What is hilly?

[Croft]

I like Kim's rule of thumb as a start point. And then perhaps break down the route into 10km sections and apply the same rule for each and count how many sections are in the 'hilly' zone. If it was just one in a 100km ride, it's not likely to be feel like a "hilly ride", but rather a flatish ride with a hilly section.

For me I've found big alpine climbs with a steady gradient easier than, say, the unrelenting ups and downs of a Cornish or Welsh coastal road. For undulating rides, the descents can also shape how tiring the ride feels. Steep, technical descents offer little in the way of recovery, but long steady ones can be a good way of covering the miles with little effort.

[markcjagar]

That sounds Brutal!

J

It can be but like others have said, it depends on what you're used to.

I have been beyond that, once...

https://www.strava.com/activities/5224094840

[Peter]

Just ride.

[quixoticgeek]

Just ride.

Helpful...

J

[LittleWheelsandBig]

But true.

The route is what it is and if there are hills on the route, then they need to be ridden. Obsessing over the details of hills just makes the anticipation as bad as actually riding them (double the pain!). Find out enough about the route to know it is going to be hard work and just accept it.

Riding hills makes riding hills easier and less worrisome. So 'just ride'.

[giropaul]

I suggest that some of the ftp numbers being quoted are on the high side.
In the Cycling Weekly Zwift 10 miles the winners are in the 300-350 Watts for 20-25 minutes men) , and in the 150-250 area for women. Given that ftp is a 1 hour figure, I’d expect somewhat lower figures for an hour.
These are riders who also figure in real world results, so they’re in the top percentiles of riders who race.
Having experience of running ftp and MMP ( maximum minute power) tests on a range of cyclists from relative beginners to elite level I’d say that the average, mid years, regular cyclist but not race trained would have a real world ftp ( male) of 150 to 250. That’s on calibrated equipment. We regularly saw people coming in with bigger ftp figures from bike-mounted power meters or from trainers, but they didn’t hold up to calibrated equipment scrutiny.

As QG infers, pulse is, in my view, a more reliable gauge for an extended effort. It’s A measure of stress on the “ engine”.
Terrain is only one part of the story, but for an Audax type effort it will be important. If the aim is to get round in a time limit it makes sense to reduce high levels of stress that will take you into anaerobic energy production. Appropriate gearing will be one part of this. In an ideal situation a rider could ride in zone 3 of the 1-5+ scale up hill and down dale, and be able to hold that for extended periods, as long as gearing is appropriate.

[Kim]

But true.

The route is what it is and if there are hills on the route, then they need to be ridden. Obsessing over the details of hills just makes the anticipation as bad as actually riding them (double the pain!). Find out enough about the route to know it is going to be hard work and just accept it.

I dunno, I find it's much easier to pace myself if I know what's coming.  My approach to climbing is to try to do the whole thing in one go without stopping, and I'll ride conservatively if I don't know what to expect.  Motivational "it's just round the corner" bollocks is actively unhelpful for that (I'm likely to push too hard and have to stop), though I accept it can work for some people.

I'd suggest that average climbing isn't an especially useful metric for getting a feel for multi-day rides, but used with finer granularity it's a reasonable tool to numerically compare unfamiliar terrain with what you're used to.  (It's more useful as a tool for evaluating alternative routes.)

I don't think it's unreasonable to want to approach a Big Ride with some idea of where the hilly/flat/long/technical/time constrained/whatever sections are.  Obsessing over the details in advance means you can expend that energy when it's plentiful, and have more for turning the pedals when you get there.

Riding hills makes riding hills easier and less worrisome. So 'just ride'.

Works for me, but I don't live in .nl

[Basil]

Wot is hilly? Round here is hilly.
At 72 I've learned to use the 24" gear with good grace.

[Peter]

But true.

The route is what it is and if there are hills on the route, then they need to be ridden. Obsessing over the details of hills just makes the anticipation as bad as actually riding them (double the pain!). Find out enough about the route to know it is going to be hard work and just accept it.

I dunno, I find it's much easier to pace myself if I know what's coming.  My approach to climbing is to try to do the whole thing in one go without stopping, and I'll ride conservatively if I don't know what to expect.  Motivational "it's just round the corner" bollocks is actively unhelpful for that (I'm likely to push too hard and have to stop), though I accept it can work for some people.

