 hours, 13-18 seems more realistic.

Following this thread since I have been doing some research and am planning an early June attempt here in SoCal. Figure if I keep saying I am going to do it I'll need to follow thru. I agree with some of the comments here about long climbs and descents taking a lot out of the legs.

I am looking at the following segment, which is just over 1000 feet gain about 5%. So 28 laps and hoping to get done 16-18 hours. I have done this climb a bunch and even at a very easy pace its only 26-27 minutes up and 8 down. That doesn't give me too much time to get too cold on decent.

https://www.strava.com/segments/1027569


One of my other thoughts was to stage water bottles and nutrition at top and bottom to avoid carrying extra weight. With such short laps I can just carry the bare minimum. Every oz will count over 200 miles.


Good luck with your attempt. Please report how it goes.

Having completed two of these, were I to have any advice is that time flies when you aren't riding, and that it is easy to waste time. My second attempt was over two hours faster than the first (15:12 to 13:01) mostly because I was able to keep most of my friends and family away. You need to think about the logistics of your supplies and electronics throughout, and consider ways of making it easy on yourself to just keep riding.
I'm planning on a speed attempt to get close to 11 hours next time, and for me a speed a steep hill (10%+) of about 10 minutes in length with a straight descent is ideal. Long climbs at lower percentages just take longer to get the vertical metres in my case..
Good luck!