Anyone in northern NJ - grade of Skyline Drive?

Steve Freides said:

My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a while,
it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to the top as we
rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at the border between
Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure what in Passaic County
(maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from the NY State border.

Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?

My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I thought
that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it would be
categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8% average grade
with sections of 10-12%.

Thanks in advance.

Steve (and others),

If you haven't done so already, you should download and install Google
Earth. It's an awesome free program that drapes satellite imagery and/or
aerial photography on top of digital topographic data. Why am I suggesting
this? Because you can then check out all your favorite rides and use the
tools and features to measure distance and terrain elevation. For example, I
searched for Skyline Drive, Oakland, NJ, and it found it immediately and
showed a cool view of the hill. As for stats, it looks like the hill goes
from about 300 ft to 925 ft in around 2 miles. That's an average of just
under 6%. Not sure how that would be categorized.

The coolest thing is to pan around and see the 3-D rendering of the terrain.
Just set the Elevation Exaggeration to the highest level it can handle (3X)
under Tools-Options-View and then check the Terrain box on the main display.
Then pan around the view. Of course if you live in Kansas or somewhere flat,
it won't be too interesting. Also, if you live some place rural (or outside
the US), then it probably doesn't have hi-res imagery so it won't be so
interesting in that case either.

Anyway, sorry for the spam, and I have nothing to do with Google.

Steve Freides said:

My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a while,
it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to the top as
we rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at the border
between Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure what in
Passaic County (maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from the NY State
border.

Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?

My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I thought
that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it would be
categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8% average
grade with sections of 10-12%.

Thanks in advance.

-S-

Looking at 'Skyline Drive, going up from W. Oakland Ave to Ramapo Park,
Topo USA says an average grade 7. This runs between Ramapo Lake on the left
and Crystal Lake on the right.

This may not be precisely where you rode, but if you'll give more explicit
directions I'll be glad to look further.

jj

"Mark Fennell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:7vtJe.287963$Qo.234420@fed1read01...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a
while, it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to
the top as we rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at
the border between Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure
what in Passaic County (maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from
the NY State border.

Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?

My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I
thought that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it
would be categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8%
average grade with sections of 10-12%.

Thanks in advance.

Steve (and others),

If you haven't done so already, you should download and install Google
Earth. It's an awesome free program that drapes satellite imagery
and/or aerial photography on top of digital topographic data. Why am I
suggesting this? Because you can then check out all your favorite
rides and use the tools and features to measure distance and terrain
elevation. For example, I searched for Skyline Drive, Oakland, NJ, and
it found it immediately and showed a cool view of the hill. As for
stats, it looks like the hill goes from about 300 ft to 925 ft in
around 2 miles. That's an average of just under 6%. Not sure how that
would be categorized.

The coolest thing is to pan around and see the 3-D rendering of the
terrain. Just set the Elevation Exaggeration to the highest level it
can handle (3X) under Tools-Options-View and then check the Terrain
box on the main display. Then pan around the view. Of course if you
live in Kansas or somewhere flat, it won't be too interesting. Also,
if you live some place rural (or outside the US), then it probably
doesn't have hi-res imagery so it won't be so interesting in that case
either.

Anyway, sorry for the spam, and I have nothing to do with Google.

Hey, no spam - it's cool to know this stuff. Thanks, I'll check it out.

6% - I'm gettin' old...

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Mark Fennell said:

As for stats, it looks like the hill goes
from about 300 ft to 925 ft in around 2 miles. That's an average of just
under 6%. Not sure how that would be categorized.

Dumbass -

Under the TdF system, it'd be Cat 4, at best.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Mark Fennell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:7vtJe.287963$Qo.234420@fed1read01...

Quoted message said:

Steve Freides said:

My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a
while, it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to
the top as we rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at
the border between Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure
what in Passaic County (maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from
the NY State border.

Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?

My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I
thought that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it
would be categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8%
average grade with sections of 10-12%.

Thanks in advance.

Steve (and others),

If you haven't done so already, you should download and install Google
Earth. It's an awesome free program that drapes satellite imagery
and/or aerial photography on top of digital topographic data. Why am I
suggesting this? Because you can then check out all your favorite
rides and use the tools and features to measure distance and terrain
elevation. For example, I searched for Skyline Drive, Oakland, NJ, and
it found it immediately and showed a cool view of the hill. As for
stats, it looks like the hill goes from about 300 ft to 925 ft in
around 2 miles. That's an average of just under 6%. Not sure how that
would be categorized.

