Simple climbing vs distance calculator for road rides?

Surely it depends how fast you want to climb, system weight, the gradient and your available gearing, so you'd have to also analyse your previous efforts some how to make any sense. 

No idea if this link will work for a ride up Road To Hell three years ago before my long covid, but would ride data provided by Intervals (donate ware site) meet your needs?

https://intervals.icu/activities/6849378724

If you are simply trying to work out how hard a potential route would be, whilst I don't know of an app, 'feet climbed per mile' is usually a decent indicator 

If however you want to analyse what effort you put in for previous rides, I imagine you'd need at least Heart rate readings. I know that trainer road use to calculate a 'training suffering score' for each ride, which would be linked to duration, hr and power'. 

It isn't straightforward as you need to weight distance and altitude to reach a final score, and that weighting is a bit arbitrary, especially if you don't include speed

Total altitude isn't really the be all and end all either, it depends how it's gained. A lumpy ride with a lot of small climbs is often harder than one of equal length and height gain, but with fewer, longer climbs.

My local rides usually have about 800 metres of climbing per 50km of distance (160 metres / 10km). If I'm riding an area I'm not familiar with, I just compare to my "standard" to understand if it's easier or harder.

I think what the OP is looking for is a formula a bit like: Naismiths rule for walking (add 10 mins for each 100m of climb) or a rule of thumb I've used for fell runs - 100m of climb is equivalent to 1km on the flat.  They aren't perfect but its enough to know how punishing it will be or what pace I might want to aim for overall.  I'm not sure if gears etc on a bike make that harder to devise a similar rule for - but it shouldn't be impossible to take a few of your own rides and work out your personal estimate.

Does Strava not do this automatically?

When I plot routes in Garmin (and maybe strava) it tells me the distance and total elevation. I just then know for roads that 1000ft per 10miles is average but 3000ft in 10miles is going to be hard. 

For MTB, I do 5miles and 1000ft for average ride, 5 miles and 2000ft is hard. 

So two routes, both 20 miles but one has more climbing, I would at the face of it assume the one with more climbing is harder. 

Thanks Poly, thats exactly what i'm after. 

All other things being equal such as weight, gearing blah blah. Its a simple rule of thumb equation that says a route of X length and Y climbing is harder or easier than a route of A length and B climbing. 

Posted by: mike smith

↑

Does Strava not do this automatically?

 Yes it does, as do all planning apps that estimate duration etc. But whats the formula behind it?

Grade Adjusted Pace (GAP) is common in running apps where I guess there are fewer potential variations. 

Posted by: Blackflag

↑

All other things being equal such as weight, gearing blah blah. Its a simple rule of thumb equation that says a route of X length and Y climbing is harder or easier than a route of A length and B climbing. 

What you're asking isn't possible. On the flat, weight is fairly irrelevant, power dominates. Climbing, power to weight dominates, being skinny matters more than being strong. You can't translate distance into climb without knowing the rider characteristics.

Posted by: Blackflag

↑

Posted by: mike smith

↑

Does Strava not do this automatically?

 Yes it does, as do all planning apps that estimate duration etc. But whats the formula behind it?

I think the formula is "we've figured it out, pay us to use it."

 Yes it does, as do all planning apps that estimate duration etc. But whats the formula behind it?

I would assume some variation on a simple power calculation.

On the flat that is power is proportional to v^2 (the constant is 0.5 x density x CdA)

On a climb the power to overcome gravity is simply vertical speed x weight x 9.81

So the overall formula would be P= 0.5(ro)v^2CdA + (v*gradient x mass x 9,81) [where gradient is given as a percentage so it automatically accounts for speed up the slope]

The descents, just set power to zero and solve the equation. Then add a healthy factor for cornering and comfort braking.

Stick in a value for average power (say, 60% FTP) and weight and you're good to go. Would be a bit complicated mind you for calculating a route in advance!

