Fixed gear ratios?

[Kinky Cowboy]

On 25 Jul 2006 15:16:38 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>
>> Ride where you are going to ride the fixie with a normal geared
>> bike....find the ratio you like, remember what it is...look at a gear
>> chart and convert to the chainring and rear cog you wish to buy...for
>> instance- ....
>
>My technique is similar, but a little more explicit. Take your
>"geared" bike and ride all the terrain you plan on riding with your
>fixed. On the most difficult hill, find the gear that will allow you
>to **barely** make it up. Choose that for your fixed gear.
>

Doesn't sound right - I could make it up any of the hills on my
regular training route on my TT bike with 88" fixed, but I wouldn't
want to ride that gear for anything but racing and "race simulation"
type training efforts

Maybe it would be better to find the fastest downhill section of your
training route and run the lowest gear that gets you down without
feeling the need to drag the brake - almost impossible to simulate on
a freewheel bike, but a more accurate guide to where the problem with
fixed usually lies.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:35:26 -0700, joseph.santaniello wrote:

> Actually the tips and reasoning given by Graham and "Kinky" (Leave it
> to the Brits!) have helped quite a bit in figuring it out. I need a
> 48x18 or 48x17. I think the reason I have problems basing my decision
> on tests with my road bike is due to the hilly roads and my heavy
> weight. At 230lbs I am quite dependent upon gears!

IMNSHO the 48/17 is a bit tall, unless you are a real masher. I ride
with a guy who rarely uses his small chainring, even on very hilly rides.
He goes up the hills fast, but he seems to be in slow motion, since he
usually is pushing a 52/17 or thereabouts.

But unless you are like him, you might do better with an 18 or a 19.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
_`\(,_ | certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
(_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein

 

[Phil Lee, Squid]

[email protected] wrote:
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Does anyone have any idea what sort of gearing was used back in
>>>>> the days when the TdF and similar events were ridden on fixed
>>>>> gear bikes? What was/is considered an optimal gear for riding
>>>>> fast in rolling hills? Mountains? Flats?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am building up a fixed to be used for training/fun on rolling
>>>>> hills. I'm ordering some cogs, but I'm having trouble deciding
>>>>> what ratios to go with. I don't want to go nuts with ordering
>>>>> stuff, so I'm trying to narrow it down to 2, maybe 3 to
>>>>> experiment with. Whenever I try to figure it out by testing on my
>>>>> road bike, I can never make up my mind. 53x21, 53x19 are the two
>>>>> I have been leaning toward and their fixed counterparts 48x19,
>>>>> 48x17. So I'm thinking 17, 18, 19.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joseph
>>>>
>>>> Ride where you are going to ride the fixie with a normal geared
>>>> bike....find the ratio you like, remember what it is...look at a
>>>> gear chart and convert to the chainring and rear cog you wish to
>>>> buy...for instance-if you like the 39-15...and you want to use a
>>>> 42t ring...look up the equivalent of 39-15 inna 42-x...buy that.
>>>> BTW-even early on, I think the bikes were single speeds, not fixed
>>>> gear...so they could coats down hill, during the early years of
>>>> the TdF..
>>>
>>> That's just it, I can never make up my mind when I try to figure it
>>> out on my road bike.
>>
>> If YOU can't even make up your mind, how can we do that for you? I
>> did what Peter suggested and it worked out fine.
>
> Actually the tips and reasoning given by Graham and "Kinky" (Leave it
> to the Brits!) have helped quite a bit in figuring it out. I need a
> 48x18 or 48x17. I think the reason I have problems basing my decision
> on tests with my road bike is due to the hilly roads and my heavy
> weight. At 230lbs I am quite dependent upon gears! There is of course
> no such optimal single gear, and that is half the point of riding a
> fixed, but I think their advice has helped narrow it down quite a bit.