The coolest thing is to pan around and see the 3-D rendering of the
terrain. Just set the Elevation Exaggeration to the highest level it
can handle (3X) under Tools-Options-View and then check the Terrain
box on the main display. Then pan around the view. Of course if you
live in Kansas or somewhere flat, it won't be too interesting. Also,
if you live some place rural (or outside the US), then it probably
doesn't have hi-res imagery so it won't be so interesting in that case
either.

Anyway, sorry for the spam, and I have nothing to do with Google.

Just DL'ed/installed Google Earth - it would take me forever to figure
out how to get the statistics you got out of the thing.

The road markers showed .3 miles (from where, I don't know) at the start
of the climb, and 1.8 miles at the top, so I'm thinking the net
elevation change may take place over more like 1.5 miles than 2 miles -
the very beginning of the road, in/around/under Route 287, is relatively
flat.

Amazing program.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Mark Fennell said:

Steve Freides said:

My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a while,
it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to the top as we
rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at the border between
Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure what in Passaic County
(maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from the NY State border.

Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?

My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I thought
that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it would be
categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8% average grade
with sections of 10-12%.

Thanks in advance.

Steve (and others),

If you haven't done so already, you should download and install Google
Earth. It's an awesome free program that drapes satellite imagery and/or
aerial photography on top of digital topographic data. Why am I suggesting
this? Because you can then check out all your favorite rides and use the
tools and features to measure distance and terrain elevation. For example, I
searched for Skyline Drive, Oakland, NJ, and it found it immediately and
showed a cool view of the hill. As for stats, it looks like the hill goes
from about 300 ft to 925 ft in around 2 miles. That's an average of just
under 6%. Not sure how that would be categorized.

The coolest thing is to pan around and see the 3-D rendering of the terrain.
Just set the Elevation Exaggeration to the highest level it can handle (3X)
under Tools-Options-View and then check the Terrain box on the main display.
Then pan around the view. Of course if you live in Kansas or somewhere flat,
it won't be too interesting. Also, if you live some place rural (or outside
the US), then it probably doesn't have hi-res imagery so it won't be so
interesting in that case either.

Anyway, sorry for the spam, and I have nothing to do with Google.

Mark, Steve,

you might be interested in getting the Tour 2005 stages as Paths for
Google earth. They can be found here in this thread
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/33551/page/vc
and on http://www.googleearthhacks.com
Even after the Tour is over (they had live updates running), it's nice
to be able to have a look on these well known climbs.

It might be a good idea to share nice riding courses via this.

jet said:

Steve Freides said:

My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a while,
it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to the top as
we rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at the border
between Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure what in
Passaic County (maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from the NY State
border.

Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?

My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I thought
that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it would be
categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8% average
grade with sections of 10-12%.

Thanks in advance.

-S-

Looking at 'Skyline Drive, going up from W. Oakland Ave to Ramapo Park,
Topo USA says an average grade 7. This runs between Ramapo Lake on the left
and Crystal Lake on the right.

This may not be precisely where you rode, but if you'll give more explicit
directions I'll be glad to look further.

But Topo USA seriously overestimates grades and amount of climbing.
Not a good tool to use if you want useful data.

- rick

Quoted message said:

jet said:

Steve Freides said:

My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a while,
it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to the top as
we rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at the border
between Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure what in
Passaic County (maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from the NY State
border.

Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?

My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I thought
that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it would be
categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8% average
grade with sections of 10-12%.

Thanks in advance.

-S-

Looking at 'Skyline Drive, going up from W. Oakland Ave to Ramapo Park,
Topo USA says an average grade 7. This runs between Ramapo Lake on the left
and Crystal Lake on the right.

This may not be precisely where you rode, but if you'll give more explicit
directions I'll be glad to look further.

But Topo USA seriously overestimates grades and amount of climbing.
Not a good tool to use if you want useful data.

- rick

Heh, we use what we have, in this case a two year old demo copy, but I have
been wondering about some of the info. For instance there's a hill near me
that it briefly gives the percent grade as 93% as you move the cursor over
the route, obviously an error, though by rough estimation the 'overall
grade' is pretty close to reality.

OTOH, the hills in my neighborhood that I ride all the time seem to be
graded very close if not exactly on target. As you run the cursor over the
road, it even catches a 1-2% increase in grade on some very short steeper
sections - so for that purpose, it's not without value.

I presume you prefer something else? Recommendations? MS Trips and Streets?

jj

Steve Freides said:

Just DL'ed/installed Google Earth - it would take me forever to figure out
how to get the statistics you got out of the thing.