I just assume:

My normal average speed

+1mph for a group

+1mph if it's generally flat (any ride South/East/West for me into the Thames and Kennet valleys)

-1mph if it's mostly rolling hills (the Chilterns, Surrey Hills, South Downs, Wiltshire Downs)

-2mph for significantly hilly (Peaks, Lakes, Wales, Dales)

It's never far off.  Two of us are heading out into the Chilterns after work, so hilly -1, and +1 for sharing the work, baring any punctures I would be surprised if it's not my normal 16mph average +/- 0.3mph regardless of the exact route. 

I think TINAS and tpbiker are the closest to what i was after. I think others may be overthinking it. The rationale behind the question is that the question of "how hard is the ride?" regularly comes up when a few of us are out. Some focus on distance and others (like me) on the amount of climbing. So if you could assign something like 1 point for every km and 1 point for every 100m climbed, you could say "oh this ride is a 72, last week we did a 87" That sort of thing

Reading back up the thread, its similar to Poly's comment on fell running.

So assuming an average rider weight, would it be fair to say 100m climbing on a bike is roughly equal to 1km on the flat in terms of effort? If not, what would good indicative values be?

Way I look at it.

<25 foot of climbing per mile = flat

Around 50 foot of climbing per Mile = rolling 

>100 foot of climbing = tough day out

Whilst, as it has been pointed out, not all >100 ft/mile are the same, effort to ride them depends greatly on intensity. Ie I could happily ride 60 miles in majorcan hills and, if I didn't push on the climbs, stay in zone 2 or 3. However a ride in the lakes with 2 or 3 ramps that you can't get up without going deep will feel far harder despite equal elevation over the ride. Conversly, if I push on the majorcan hills, it would feel just as hard

Likewise on a pan flat 30 miler, I could do it in my sleep and not break a sweat, or bury myself riding it as a tt and make it very hard

Ultimately effort dictates how hard it is. In my case, so long as a ride doesn't have gradients over 10%, I can make it as easy or hard as I like.

I genuinely don't know about ways to connect climbing to distance. What I do know is my rule of thumb for the area I ride in which is: 10m climb per km feels "reasonable". Less than that feel flast/fast. More than that will feel lead to me describing a ride as "steep". Depending on where I lived, that'd probably change, and it'd also change based on my fitness. But for me, and for 50-70mile rides near me, it works OK. It's certainly a good way to brace myself for whatever the route I've been given is.

Google maps does some kind of estimation for hills.

E.g. if I ask it to plot a cycle route from Middlesbrough to York and pick the low traffic route across the Moors it shows 5 hours 5 minutes for 57 miles with 2174ft of up (average 5.35 minutes per mile).

If I then ask it to go via Northallerton (avoiding the Moors) it gives me a time of 5 hours 9 minutes for 62 miles and 830ft of up (average 4.98 minutes per mile).

I'm not sure how it does it's estimates but it does take into account hills. How you calibrate your speed against the Google cyclist is a whole extra topic.

Does this help?

Isn't this just "VAM"?

Just had a try with Komoot app for a similar route from Middlesbrough station to York Minster (a nice one way train back day out). As a road ride it says 21.6kph across the moors, 24.9kph if you go via Northallerton. If you pick just 'cycling' it changes the speed estimates. Again don't know the algorithm but does account for hills.

I find Komoot is mainly easier for route planning though.

Everything i see on the web seems to want to take into account my own speed which isn't what im after. 

The speed really matters in a way it doesn’t get walking. 

What you want is a measure of your energy needed to complete the route. Hills are easy it only depends on mass and the height of the hill. That’s making the simplifying assumption that hills are steep enough to avoid significant 

 The flat is harder. The aero drag depends on the square of your speed. So a rider at 10mph has a quarter of a drag as a rider at 20mph. So hills so the hills disproportionately effect the energy needed for our slower rider. 

However it must be possible the find an equation for you as individual. If you are genuinely interested I’ll try it for me in a spreadsheet tomorrow. 

What I’ll do is choose day 10 road rides with similar with different elevations and lengths but similar perceived exertion

 I’ll try the equation

ride time = height gained x H + distance traveled x D

 Then try and find values for H and D for those 10 rides

 Ideally i won’t  be bullied for how slow i am

Cheers Ampthill

I usually stick my basic ride figures (mileage, moving time, calories, ascent) into a spreadsheet and some simple division gives the average time per mile, calories per mile and climbing per mile. Its not hyper accurate, but gives a good idea of how you are performing on similar/same rides. 