That's the thing. I used to be a slow spinner until I rode my singlespeed
around 24/7 at 53/18. Now the smaller hills become minor and I'm
unaccustomed to downshifting in group rides. If you ride a little out of
spec, your body will get used to it.

--
Phil Lee, Squid

 

[[email protected]]

On 24 Jul 2006 13:02:14 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Does anyone have any idea what sort of gearing was used back in the
>days when the TdF and similar events were ridden on fixed gear bikes?
>What was/is considered an optimal gear for riding fast in rolling
>hills? Mountains? Flats?
>
>I am building up a fixed to be used for training/fun on rolling hills.
>I'm ordering some cogs, but I'm having trouble deciding what ratios to
>go with. I don't want to go nuts with ordering stuff, so I'm trying to
>narrow it down to 2, maybe 3 to experiment with. Whenever I try to
>figure it out by testing on my road bike, I can never make up my mind.
>53x21, 53x19 are the two I have been leaning toward and their fixed
>counterparts 48x19, 48x17. So I'm thinking 17, 18, 19.
>
>Suggestions?
>
>Joseph

Dear Joseph,

Here are the gear inches for some fixie combinations mentioned in the
thread, courtesy of Sheldon's calculator for a 700 x 25:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

As Sheldon mentions, using a longer or shorter crank will affect
overall gearing, but gear inches seemed like the most familiar
comparison.

gear front
inch x rear who likes it
---- ------- ------------
48.x xx x xx 1920 alpine climbing side of flip-flop in 1920 report
53.x xx x xx 1911 alpine climbing tdf winner Garrigou per steer
60.3 48 x 21 no one
60.5 39 x 17 no one
62.8 50 x 21 no one
63.3 48 x 20 no one
64.3 39 x 16 Francesco DeVittori
65.3 52 x 21 no one
65.x xx x xx 1900 ordinary riders, Berto; 1920 report
66.0 50 x 20 no one
66.6 48 x 19 joseph.santaniello, David L. Johnson, Kinky Cowboy
66.6 53 x 21 joseph.santaniello
68.6 39 x 15 no one
68.6 52 x 20 no one
69.4 50 x 19 no one
69.9 53 x 20 no one
69.x xx x xx 1900 racers, Berto
70.3 48 x 18 santaniello, Johnson, Peter, Tdf Lapebie per steer
72.2 52 x 19 graham steer
72.x xx x xx 1900 racers, Berto
73.3 50 x 18 booker c. bense
73.5 39 x 14 no one
73.6 53 x 19 joseph.santaniello
74.5 48 x 17 joseph.santaniello, David L. Johnson "a bit tall"
75.x xx x xx Sheldon Brown's favorite
76.2 52 x 18 no one
77.6 50 x 17 no one
77.7 53 x 18 joseph.santaniello, Phil Lee
79.1 39 x 13 no one
79.1 48 x 16 Specialized Langster and Bianchi Pista
80.7 52 x 17 friend of David L. Johnson [1]
82.2 53 x 17 joseph.santaniello
82.4 50 x 16 no one
85.7 39 x 12 no one
85.7 52 x 16 no one
87.4 53 x 16 no one
88.x xx x xx Kinky Cowboy "could make it up" training route hills [2]

[1] David isn't recommending his friend's gearing, just noting it.

[2] Kinky isn't recommending 88 gear inches, just pointing out that
using the highest practical climbing gear might not be a good way to
choose the gear.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Peter]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Peter wrote:
>> "Phil Lee, Squid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> Suggestions?
>> >
>> > FWIW, the Specialized Langster and Bianchi Pista come stock with 48/16t
>> > gearing. I ride just a little shorter than that under that at 53/18 so
>> > as
>> > to work nicely with my semi-horizontal dropouts.
>> >
>> My Langster came with a 48/18 free...
>> So I put an 18 fixed on t'other side. It's a wee bit high so I might get
>> a
>> 19 fixed to replace the 18 free.
>> Peter
>
> What kind of terrain do you ride?
>
I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South and
West, but kind of flat towards the East.
There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually very
short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20% hills,
so it's a bit different).

