RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


would you concider riding a century with 19,500' climbing?(17 posts)

would you concider riding a century with 19,500' climbing?cyclopathic
Oct 6, 2001 11:42 AM
this is ~7.2% avg grade
Whoa, that is A LOT of climbing!Ian
Oct 6, 2001 12:54 PM
I don't know if I could do it. Certainly not in my present shape. I did Six Gap in GA which has 10,700 feet of climbing in a century. I didn't really think you could fit in more climbing than that. Anyway, I did Six Gap at 210 lbs, with legs in probably the best shape I have ever had them. But, I was absolutely done at the end of the ride. For something like you propose, the body fat % better be in single digits and there better be many 200+ mile weeks and months under your belt. Good luck if you decide to attempt this ride, and where is it at?
Sure''''that means 19500 of descending too. (nm)david
Oct 6, 2001 1:04 PM
Not if the finish line is at the top :-) NMnestorl
Oct 6, 2001 6:09 PM
you gotta get back down somehow :-) nmdavid
Oct 6, 2001 6:55 PM
Try the Bus (Assault to Mt. Mitchell; Bridge to bridge) :-)nmnestorl
Oct 6, 2001 7:18 PM
you take the bus...I'll ride my bike down!!!!!!!:-)nmdavid
Oct 6, 2001 7:57 PM
You say that now...Ian
Oct 7, 2001 7:21 AM
...but I would wager that after 19,500 feet of climbing, not only would you accept a ride down, you would pay good money for it. At Six Gap I was at the top of the last climb, Wolfpen Gap. I was at mile marker 88. It was twelve miles of downhill and flat road ahead of me to the finish. I was at the sag stop and someone pulled up saying they were picking up riders and did anyone need a lift. It actually went through my mind to accept. Even though I was done with all the climbing, I just didn't want to be on my bike anymore.
sounds fun... in a hard sort of way...PdxMark
Oct 6, 2001 1:36 PM
I'd even consider it...

from the grade you posted, it sounds like a loop

five climbs of 10 miles/3900 feet each - it wouldn't get bad until the last climb or two ... because if it got bad before that, you wouldn't finish... oh, and the last climb would hurt...

so now all I need to do is get off the "spouse vetos challenge rides" list so I can consider doing it... oops, was that a rant?
what would probably kill mecyclopathic
Oct 6, 2001 7:26 PM
is the grades. I'd rather ride 10% flat then 7% with 25% in a few spots (unless I put mtb cass in addition to triples)

it is not organized ride /I don't know anyone who would put money into something like this/ I just found a place where you could actually do it /unless you're willing to ride up and down the same hill 10-15 times/
Where is this place?Birddog
Oct 6, 2001 8:36 PM
Where is this place?Ken
Oct 8, 2001 8:06 AM
Could be similiar to the following:

http://www.deathride.com/
I get 3.7%?Dog
Oct 8, 2001 5:49 AM
My math keeps showing 3.69%

19500/5280*100=369.318

In any event, that's a lot. Never heard of a century with that much. Sounds like fun!

Doug
If you start and finish at the same point............Len J
Oct 8, 2001 6:13 AM
wouldn't it be twice that? or 7.4 % average grade on climbs, of course this assumes that There is equal milage in the climbs & the descents.

Len
yupDog
Oct 8, 2001 6:37 AM
I suppose it depends upon what you are saying.

The average grade over the 100 miles is 3.7%. The average climbing grade would be twice that, yes, assuming return to the same point.

Most people I've heard talk about climbing over an entire course in terms of "so many feet of climbing per mile", rather than average percentage, and use percentage in terms of individual hills.

This one has 19500 feet per 100 miles, or 195 feet per mile.

"Average percentage" climbing isn't quite as helpful, in my opinion. It could be a very long, easy climbs, or a series of 20% climbs.

Feet per mile is a better reference, I think.

Doug
Us Flatlanders think in terms of overpasses per ride.(Sic)Len J
Oct 8, 2001 6:44 AM
Feet per mile is a pretty interesting way of looking at it, But it really doesn't give any indication of severity does it? So I guess real perspective would be something like:

"X feet per mile with Y climbs of over Z miles and aa% grade" or something like that.

I guess I'd be more well versed if we had any hills at all.

Len
where i this?Mr. Twister
Oct 8, 2001 8:28 AM
or is this hypothetical? The Triple Bypass in CO has 10,500 of climbing over 120 miles. It was plenty tough for me. Can't imagine almost double that climbing.