There is an elevation read-out (on the lower portion of the image display)
that tells you the elevation of the ground beneath the cursor. So you simply
move it from one place to another along your route to see the elevation
change. You also can use Tools-Measure-Path to mark a route and get a
distance measurement. It would be cool if it also output an elevation
profile for your path (are you listening Google?), but hey, what do you want
for free!

jet said:

Quoted message said:

jet said:

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:53:36 -0400, "Steve Freides"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a while,
>it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to the top as
>we rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at the border
>between Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure what in
>Passaic County (maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from the NY State
>border.
>
>Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?
>
>My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I thought
>that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it would be
>categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8% average
>grade with sections of 10-12%.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>-S-

Looking at 'Skyline Drive, going up from W. Oakland Ave to Ramapo Park,
Topo USA says an average grade 7. This runs between Ramapo Lake on the left
and Crystal Lake on the right.

This may not be precisely where you rode, but if you'll give more explicit
directions I'll be glad to look further.

But Topo USA seriously overestimates grades and amount of climbing.
Not a good tool to use if you want useful data.

- rick

Heh, we use what we have, in this case a two year old demo copy, but I have
been wondering about some of the info. For instance there's a hill near me
that it briefly gives the percent grade as 93% as you move the cursor over
the route, obviously an error, though by rough estimation the 'overall
grade' is pretty close to reality.

OTOH, the hills in my neighborhood that I ride all the time seem to be
graded very close if not exactly on target. As you run the cursor over the
road, it even catches a 1-2% increase in grade on some very short steeper
sections - so for that purpose, it's not without value.

I presume you prefer something else? Recommendations? MS Trips and Streets?

jj

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I presume you prefer something else? Recommendations? MS Trips and Streets?

jj

Sorry, didn't see any reply in your message.

jet said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I presume you prefer something else? Recommendations? MS Trips and Streets?

jj

Sorry, didn't see any reply in your message.

Oops, Google must have stripped.

Topo USA works on relatively long vectors. The more the road twists,
and the closer the twists are to each other, the less that Topo USA's
data can model the real road. Topo USA is good for qualitative
information - the general shape of the land - but is terrible at
quantitative information in hilly areas.

Trips and Streets is even less good. The best alternative software at
the moment is NG's Topo, as it is raster based. The quantitative info
is better but it is much more difficult to use. I have hopes that in
time Google Earth will have an easy to use and accurate view of the
quantitative information.

In the end, the only good way is manual calculation using real data.
Collect the lengths, collect the elevation diff, do the calculations.
For the most part I use carefully calibrated cyclocomputer for
distance, and altimeter data for elevations (or topo map readings). I
do many, many calculations before believing the data is relatively
accurate.

- rick

Rick said:

jet said:

Quoted message said:

> I presume you prefer something else? Recommendations? MS Trips and Streets?
>
> jj

Sorry, didn't see any reply in your message.

Oops, Google must have stripped.

Topo USA works on relatively long vectors. The more the road twists,
and the closer the twists are to each other, the less that Topo USA's
data can model the real road. Topo USA is good for qualitative
information - the general shape of the land - but is terrible at
quantitative information in hilly areas.

Trips and Streets is even less good. The best alternative software at
the moment is NG's Topo, as it is raster based. The quantitative info
is better but it is much more difficult to use. I have hopes that in
time Google Earth will have an easy to use and accurate view of the
quantitative information.

Yes it seems to be developing quickly, there's even an update already for
both GE versions on googleearthhacks.com. Found a graphic that shows the
output from National Geo's Topo:

http://mrhyker.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/snp-woc-w.jpg

Quoted message said:

In the end, the only good way is manual calculation using real data.
Collect the lengths, collect the elevation diff, do the calculations.
For the most part I use carefully calibrated cyclocomputer for
distance, and altimeter data for elevations (or topo map readings). I
do many, many calculations before believing the data is relatively
accurate.

- rick

Well, my approach is to get a handle on just what percent grade a route is
by using the software and once I get better at judging, I'll be able to do
a decent job of estimating on the fly. I guess my purpose is to be able to
say "oh, I can ride a 10% grade for in 'x gear' in 'x minutes' with a
perceived exertion of 'y'". That way I can get a rough idea of the
difficulty of a particular hilly Century, etc.