I also more of a twiddling tourist than anything - happiest pedalling about
90rpm.

The bike's quite new - and has only had a few outings so far. However a
recent 50 mile ride from London to Cambridge was no problem on it. I was
going to put a 19 fixed opposite the 18 fixed, but having thought about it I
might even put a 20 fixed on it (just in case of emergencies...). I wouldn't
anticipate ever doing more that 100 miles on it though.

Peter

 

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email protected]>,
David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:35:26 -0700, joseph.santaniello wrote:
>
>> Actually the tips and reasoning given by Graham and "Kinky" (Leave it
>> to the Brits!) have helped quite a bit in figuring it out. I need a
>> 48x18 or 48x17. I think the reason I have problems basing my decision
>> on tests with my road bike is due to the hilly roads and my heavy
>> weight. At 230lbs I am quite dependent upon gears!
>
>IMNSHO the 48/17 is a bit tall, unless you are a real masher. I ride
>with a guy who rarely uses his small chainring, even on very hilly rides.
>He goes up the hills fast, but he seems to be in slow motion, since he
>usually is pushing a 52/17 or thereabouts.

That's pretty close to what Sheldon recommends 42/15, or a ratio
of about 2.8 ( front divided by back), I ride 2.77 and think
thats about right.

My rough rule of thumb would be the lowest gear that you can
still spin up to about 30 mph without feeling totally
out of control. Any lower than that and the downhills become
torture. Of course with a gear that stiff, you'll need to accept
walking up some hills now and then.

This is somewhat higher than is generally recommended for using a
fixed gear for "training" purposes, but if your purpose is
to ride long distances I think a higher gear works out better.
You are always going to suffer on the hills, you can't use
a gear low enough to really make a difference. Better to get
a comfortable speed on the flats and a much less torturous
ride on the downhills.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRMe42WTWTAjn5N/lAQEnHAP+PoK2/7WX+OBVuKnHef0DWl7FKZ02FP6P
wIlbzvbQ/RM9WvoOkQf7Kip3IvFAG59554dWOXRja4XG/pEFuRyJ9c+peDGlUowV
KACF85G003FLOpAEGGlq6GbdYam3A5G/uo3exSz9ys5A6o8OShEvPq9W/vcYMGlH
5xpzv6iTJU8=
=Qg13
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:44 GMT, "Peter"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South and
>West, but kind of flat towards the East.
>There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually very
>short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20% hills,
>so it's a bit different).

[snip]

>Peter

Dear Peter,

You might look for your rides in the 112 English climbs detailed here:

http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy

The steepest half-kilometer grade that they list in England is 16.6%
at Long Mynd out of Church Stretton:

http://www.salite.ch/5500/5500.gif

They'd be interested in paved roads with 20% grades. Over 10% is
marked in red on the graphs, and is rare.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Bob in CT]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:05:46 -0400, <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:44 GMT, "Peter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South and
>> West, but kind of flat towards the East.
>> There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually
>> very
>> short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20%
>> hills,
>> so it's a bit different).
>
> [snip]
>
>> Peter
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> You might look for your rides in the 112 English climbs detailed here:
>
> http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
> or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy
>
> The steepest half-kilometer grade that they list in England is 16.6%
> at Long Mynd out of Church Stretton:
>
> http://www.salite.ch/5500/5500.gif
>
> They'd be interested in paved roads with 20% grades. Over 10% is
> marked in red on the graphs, and is rare.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

I'd be interested to see that, too. I ride a route home with one hill I
think is brutal. I have a topographical program and plugged in that
road. Turns out the entire hill (bottom to top) is about 8% and the steep
section is around 11-12%. 20% would be darn near impossible to ride up.

