Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It just occurred to me to take my mileage and elevation gained stats from Strava, and average them together to see how many feet per mile I climbed in the last year. 4,253 miles and 242,325 feet equals right at 57 feet per mile.

Is this a statistic anyone ever looks at?

I've always lived in hilly places (San Diego for 30 years, Marin County, CA for 22 years). I love the hills and mountains. I try to imagine what it would be like to be a cyclist in a really flat landscape. I truly don't know what it would feel like to ride for hours without significant hills. I bet you can get some impressive average speeds. I also have not traveled much at all beyond the Western states, so I don't have any first hand knowledge of topography East of the Rockies or in other countries.

Anyway, I am just curious to hear what other folks average ft. per mile is.
 

·
Banned
Bianchi Nuovo Alloro, Lemond Etape
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
Not much. I am on the gulf coast. The hills are nothing, but the humidity will kill ya if the pick-em-up trucks don't. I can truly plot out rides with no concern for elevation - it is all 2 dimensional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,935 Posts
I'm about half your climbing / mile on average with 8400 miles and 250,000 feet of climbing last year roughly. Most of my century and longer rides were pretty flat this year which brings the average down, but had a few rides where I was over 100ft / mile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,695 Posts
Virtually all my rides are thought out with some climb in mind. For me that's what gets me excited about the ride, the climb up. I don't even care that much about the descent. I like it more than i used to but still like climbing the most. While I rode just under 6300 miles last year, I had elevation gains of 430,843 ft. I'm not sure if anyone looks at this, but that's not really the point in my book. I don't climb to impress people, I climb because that's where I get my sense of accomplishment on the bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,224 Posts
There is not much one can do about how much they climb as it is largely a function of where they live. Southeast Wisconsin is good for about 35' per mile. I can push that to 65' with a careful selection of a route. Trips to western Wisconsin can yield 100' per mile pretty easily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Last year I recorded all of my rides in ridewithgps and came up 59 feet per mile. Northwest NJ. FWIW, here's a scatter chart of my data from 2015 and 2016YTD
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,695 Posts
I feel fortunate to live in Manhattan. It's only a short ride to Rockland County NY and New Paltz is easily reachable by train or by car. Lots of good climbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
I live in Rockland County right on Harriman State Park and Bear Mountain. Last year was 1745 miles and almost 158K feet of climbing. Just over 90fpm.

I did one ride down the Jersey Shore where it is as flat as flat can be. That ride was almost 2.5mph faster than my year average. That includes being injured, in pain and riding only on the hoods. So yes, I believe your times will probably improve dramatically.
Having said that, I also got a little board without any hills or descents.

As a slight aside, I find that I gain / lose as much as .5 mph for every 10 feet of climbing. This is in the 70 to 100 feet per mile range. I am going to guess that I as get further below 70 that the gains would start to diminish and greater than 100 the loses would start to really accumulate. But I don't have any ride data to back this up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,727 Posts
Is this a statistic anyone ever looks at?
Yup. People in hilly areas typically pay attention. My last 2 years were '66 & 65' per mile for the year.
We avoid the hillier rides in the winter. Getting sweaty in the cold isn't fun. Spring and summer months will average 70-80ft/mi.

I try to imagine what it would be like to be a cyclist in a really flat landscape.
Same here. Planning a ride >40mi with under 50ft/mi is really hard.
 

·
Forever a Student
Joined
·
4,963 Posts
I average over 90ft per mile. Last year was 98.76ft/mi. Hills are all that I know, there is nothing flat around.

Couple times a year I travel to where it's flat to do a real fast century. So boring. Riding those long, straight, open flat roads is soul sucking to me. Nothing I care to do on my own at all. There is zero chance that I'd be a cyclist if I lived in the flats. I need the turns and the hills, they're mandatory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
Southern Michigan has about 15-20 ft/mile, and no climb lasts more than a minute; so I generally don't even think about how much climbing a route has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,347 Posts
For the last six years I've done between 900,000 and a million feet of climbing and around 8000-9000 miles. Living in the mountains helps but usually when I drive somewhere to do a ride there's climbing involved. I like both riding up hill and down hill. OTOH I have to drive down to the valley if I want to do a recovery ride. One of the rides that starts from and and returns to my house is 23 miles with 4000' of climbing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,283 Posts
I try to imagine what it would be like to be a cyclist in a really flat landscape. I truly don't know what it would feel like to ride for hours without significant hills. I bet you can get some impressive average speeds. I also have not traveled much at all beyond the Western states, so I don't have any first hand knowledge of topography East of the Rockies or in other countries.
Couple times a year I travel to where it's flat to do a real fast century. So boring. Riding those long, straight, open flat roads is soul sucking to me. Nothing I care to do on my own at all. There is zero chance that I'd be a cyclist if I lived in the flats. I need the turns and the hills, they're mandatory.
There are turns, just no hills that we normally think of. But where it's flat, there is wind. In a way there are virtual hills and the aerodynamics play a bigger role than it would at where you ride.

Some of us don't have a choice in geography. :nonod:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,658 Posts
I don't keep track or have a way of knowing first hand but according to the geeks I ride with centuries are anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000. 12k is pretty rare and takes some planning to get in that much per 100 miles. 7-8 K per 100 seems to be about ordinary.
That's for when we head to NH, VT or Western Mass. Further Southeast where we do a lot of riding, I have not idea, much less though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,551 Posts
Where I live it's nothing but hills (foothills of Los Angeles)

I have to drive to get to flat lander areas.

For 2015 I rode 3,747 miles and climbed 282,110 ft (according to my Edge 500) which puts me at 75 ft / mile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
It is sort of interesting. I came out at 52'/mile.

I usually do a flat lunch ride and one where I do laps up the hill behind me, so I think it averages out.

Seems that those of us who live near hills like them. Or at least embrace the challenge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,062 Posts
Where I live it's nothing but hills (foothills of Los Angeles)

I have to drive to get to flat lander areas.

For 2015 I rode 3,747 miles and climbed 282,110 ft (according to my Edge 500) which puts me at 75 ft / mile.
Interesting number
I live in San Fransisco south bay and we have nothing but hills and mtns. I'm 4234 miles and 325,019 ft climbing for 76 ft /mile.

You'd think mine would be higher?? ( I did include trainer miles)
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top