[mm9]

Clarification question. I've never measured elevation gain. I see riders discuss elevation gain a lot on here. If you do a loop where you start and stop at the same location, isn't the elevation gain netted back to 0 by the downhills? If you only count the uphill part in the elevation measurement, does that really tell you anything? To me, riding a loop with hills is easier than riding the same distance on flat ground. Riding up a hill brings your heart rate up, but riding down, gives you time to recover. Where riding flat is constant pain.

 

[MMsRepBike]

Elevation gain is just that.

Elevation lost is another metric, and on a loop it will match the elevation gain. I ride a loop that is 11 miles and the elevation gain is 1450 feet. The end elevation is of course the same as the start elevation, and my elevation lost is also 1450, but the gain is the gain.

I only care about the gain, just keep going up. You will come down of course (the best part) but things like strava will keep count of just the up. Your start elevation, end elevation and elevation lost don't really matter.

Riding flat is only as hard as you make it. Hills will always be hard if they are steep enough.

 

[ericm979]

Try some larger hills and report back.

 

[jtsk]

I think what they mean by elevation gain is actually accumulated climbing (measured in feet or meters)....the total of all uphill segments added together.

Of course, if you do a loop ride and finish at your starting point the net gain would be zero (theoretically...because of consumer-grade GPS inaccuracies). But the accumulated elevation gain may be anything from a few hundred feet to several thousand feet depending on how hilly/mountainous the route of the distance traveled. Where I ride, a typical 40 mile ride would have a elevation gain of around 2,500'. YMMV

 

[Akirasho]

... course, some of us like "interpretation"

I used to ride with a guy (who I do respect) who'd turn his cycle computer on and off at stops to compute his average (as opposed to letting those seconds at a stop sign or traffic light drag him down).

 

[JCavilia]

To me, riding a loop with hills is easier than riding the same distance on flat ground

Well, if you mean you enjoy the hilly ride more, that may be true. And it does take more mental discipline to go hard consistently on a flat than when fighting a hill. But to average a given speed, the up and down ride will always take more work. Fighting gravity will always cost you more than it will give back to you on the descents.

but riding down, gives you time to recover.

But it doesn't have to. For the most part, that's a choice you make. Except on long steep descents where you reach spin-out speed and then coast, you could keep pedaling hard and putting out power on the descents. That may take even more discipline than time-trialing on the flat, but watch pro riders on a hilly time trial and see how much time they are "recovering."

Bottom line: elevation gain, defined as total accumulated climbing without subtracting descending, is a good general measure of how hard a route is. Go do a century with 2000 feet of climbing, and then do one with 10,000, and tell me how tired you are after each, regardless of your pace.

 

[ph0enix]

Clarification question. I've never measured elevation gain. I see riders discuss elevation gain a lot on here. If you do a loop where you start and stop at the same location, isn't the elevation gain netted back to 0 by the downhills? If you only count the uphill part in the elevation measurement, does that really tell you anything? To me, riding a loop with hills is easier than riding the same distance on flat ground. Riding up a hill brings your heart rate up, but riding down, gives you time to recover. Where riding flat is constant pain.

Elevation is the sum of vertical gain of all the ascends. Descending doesn't count.
Even if you're a good climber and you do well on the first 2 or 3 hills, the 4th, 5th, 6th will be much harder to climb. Yes, you recover some going downhill but not all that much. Try climbing 4,000ft or more on a 50 mile ride and you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

[BikeLayne]

Me and my car get better mileage on the flats then in the mountains.

 

[BikeLayne]

... course, some of us like "interpretation"

I used to ride with a guy (who I do respect) who'd turn his cycle computer on and off at stops to compute his average (as opposed to letting those seconds at a stop sign or traffic light drag him down).

Auto stop would save him a bit of trouble.

 

[tlg]

If you do a loop where you start and stop at the same location, isn't the elevation gain netted back to 0 by the downhills?

Well sure, the net gain is 0. But when people are talking about elevation gain, they're not talking about the net gain. That doesn't mean anything. The down hills don't magically erase the effort it took to go uphill.

If you only count the uphill part in the elevation measurement, does that really tell you anything?

It tells you an incredible amount. A 50 mile loop with 5,000ft elevation and a 50 mile loop with 1,000ft elevation will have the same net gain. But your legs will definitely not feel the same. You're not going to have the same average speed.