I agree with @tpbiker on his figures:

50ft climb per mile is a normal ride on rolling terrain, e.g. south Dorset where I live, 25 miles and 1500ft of climbing 

100ft climb per mile is probably a longer ride with multiple big climbs involved, e.g. SDW 100 miles & 10,000ft climbing 

I think TINAS' approach of just kind of knocking some off or onto your average speed is an easy enough approach. 

For me time in the saddle makes a big difference too. I know I will slow down in the last hour of a three hour ride, and 4 hrs plus I will have to make a conscious effort to pace the first part slower and I will then feel fatigued and achey in the final hour(s) despite pacing myself.

I think TINAS and tpbiker are the closest to what i was after. I think others may be overthinking it. The rationale behind the question is that the question of "how hard is the ride?" regularly comes up when a few of us are out. Some focus on distance and others (like me) on the amount of climbing. So if you could assign something like 1 point for every km and 1 point for every 100m climbed, you could say "oh this ride is a 72, last week we did a 87" That sort of thing

This is why as a club we don't advertise based on a specific speed.  We just say Social/Steady/Brisk/Fast (or Steady -, Brisk +, etc).  Somewhere it's written down what speeds those correlate to, but everyone knows that a 'steady' ride to Bramley (40miles, flat) will be considerably quicker than a 'steady' ride to Tring (90 miles, a ton of climbing).  There's a few that belligerently demand that the pace is exactly what was posted, but most accept that it's more referring to the usual groups of people than the actual speed.

For an average person two completely different rides in the same category should be about the same difficulty. The heaviest and lightest can pick rides / categories to suit them (e.g. a climber should be able to ride in the next group up on a hilly route, and vice versa a heavy rider should be fine on a flat route in a faster group or a slower group on a really hilly ride).

Trying to score it as you suggest would be impossible.  We were planning a 400km ride York in the pub last night (where all bad ideas start).  Some of us are planning a 'slow and steady' flat route, some will be doing the same route at a brisk pace, one lightweight asked for a hilly option as for them clinging onto the back of the brisk group for 16 hours as it charges up through Lincolnshire would be really hard work, going up via the Pennines would actually give them a rest as the group slowed down up the hills.

Or applying that the other way around, mixed ability roadie groups don't work anywhere near as easily as they do off-road.  You're basically all going to have to ride at the pace of the slowest because generally stopping to re-group isn't so normal.  The fastest average speed is achieved when the fittest riders stay in the group and work on the front at manageable speed for the least fit in the middle. As soon as they break away the average speed drops.  The only way to really rate it would be to say "this ride will be a hard pace for me" or "this will be at a recovery pace for me" and let others figure it out. 

I think TINAS and tpbiker are the closest to what i was after. I think others may be overthinking it. The rationale behind the question is that the question of "how hard is the ride?" regularly comes up when a few of us are out. Some focus on distance and others (like me) on the amount of climbing. So if you could assign something like 1 point for every km and 1 point for every 100m climbed, you could say "oh this ride is a 72, last week we did a 87" That sort of thing

I'm not sure that 'overthinking it' is the correct way to put, because that could equally be aimed at you as well. After all, there are only two metrics to take into account, height and distance - that should be simple and not need reducing to one metric. It's not difficult to work out that, on paper, a 50 mile ride with 100 feet of elevation gain will be easier than a 50 mile ride with 1000ft of elevation. But, as we all know, you don't ride a bike on paper.

Those 50 miles will be directly SW into the prevailing March wind...

Those 50 miles may be over the heaviest, draggiest tarmac...

The 1000ft elevation may be a big ring ecstasy with the wind behind...

One of those rides may be stop/start, with sharp corners for miles, needing constant braking and acceleration...

That's before we even think about turning off road.

It might be tomorrow but I’ll give it a go. The hard bit will be finding more and less hilly road rides