I'd suggest that average climbing isn't an especially useful metric for getting a feel for multi-day rides, but used with finer granularity it's a reasonable tool to numerically compare unfamiliar terrain with what you're used to.  (It's more useful as a tool for evaluating alternative routes.)

I don't think it's unreasonable to want to approach a Big Ride with some idea of where the hilly/flat/long/technical/time constrained/whatever sections are.  Obsessing over the details in advance means you can expend that energy when it's plentiful, and have more for turning the pedals when you get there.

Riding hills makes riding hills easier and less worrisome. So 'just ride'.

Works for me, but I don't live in .nl

My remark looks glib but it was made in the expectation  that J. already knows how hilly the course is (she's said as much) and presumably where the hills are.

[Salvatore]

What's hilly? Alps, Pyrenees, Andes, Cornish coast, bits of mid Wales.

What's not hilly?
Finland.

Just ride.

This.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Wot is hilly? Round here is hilly.
At 72 I've learned to use the 24" gear with good grace.

This too. Walking is still moving and on occasions it's good to use a slightly different set of muscles.

[Andy W]

As others have stated, 1000 metres ascent over 100 km travelled is considered pretty average.
However, not all ascent/ descent is equal. On some routes I cycle I would ascent and descend without touching the brakes,  and on some routes the descents are so steep or debris strewn heavy braking is necessary to scrub off speed. Ultimately this leads to a lower average speed as a lot of energy is wasted by the braking. A and B roads dont usually require much braking on a bicycle, whereas minor roads do.

[Paul H]

As others have stated, 1000 metres ascent over 100 km travelled is considered pretty average.

This has been posted a few times now and although I'd agree that it wouldn't be considered hilly it's still a fair bit higher than my average, assuming my data from Garmin and Strava is correct.  I live in the UK East Midlands, ride in all directions, don't go looking for hills, but don't avoid them either and my average is under 800 meters per 100km.  I don't know if people have just rounded up for nice easy figures, but over a couple of thousand km, that's a big difference.

[Kim]

As others have stated, 1000 metres ascent over 100 km travelled is considered pretty average.

This has been posted a few times now and although I'd agree that it wouldn't be considered hilly it's still a fair bit higher than my average, assuming my data from Garmin and Strava is correct.  I live in the UK East Midlands, ride in all directions, don't go looking for hills, but don't avoid them either and my average is under 800 meters per 100km.  I don't know if people have just rounded up for nice easy figures, but over a couple of thousand km, that's a big difference.

I suspect that's because the East Midlands are quite flat.  Eyeballing my stats for the last couple of years (so almost exclusively West Midlands) in Veloviewer, it's coming out at about 11.something m/km

[L CC]

I used to live in East Angular and moved North.
My average in 2013 EA were 450m/100km over 15,000km.
Up in Boro in 2016 I had 823/100km over 14,000km.
In Durham in 2020 958/100km over 10,000 km.

I had a much bigger audax habit in 2013 & 2016 (they were both 100 point years) but the longer the ride the less likely it would be to be hilly - mostly because I wouldn't choose to ride anything relentlessly hilly and >300km.

A hilly section is more psychologically manageable for me than constantly rolling, but choppy terrain is harder going than long steady climbs.

It doesn't really matter how hilly the ride is, fretting about them isn't going to shrink them. If you're going to ride it anyway, it matters more what % they are, in that that information will affect your gear choice.

(as to women's FTP, the bell curve sits, on Zwift anyway, with more than 60% of racers being categorised  C- 2.5-3.2 w/kg. My 230 watts is Good, except that the kilos are not. I would not expect to be riding at 150 watts for 8 days. I'd expect to do 150w the first day and lose on 10% the 2nd. 3rd and subsequent days I'd expect to lose another 2-3% a day)

[Lightning Phil]

It is as half as hilly as riding London to Lands End.  It’s about the same hilliness as a route in Essex and Suffolk

[quixoticgeek]

It is as half as hilly as riding London to Lands End.  It’s about the same hilliness as a route in Essex and Suffolk

Now that's a useful comparison. Having grown up in Suffolk, I've done a fair bit of cycling there as a kid. Never actually flat, but nothing really brutal...

