Hill Grades

5 replies [Last post]
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

I remember seeing a list of the hills in our area that described the grade and distance of each hill. Does anyone have that info or can anyone direct me to it? It must have been in an old NYCC bulletin but I can't remember exactly where I saw it & don't have the old bulletins.
Grazie!

Anonymous's picture
Patricia Janof (not verified)
Hill Grades

It was not that long ago--Feb. '03 Bulletin, p.10. I really enjoyed reading it, but I can't believe Churchill is steeper than Walnut.

Anonymous's picture
Hank Schiffman (not verified)
Hill Grades

Patricia might be correct. I went back to the topo map and refigured the grades. Like most things in life, computing grades is subject to errors. Topo maps rarely present your starting point on the contour lines. In the program I use, Topo! by National Geographic, the curser will give you an elevation. But I don't use it as it is subject to an even greater error than extrapolation (interpolation?). In computing the grades for the list I redid the work multiple times but all of this is subject to operator error/interpretation.

Let's just say that they might be the same grade on a 5%+/- error. But when you are grinding up Walnut and reach its terminus at Woodland remember that if you were on Churchill you would still need to go another 790 feet to get to its end at Woodland.

Anonymous's picture
John Z (not verified)
Churchill vs. Walnut

"I have Topo as well and calculate Churchill as 6.5% over 0.69 miles and Walnut as 6.0% over 0.74 miles. Walnut is more of a ""step climb"" which is why it may be perceived as steeper while on the average a bit less than Churchill.
My experience is that smaller, ""pure"" climbers actually prefer step climbs like Walnut, while larger ""power"" climbers prefer more continuous grades. Either way, proper gearing is essential. Interestingly, it is faster to climb a given amount of vertical feet in a steep climb than in a more shallow climb, meaning if you had to climb 1000 vertical feet, you would do it faster on a 10% grade than on a 5% grade."

Anonymous's picture
Unforgiven (not verified)
Godzilla vs. King Kong

"My experience is exactly the opposite.

I'd hardly characterise myself as a ""power climber"", but I'm just shy of 200 lbs, and find that I do much, much better on the walls than the long gradual slopes.

Purely a subjective observation of my 20 years riding these local roads, but I find that my size holds me back on long climbs, those 135 lb flyweights go spinning right by, whereas on the short steep ones I can just stand and jam right up and it's over before you know it.

""Proper"" gearing is also a subjective matter. A 39-19 is fine for me for anything around here.

"

Anonymous's picture
John Z (not verified)

"Of course climbing styles may vary... I rode this weekend for the first time with a power meter, and it has been a greater revelation then when I first started riding with a heart rate monitor. It will affect my approach to climbing, gearing and training more than I thought. One thing I noticed is that most riders, myself included, start climbs too hard and in too big a gear. In addition, some interesting things happen around lactate threshold levels and perceived effort does not match power output. I can provide specific numerical details, but the lesson is simple: the fastest way up a climb is to make sure your effort at the end is harder than that at the beginning. In addition, once a rider exceeds LT power output levels drop even though heart rate does not. Finally, and this is very interesting, I noticed once I got into the ""red zone"" I could actually keep my power up by shifting into a smaller gear. Before this, I presumed the opposite would happen, that by shifting into a smaller gear my power would go down, because it is perceived to be easier..."

cycling trips