To me, riding a loop with hills is easier than riding the same distance on flat ground. Riding up a hill brings your heart rate up, but riding down, gives you time to recover. Where riding flat is constant pain.

You must have a different definition of hills than most. What do you consider a hilly ride? How many ft/mile? What kind of grades?
After enough hills, your legs are tore up and no downhill rest recovers that.

I live in a somewhat hilly area. It's hard to ride under 50ft/mi. Every time we get people who are use to flat areas, they get their asses dropped.

 

[cnardone]

as has been noted, Hills are much harder overall and fatiguing. You'll never get the time back decending.

I started riding last June. In August I went on a week vacation and rented a bike.

Location: Total Miles, Ave Climb (Ft per Mile), Ave Speed (mph)
Home: 150 97 10.96
Vacation: 64 13 15.53

I can also say that my Ave on vacation was actually faster than the 15.5mph. My time was tracked on my phone (End time - Start Time), so there was no stopping the clock for lights (my home bike does).

I know it could be argued that different bikes contribute to the different speeds. But the bike cannot account for over 4 mph. And frankly, I was way fresher after the rides on vacation with no climbing than at home. It was night and day.

 

[Blue CheeseHead]

Clarification question. I've never measured elevation gain. I see riders discuss elevation gain a lot on here. If you do a loop where you start and stop at the same location, isn't the elevation gain netted back to 0 by the downhills? If you only count the uphill part in the elevation measurement, does that really tell you anything? To me, riding a loop with hills is easier than riding the same distance on flat ground. Riding up a hill brings your heart rate up, but riding down, gives you time to recover. Where riding flat is constant pain.

Try doing a century with 10,000 feet of climb and a flat one. No comparison. Coasting down a 15% grade for 4 miles does not make up for riding up that same grade.

If you average the same watts for each ride, you will be slower and more whipped after the hilly ride.

 

[ColaJacket]

Try doing a century with 10,000 feet of climb and a flat one. No comparison. Coasting down a 15% grade for 4 miles does not make up for riding up that same grade.

If you average the same watts for each ride, you will be slower and more whipped after the hilly ride.

And if you did a 5000' loop at the same avg speed as a 1000' loop, wouldn't you be putting out more total watts on the 5000' loop?

GH

 

[duriel]

You should really train only on flat routes, you will get maximum pain. As alternative you can ride on flat routes, as fast as possible into a stationary object, say as a wall. At that point you will achieve the maximum amount of pain, which it appears what your trying to maximize.

 

[scott967]

I think the real question is if rolling terrain and a cat 3 climb, both with same total elev gain are the same effort.

scott s.
.

 

[cnardone]

I think the real question is if rolling terrain and a cat 3 climb, both with same total elev gain are the same effort.

scott s.
.

Definitely not for me. The really tough hills burn me out. I admit, I climb like am I carrying a piano on my back (5'10'' 200 or so lbs). I have a .7 mile 10% climb I do regularly. As I near the top, my cadence is in the mid 40s (on a good day). My hip flexors are burning and I am sweating profusely. Once to the top it takes a good few minutes for me to be able to spin at 90 rpm again. Later on, I have another climb in the 450 to 500 foot range but over several miles. My limiting factor is more my cardio than muscle fatigue. Once over the top, I can take a moment to catch my breadth and hit it hard on the flats.

 

[SwiftSolo]

Yep, riding the Stelveo up and back is only 36 miles and is exactly the same as any typical sunday afternoon 36 miler.

You live in Florida?

Clarification question. I've never measured elevation gain. I see riders discuss elevation gain a lot on here. If you do a loop where you start and stop at the same location, isn't the elevation gain netted back to 0 by the downhills? If you only count the uphill part in the elevation measurement, does that really tell you anything? To me, riding a loop with hills is easier than riding the same distance on flat ground. Riding up a hill brings your heart rate up, but riding down, gives you time to recover. Where riding flat is constant pain.

 

[mm9]

I think the real question is if rolling terrain and a cat 3 climb, both with same total elev gain are the same effort.

scott s.
.

Good question and related. BTW - I understand extreme hills, like in the mountains would wear you out more. But, a long route with short rolling hills which cumulatively has a lot of elevation gain vs. a more relatively flat course. What are the differences in effort there.

BTW - going to ride in the North Georgia Mountains tomorrow for the first time. I'll get a good feel of reality then.

 

[duriel]

Your in for a big shock!

 

[mm9]

Small mountain - slightly over 3000 feet. It was challenging but fun.