200 to 300

[Ajax Bay]

For the purposes of this conversation, as a rule of thumb for events over 100km, hilly starts at a total climb equiv to distance in km/100+1000 (200km=3000m, 300km=4000m, etc.)

An average 200km Audax in the South East has 1,500~2,000m climbing (not hilly). Stick your 1500m climb at the end, and it becomes "hilly".

It seems a bit of harsh/micawberish that 2,750m = flat (null points) and 3,000m = hilly (points) but as originally formulated at least, AAA aims to promote hilly events rather than simply record overal climbing.

(FWIW, my rule of thumb is that any route I can ride fixed without resorting to pedestrianism is officially, 'not hilly'. The AAAnfractuous, whcih squeaks in around 3000m is officially, 'Hilly')

"For the purposes of this conversation" I suggest using the AAA template is a documented and straightforward formula for judging whether a ride is hilly, and how silly.
AAA "Qualifying Events - Hilliness is measured by the rate of climbing, which is based on the original AAA Formula (see the AAA Archive page) and varies with the event distance.  If the whole event doesn't qualify for AAA points, then a section of a minimum of 100km or more may do."
km   Min climb (m)
100    1500
200    2800
300    4000
400    5100
500    6100
600    7000
1000 11670

[phantasmagoriana]

Hmm, my first 300 is going to be the Snow Roads - just checked and it has 4800m climbing. I was trying to convince myself it wasn't that hilly.

[grams]

"For the purposes of this conversation" I suggest using the AAA template is a documented and straightforward formula for judging whether a ride is hilly, and how silly.

I'd describe AAA as being the threshold between "quite hilly" and "very hilly". There are certainly hilly rides that sit just beneath it.

AAA also allows only a short section of a route to be counted, so an "AAA ride" can also be a flat ride with one hilly section (e.g. The first 100 km of Oasts and Coasts is fairly hilly and attracts AAA points, most of the rest of the ride is pretty flat).

[andyoxon]

Hmm, my first 300 is going to be the Snow Roads - just checked and it has 4800m climbing. I was trying to convince myself it wasn't that hilly.

Reasonably lumpy? 

I think one of my real issues with moving to 300km distance, apart needing to be fitter, is finding the right food/eating regime to allow my gut to cope, and provide me with the needed energy.  Onna 200km I'm hungry especially at 'lunch time', but the food just seems to 'stay put', and eventually gets uncomfortable, and have me reaching for things like gaviscon sachets; which probably don't do anything...

[Ajax Bay]

BCM 600km audax (with Bwlch-y-Sarnau variation) - 6733m in 600ish km (1.1%)

Not sure where that figure is from but BCM has always been 7500m to 8000m depending on the route (classic vs original, etc). There's huge variation given in both the values from DEM derived plots such as RWGPS/Bikely/etc and also huge variations in what people record on their GPS (even before any smoothing is applied).

Figure is from my route plot for BCM 2018 - BCM 600km audax - with Bwlch-y-Sarnau variation (which I've previously shared): https://ridewithgps.com/routes/27369491
" BCM has always been 7500m to 8000m . . ." . . . Same as it's always been 600+km, then. Would you care to elaborate on the "classic" and the "original" route? I thought @Ian H had said we really don't know what route Brian took to visit Keith Oliver (though the current one is good, except that it retraces its last 70km. I can't help thinking that Brian would probably have gone over Gospel Pass on the way out but not on the way back.
Please provide an example of a plot of the current BCM route with 7,500+m of climb.
Climb that riders record on their GPS devices lacks several degrees of assurance (barometrics, GPS poor accuracy of altitude with small increments etc, which is widely known), smoothed or not.

Looking forward to Brevet Cymru - not too steep?

Brevet Cymru 400 this Saturday has some hilly parts (climb out of New Quay a particular highlight) but is essentially 'not hilly', with 4400m of climb - https://ridewithgps.com/routes/13068909
It has a 3.5 AAA point award because somewhere between Tintern and Trecastle the climb is circa 3376m (I think). After that it's the Usk valley all the way, just about.
On the same day, LWL is flat.

[arabella]

fwiw I've found that when I eat is as/more important as what I eat.
beyond a certain level of depletedness I tolerate a much narrower range of foodstuffs, so it's better to eat early - the level of depletedness can be postponed by a timely snack en route
also making sure I drink enough

I've also found that a larger or even two dinners the night before works well to give a good base to start from

[Si S]

Hmm, my first 300 is going to be the Snow Roads - just checked and it has 4800m climbing. I was trying to convince myself it wasn't that hilly.

Reasonably lumpy? 