J

[Pickled Onion]

I don't think you can make a judgement on the climbing alone, it depends on how spread out the climbing is and the gradients. I know the science says the energy expended is purely mass and elevation, but the opportunity to recover between exertions while still moving plays a part. Yesterday I did 100 km that I'd consider "very hilly" but only clocked 1800 m - there were two relentless hairpin climbs of 600m and 400m that required many rest stops and some walking. It felt much harder than a ride with numerous short climbs of the same overall ascent. By comparison, today's ride was basically downhill all the way, taken very gently (see other thread about not having the full complement of axle nuts) but strava still reckons it was 560 m of climbing.

[salar55]

You will know what hilly is when you are climbing for an hour at 50m or more /km.

[FifeingEejit]

Interesting discussion, I think the 1% rule is a reasonable generalism but doesn't take the other variables into account.

This ride is ~1% but is it hilly?
https://ridewithgps.com/trips/70058365

It certainly felt hillier yesterday, but I'm no where near as fit as I was the last time I rode it.
It was also much warmer which for me adds to the difficulty.

But the bulk of the noticeable climbing is in 3 long drags, the road from Logierait to Pitlochry and Fife coast however are lumpy in nature so to me feel harder and are dreaded more than all but the sharp bit of the Moulin after the Edradour turn off.

This has led me to conclude that hilliness is in the legs of the pedal turner not the statistics.
Which doesn't help much I know.

[imajez]

For me, someone who lives in Sheffield and primarily rides in the Peak, a hilly ride is ~2000m elevation in 100km.

That sounds Brutal!

That is par for the course for any ride in Sheffield or out in the Peaks. 500m climbing per 25km is pretty much bang on all the time in these parts. Though when lots of the riding is rough offroad it gets even harder and often even steeper too. Even more 'fun' if using road gears.
Seen pro racers when interviewed say that the Peaks/Yorkshire is one of the hardest places to race because the climbs may not be Alpine, but are a lot tougher. The 2014 TdF was effectively won on second stage which finished in Sheffield. There was a 33% section not far from the finish line.
I did work out a no repeat 100km route around Sheffield that's 3,500m-ish. Also worked out a 50km ride in Swansea that's 2,500m-ish and that was a tad limited because it started from my Mum's house.

[T42]

The hills tend to get higher and steeper once you're past 70.  FFCT club rides in Alsace are usually around 1.3%, i.e. 1300 metres in a 100k, but these days it's rare that I do a ride that's heftier than 1%, and the longer they get the flatter they get, without feeling it.

[markcjagar]

I did work out a no repeat 100km route around Sheffield that's 3,500m-ish.

I'd be interested to see that please

[mzjo]

The gradient is only one part of it. The Limousin is usually considered 1% country, unless you go looking for trouble. The Monts de Forez (east of Clermont) are 2% (take any route you like over most distances and 2% or just over is what you get) but when we did our last club trip thereI didn't find it any harder than home as far as gradient was concerned. What did make a difference between different parts of the trip was the road surface, particularly descending. You use a steel fork (I presume) and reasonably fat tyres so you're on the right kit. I was on the Vitus 992 which is aluminium with a fork in the same stuff and 23mm tyres pumped hard. On the rougher bits it was hell due to vibration, on the smooth bits I was flying (nothing to beat excess kilos when you go down!). The Limousin doesn't have smooth roads, which is why I guess that I find the climbing harder.

The other thing that makes a big difference to me (not everyone is the same) is when the tar melts (which seems to be a problem especially reserved for hills though I really don't see why). With a kilo of loose chippings glued to each wheel somehow that little 2% molehill takes on the appearance of Everest! Knobbly tyres are excellent for this, the chippings really stick nicely between the knobbles! DAHIKT

[zigzag]

as many said already, it depends on many factors. my rule of thumb is: <0.5% flat, 0.5-1% gently rolling (my favourite terrain), 1-1.5% hilly, 1.5-2% proper hilly, 2%+ crazy hilly.