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.

"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.

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!

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

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.

I haven't ridden Skyline drive in over 20 years. It's a bear, but
short by standard of the alpine stages in the TdF. However, most of the
climbs, even HC climbs, are decently graded. The tough thing about
Skyline Drive is that the grade varies significantly along the way. The
first time I rode it I cramped up on a steep section and actually had to
walk a bit. I was much younger, but much stupider. Also, it was a very
hot day, which likely contributed to my problems.
For reference, when I say I have climbed HC climbs, I have done the
Galibier, the Col de Madelaine, the Col de l'Iseran, and the Grande St.
Bernard. If you are geared right, they are doable by anyone, but it's a
long slog.

Steve

Quoted message said:

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-

--
Cut the nonsense to reply

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

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/cols05-tdf.csv

Here's a graphic for the 2005 climbs, along with a revised 2004 graphic.
The revisions address a point Weiner made last year.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/cols04-tdf.png
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/cols05-tdf.png

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,

You will not find 20% grades, at least not beyond a brief section, over
on thos roads. Roads in the Pyrenees are generally a bit steeper than
those in the Alps, but still average grades are usually 7-9%. The
toughest long grade they faced in the Pyrenees was the climb to
Pla-d'Atet (stage 15) which was 8% average but there is a 5km section
of about 9.6%. On the map it is a ski resort just above and to the
west of St. Lary Soulan. Col de Mente, had a 5km section at a 9.3%
average, and Pailheres (stage 14) was the next steepest with a 9.2%
section 5km long. The climb to the aerodrome at Mende may have been
the steepest, 10% grade, but only a touch over 3km.

- rick

Steven Bornfeld 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.

I haven't ridden Skyline drive in over 20 years. It's a bear, but
short by standard of the alpine stages in the TdF. However, most of the
climbs, even HC climbs, are decently graded. The tough thing about
Skyline Drive is that the grade varies significantly along the way. The
first time I rode it I cramped up on a steep section and actually had to
walk a bit. I was much younger, but much stupider. Also, it was a very
hot day, which likely contributed to my problems.

But Skyline is apparently very short; the OP says about 1.5 mi., which
is only a bit over 2km. The HC climbs in the tour are mostly over
10km, many in the 15-20km range. Yes, the grades are relatively even,
but that is relative. Col du Tourmalet (from the west), for example,
is over 18km at a 7.7% average but there is a section just above
Bareges that is a tad over 13%. Madeleine, from the south, is 19km at
8% average but does have a section above 11%.

Quoted message said:

For reference, when I say I have climbed HC climbs, I have done the
Galibier, the Col de Madelaine, the Col de l'Iseran, and the Grande St.
Bernard. If you are geared right, they are doable by anyone, but it's a
long slog.

Depends. See some folks burn out before the tops of some of the
longest, biggest climbs. Last year on Stelvio, in Italy, we saw quite
a few folks on an organized trip SAG to the top; the 25km slog to a bit
over 9000' was too much for them.

- rick

Quoted message said:

Steve

Quoted message said:

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-

--
Cut the nonsense to reply

Rick says...

Quoted message said:

You will not find 20% grades, at least not beyond a brief section, over
on thos roads.

I can't imagine a 20% section being very sustained anywhere. I seem to remember
the gravel on Mt. Washington being something like 18 or maybe even steeper
(22%?) over the last ~mile. That's gotta be brutal. I know that it doesn't
take much 18% hill to really blow a pack apart.

Rick said:

Quoted message said:

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,

You will not find 20% grades, at least not beyond a brief section, over
on thos roads. Roads in the Pyrenees are generally a bit steeper than
those in the Alps, but still average grades are usually 7-9%. The
toughest long grade they faced in the Pyrenees was the climb to
Pla-d'Atet (stage 15) which was 8% average but there is a 5km section
of about 9.6%. On the map it is a ski resort just above and to the
west of St. Lary Soulan. Col de Mente, had a 5km section at a 9.3%
average, and Pailheres (stage 14) was the next steepest with a 9.2%
section 5km long. The climb to the aerodrome at Mende may have been
the steepest, 10% grade, but only a touch over 3km.

- rick

OK, I think I found it. Stage 18, Côte de la Croix Neuve (montée Laurent
Jalabert) (km 187.5, Cat. 2, 3.1 km climb at 10.1 %)

I'm trying to motivate, and develop a plan to try some of the harder
streets around here. There's three parallel streets that according to my
Topo program are 11, 12, and 13% grades, with sections of 15% - I believe
it. Climbing distance is short at about 870 feet, linear distance about
1000 feet, and I'm fairly sure the challenge is psychological. They're near
the end of a hilly route and I'm usually half-cooked by the time I get
there.

Probably easy for an experienced rider like you, but I'm a beginner, and
don't have a climber's body, at 225lbs. ;-)

Thanks for the input!

jj