I think one of my real issues with moving to 300km distance, apart needing to be fitter, is finding the right food/eating regime to allow my gut to cope, and provide me with the needed energy.  Onna 200km I'm hungry especially at 'lunch time', but the food just seems to 'stay put', and eventually gets uncomfortable, and have me reaching for things like gaviscon sachets; which probably don't do anything...

I dunno about that, I still remember weeping on the bathroom floor the morning after a DIY 300 where I thought drinking half a bottle of gaviscon and eating a very crispy crusted pizza was a good idea....

[Greenbank]

BCM 600km audax (with Bwlch-y-Sarnau variation) - 6733m in 600ish km (1.1%)

Not sure where that figure is from but BCM has always been 7500m to 8000m depending on the route (classic vs original, etc). There's huge variation given in both the values from DEM derived plots such as RWGPS/Bikely/etc and also huge variations in what people record on their GPS (even before any smoothing is applied).

Figure is from my route plot for BCM 2018 - BCM 600km audax - with Bwlch-y-Sarnau variation (which I've previously shared): https://ridewithgps.com/routes/27369491
" BCM has always been 7500m to 8000m . . ." . . . Same as it's always been 600+km, then. Would you care to elaborate on the "classic" and the "original" route? I thought @Ian H had said we really don't know what route Brian took to visit Keith Oliver (though the current one is good, except that it retraces its last 70km. I can't help thinking that Brian would probably have gone over Gospel Pass on the way out but not on the way back.
Please provide an example of a plot of the current BCM route with 7,500+m of climb.
Climb that riders record on their GPS devices lacks several degrees of assurance (barometrics, GPS poor accuracy of altitude with small increments etc, which is widely known), smoothed or not.

I don't have time to go and find all of the info you requested but googling for "Bryan Chapman gpx" will get you quite a long way along yourself. As I said, the various online route plotting tools will vary in their reported elevation as they apply their own algorithms to the elevation data and tend to smooth more as the track gets longer (a 100km section on its own will often have a higher climbing figure that than the same 100km section which is part of a much longer ride).

The "original" and "classic" routes were just names given to the variations over the years of this event, also ones like the "2004" and "scenic" (the scenic had various detours such as turning off the A470 and going to Rhyader through the Elan Valley for example, and a different route South out of Dolgellau, etc).

P.S. Who's Brian?

[Greenbank]

fwiw I've found that when I eat is as/more important as what I eat.
beyond a certain level of depletedness I tolerate a much narrower range of foodstuffs, so it's better to eat early - the level of depletedness can be postponed by a timely snack en route
also making sure I drink enough

I've also found that a larger or even two dinners the night before works well to give a good base to start from

Indeed. 2000kcal of glycogen goes a long way but not long enough. Most people riding a 200km will run a reasonable calorie deficit on a ride because the 2000kcal buffer can cover a significant portion of a 200km ride (the first part of PBP is a perfect example of this, first control at 140km and then first proper food at 220km).

The problem comes when they take what they eat on a 200km ride and only add 50% to that (since they're only adding 50% of the distance). This generally leads to trouble in the last 50km or so of a 300. The body's glycogen stores don't extend by 50% on a longer ride...

As said above, to get these extra calories into you you've got to start eating much earlier on a 300 to avoid needing to eat big meals later which your stomach might not be able to handle.

[grams]

I don't have time to go and find all of the info you requested but googling for "Bryan Chapman gpx" will get you quite a long way along yourself. As I said, the various online route plotting tools will vary in their reported elevation as they apply their own algorithms to the elevation data and tend to smooth more as the track gets longer (a 100km section on its own will often have a higher climbing figure that than the same 100km section which is part of a much longer ride).

I get 6,818m for the 2018 GPX file just posted to the BCM thread. I wrote the algorithm this site uses from scratch and it has no filtering that would cause the effect you describe:
https://bikegpx.com/routes/d105c55c

(I does have a *local* de-noise filter for discarding small wiggles in the data. With this turned off I get 6,993m)

TBH +/- 10% is about the best you can hope for when calculating climb using any method. But I can't see any particular reason why this route would under-read by a large margin.

[Ivo]

1000m climbing per 100km is roughly Audax "average". Not flat but not "hilly". (cue everyone disagreeing)

So 1500m climbing on a 300km Audax is way towards the flatter end of the spectrum.

Indeed, I use (based in the Ardennes foothills) the following spectrum:

<250m/100km: flat
250-500m/100km: flattish
500-750m/100km normal
750-1000m/100km rolling
1000-1500m/100km: hilly
1500-2000m/100km: very hilly
>200m/100km: beyond my audaxing capabilities.

I do know that riders from the flatter sections of the Benelux have a different opinion.