Just out of curiosity, how much climbing do you consider “a lot” within a ride? Let’s say for a century.
Any ride where I go more than 8-10,000ft I consider a lot. Though anything in the 4-7,000ft range I still consider reasonably difficult. Obviously the shorter distance in which you do these, the harder. I’ve done 7,000+ft in 25 miles on a single climb which I considered a lot and 18,000ft in 125 miles which I considered a lot. Both were pretty difficult.
On the road- about 1k feet for every 10 miles is a lot. Of course, I live in Dallas…for some I’m sure this is a normal ride.
Depends on how much of a cyclist and what body type you are. That being said, I agree with the other poster; anything around 4K+ is a darn good climbing day and anything approaching 10K is a really big day.
One century I did was around 9K, but some of the pitches were 13%, so the gradients are also a factor in how you feel.
Have fun…
J
I don’t think the total climbing is as important as the total climbing over ascending distance.
For example the Kona bike course is 4000 + feet of climbing…but if you ride 100K on a 1% grade that gets you to 3300 feet and you can stay in the aero position the entire time. Last weekend I did a ride in which 2000m of climbing came in around 30K of the 90K ride. Granted I was tired from travel, but the ride killed me because basically it was warmup ride on the flats, three hill climbs, ride back:
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/396095317
On the other hand back in July I did another ride with 2250 m of vertical but half the elevation came from gradual inclines or short punchy hills.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/341999827
I think what tells the real tale it the average cadence of ride 1 vs 2 was 65 vs 78! Much higher crank torque on ride 2 due to steepness of the climbs.
On the road- about 1k feet for every 10 miles is a lot. Of course, I live in Dallas…for some I’m sure this is a normal ride.
I lived in Dallas for several months and rode a bit in Dallas and north of town, Plano, etc. I would think climbing 1000 feet in a 40 mile ride would be hilly for you guys. Dallas seemed to be the land ruled by 180lb strong men.
On the road- about 1k feet for every 10 miles is a lot. Of course, I live in Dallas…for some I’m sure this is a normal ride.
I lived in Dallas for several months and rode a bit in Dallas and north of town, Plano, etc. I would think climbing 1000 feet in a 40 mile ride would be hilly for you guys. Dallas seemed to be the land ruled by 180lb strong men.
My weekend group rides are 60-70 miles and routinely have 1,800-2,200 feet of climbing. Yes,lots of heavier riders here. I’m 144 lbs. I love dropping those 180lbers on our local “climbs”. I still say 1k feet per 10 miles. I didn’t say I ride that around here- just that this is what I consider hilly (I’ve been to AZ, WI, and the Carolinas this year to ride).
I did a century ride last weekend that featured about 3,000m of climbing (just shy of 10,000ft). A number of nasty gradients to: one hill of 11-12% over 2 miles. Max gradient of 22%.
That felt like a lot.
I’m with ya on the 1k every 10 miles. Basically that’s just up, down, up, down with no flat sections regardless of how long each climb is.
On the road- about 1k feet for every 10 miles is a lot. Of course, I live in Dallas…for some I’m sure this is a normal ride.
My weekend group rides are 60-70 miles and routinely have 1,800-2,200 feet of climbing. Yes,lots of heavier riders here. I’m 144 lbs. I love dropping those 180lbers on our local “climbs”. I still say 1k feet per 10 miles. I didn’t say I ride that around here- just that this is what I consider hilly (I’ve been to AZ, WI, and the Carolinas this year to ride).
I also agree with your benchmark. 1000 feet per 10 miles is a solid climbing course. There’s a century I do nearby, actually 104 miles with 11,200 feet of climbing. It’s a gut buster.
3000m in 160kms is good work, especially with pitches over 20%… (26%plus on Mt Tamborine)
Gold Coast has plenty of these… in summary they hurt…but its a good pain…
Never enough…
There’s an additional ride that’s part of the same event. 253km. 5,000m ascent. I love climbing, but I’m not crazy enough to hit that one… yet.
I could do probably put together a couple loops in NE Missouri and get in probably 4000ft of ascending in a 100 mile ride, but it would be about 100 50’ rollers, which in a lot of ways is harder that 4 or 5 sustained climbs since you never get into a solid rythem and have 100 chances to burn up matches and wreck your ride.
My normal long ride is just 1800-2500ft climbing, mostly shallow 1/2 mile long rollers.
Now, if you want to talk about head winds. I don’t think a longer or medium steeper climb is as brutal as riding for 50 miles straight into a 15-20mph headwind. Maybe worse is a 20-25mph crosswind with 30-35mph gusts. The wind is constantly creating a venturi across your nostrils making it feel like it’s sucking hte air out of you when you inhale, then you have to try and keep the bike straight with hte gusts. We usually get 3 or 4 days like this in the spring.
3000m in 160kms is good work, especially with pitches over 20%… (26%plus on Mt Tamborine)
Gold Coast has plenty of these… in summary they hurt…but its a good pain…
Ah! Memories! Lived there for 2 years. Is there still a stupid traffic light about 2km from the finish, on a section around
15%? Always fun to debate, I stop or not? 
We use the “total ascending divided by distance” approach to classifying maps in TdG, and I’ve found that maps with that ratio greater than 2% are “lots of climbing”. 2% ascent/distance ratio actually ends up being right at the “1k feet per 10 miles” that someone else mentioned. 2.5% rides are relentless with hills, and things over 3% (1500 feet per 10 miles) that aren’t just hillclimbs are very difficult to find. Most 70.3 courses are in the 0-1% range. The TdF course where they climbed Alpe Dhuez twice was 2.7%, and the other TdF mountain stages are usually 2-3%.
So take the feet of climbing, divide by your miles*52.80, and that’ll give you your ascending/distance ratio, which is a great way to decide whether a ride had lots of climbing.
I did 100 miles on gravel with about 7k of climbing. That is my barometer of “a lot.”
75 ft per mile is a lot of climbing. >100 ft per mile is a LOT of climbing.
But gradient effects how difficult it is. A ride w/ a mix of flat sections and 10-15+% grades is way harder than constant ups and downs at <5%, as you tend to have to put out more power (go way over cp and burn matches) just to get up the hill.
Your body will be conditioned to tell you how much is “a lot”. For flatlanders, any climbing bigger than a few bridges is a lot. To Boulder residents, 10k in 70 miles is probably typical.
Where I ride most of the time, 100 feet per mile is standard, so anything more than that feels like a lot. My legs typically tell me what they think is a lot. The following two rides hurt a ton because they were over 100/1, what they’re used to.
ride out of roanoke va
mtb race in the mountains
I’d say if you’re doin 130/1 thats pretty good climbing.
Just out of curiosity, how much climbing do you consider “a lot” within a ride? Let’s say for a century.
I would classify IMLT’s bike course as “a lot”. I recorded around 8500 ft over the 112 miles.