Thanks for reposting, rick!

jj

Steve Freides said:

My son and I rode the Skyline Drive today, haven't done it in a while,
it's no easier than I remember. About a mile and a half to the top as
we rode it from the eastern (Route 287) side. It sits at the border
between Oakland, in Bergen County, and I'm not quite sure what in
Passaic County (maybe Ringwood?) in New Jersey not far from the NY State
border.

Anyone have any statistics on what percent grade this averages?

My son also asked me how it would be categorized in the TdF - I thought
that might be interesting to know, too. We both guess it would be
categorized but just, probably Cat 4. My guesstimate is 8% average
grade with sections of 10-12%.

BTW, the answer to the second part of your question is complicated.
The rating system they use for climbs in the TdF is not
straightforward. They use elevation gain, grade, sometimes road
surface, what hills have come before it in the stage, and more voodoo
it seems. The classification is knocked down if there are flat parts
or, worse, intermediate descents along the way. They really give the
highest ratings to very long, consistent climbs.

Since you are talking of a stretch of road about 2 km long or so, at 6%
grade that would be 120m of elevation gain, at 8% 160m. That is at
best a Cat 4 in comparison with the climbs they do in the TdF.

The HC climbs for the generally quite long. For example, Col
d'Aubisque on stage 16 this year was rated HC; it is almost 17km and
climbs almost 1200m in that distance, a tad over 7% average. The stage
before, 15, had an HC climb ... up to Pla-d'Atet. That was a shorty,
just a bit over 10km over which they climbed about 860m. If one were
climbing that alone, or just riding up the valley through Arreau to
Vignec then up to Pla-d'Atet it would likely be a Cat 2, but since it
came on the heels of 4 preceeding Cat 1 climbs they probably bumped it
up a little.

- rick

Skyline is one of the only climbs in Jersey that even remotely
approaches the ones that can be found out west...But the people in NJ
talk about it like it's some big deal to go ride. It's like climbing
halfway up Lake Wohlford in Escondido CA (but easier) and then turning
around and coasting downhill (seriously).

Not even worthy of a TDF category discussion. Anyone who is halfway
fit can climb it with no problem.

Rick said:

BTW, the answer to the second part of your question is complicated.
The rating system they use for climbs in the TdF is not
straightforward.

For the 2004 TdF climbs:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/cols04-tdf.png

Robert Chung said:

Rick said:

BTW, the answer to the second part of your question is complicated.
The rating system they use for climbs in the TdF is not
straightforward.

For the 2004 TdF climbs:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/cols04-tdf.png

Interesting graph, shows how much variation there is in the grading.
It would have helped if he had included a legend. I just looked over
his spreadsheet, and here is the decode:

Red - HC
Orange - Cat 1
Black - Cat 2
Blue - Cat 3
Green - Cat 4

Note that the three HC climbs were all long, but one longer climb
(Glandon) is only Cat 1 as it is much less steep.

- rick

Rick said:

Robert Chung said:

Rick said:

BTW, the answer to the second part of your question is complicated.
The rating system they use for climbs in the TdF is not
straightforward.

For the 2004 TdF climbs:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/cols04-tdf.png

Interesting graph, shows how much variation there is in the grading.
It would have helped if he had included a legend. I just looked over
his spreadsheet, and here is the decode:

Red - HC
Orange - Cat 1
Black - Cat 2
Blue - Cat 3
Green - Cat 4

Note that the three HC climbs were all long, but one longer climb
(Glandon) is only Cat 1 as it is much less steep.

- rick

Pardon the interruption, but do you recall the stage where they had that
horrendous 20% climb for like 5 km that was almost a straight road and
where you could see the valley far below after only a short time? That's
probably not enough info, but I'm trying to find it in Google Earth.

TIA,

jj

Jet said:

Rick said:

Robert Chung said:

Rick wrote:
> BTW, the answer to the second part of your question is complicated.
> The rating system they use for climbs in the TdF is not
> straightforward.

For the 2004 TdF climbs:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/cols04-tdf.png

Interesting graph, shows how much variation there is in the grading.
It would have helped if he had included a legend. I just looked over
his spreadsheet, and here is the decode:

Red - HC
Orange - Cat 1
Black - Cat 2
Blue - Cat 3
Green - Cat 4

Note that the three HC climbs were all long, but one longer climb
(Glandon) is only Cat 1 as it is much less steep.

- rick

Pardon the interruption, but do you recall the stage where they had that
horrendous 20% climb for like 5 km that was almost a straight road and
where you could see the valley far below after only a short time? That's
probably not enough info, but I'm trying to find it in Google Earth.

TIA,

jj

Oops, this climb was in the 2005 TdF. My bad. ;-)

jj