--
Bob in CT

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:54:07 -0400, "Bob in CT"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:05:46 -0400, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:44 GMT, "Peter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South and
>>> West, but kind of flat towards the East.
>>> There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually
>>> very
>>> short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20%
>>> hills,
>>> so it's a bit different).
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Peter
>>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> You might look for your rides in the 112 English climbs detailed here:
>>
>> http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
>> or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy
>>
>> The steepest half-kilometer grade that they list in England is 16.6%
>> at Long Mynd out of Church Stretton:
>>
>> http://www.salite.ch/5500/5500.gif
>>
>> They'd be interested in paved roads with 20% grades. Over 10% is
>> marked in red on the graphs, and is rare.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>I'd be interested to see that, too. I ride a route home with one hill I
>think is brutal. I have a topographical program and plugged in that
>road. Turns out the entire hill (bottom to top) is about 8% and the steep
>section is around 11-12%. 20% would be darn near impossible to ride up.

Dear Bob,

No, 20% and 30% grades are perfectly possible on bicycles.

(For other people, not me.)

But such grades are rare and noteworthy. Here's a particularly scenic
and foolish Italian climb:

http://www.salite.ch/scanuppia.htm

Note the kilometer or so of 20% to 28% grade near the start. Of
course, as the pictures make clear, it's not exactly a normal paved
road.

Shorter and steeper climbs are famous. In California, for example,
Fargo Street in Los Angeles attracts people with more legs than sense
for an annual festival. It's claimed at anywhere from 30% to 35%.

Pictures: http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo.htm

Results: http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargolst.htm

Note that 61-year-old Doug Kubler climbed the hill 50 times that day.

Some riders prefer to sit on the front of a tandem to make it easier
to keep the front wheel down. Others zig-zag to reduce the effective
grade. But most of them just pedal up the hill.

However, lots of people claim (in good faith) that climbs are much
steeper than they reallly are.

In Colorado, a common mistake is to peek at a large-scale topo map,
note the elevation change between the beginning and the end of a ride,
measure the straight distance between the two points, and mistakenlyl
calculate a 15% average grade for a 1 mile ride.

But the road actually winds for 3 miles, so the grade is really only
5%, not 15%. It may even have a few very short stretches of 15% grade
(usually involving cutting the corners on hairpins), but it's awfully
hard to find half a mile of 15% grade paved road in Colorado.

But if there are significant 20% paved grades in Yorkshire, this site
would love to add them to their list:

http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore.aspx?sid=509256be501f45528041e30bbd878d45&lingua=eng&da=az

For U.S. posters, the site has a very short list of North American
climbs:

http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
or http://tinyurl.com/m23m4

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Bob in CT]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:36:46 -0400, <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:54:07 -0400, "Bob in CT"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:05:46 -0400, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:44 GMT, "Peter"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South
>>>> and
>>>> West, but kind of flat towards the East.
>>>> There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually
>>>> very
>>>> short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20%
>>>> hills,
>>>> so it's a bit different).
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Dear Peter,
>>>
>>> You might look for your rides in the 112 English climbs detailed here:
>>>
>>> http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy
>>>
>>> The steepest half-kilometer grade that they list in England is 16.6%
>>> at Long Mynd out of Church Stretton:
>>>
>>> http://www.salite.ch/5500/5500.gif
>>>
>>> They'd be interested in paved roads with 20% grades. Over 10% is
>>> marked in red on the graphs, and is rare.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>> I'd be interested to see that, too. I ride a route home with one hill I
>> think is brutal. I have a topographical program and plugged in that
>> road. Turns out the entire hill (bottom to top) is about 8% and the
>> steep
>> section is around 11-12%. 20% would be darn near impossible to ride up.
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> No, 20% and 30% grades are perfectly possible on bicycles.
>
> (For other people, not me.)
>
> But such grades are rare and noteworthy. Here's a particularly scenic
> and foolish Italian climb:
>
> http://www.salite.ch/scanuppia.htm
>
> Note the kilometer or so of 20% to 28% grade near the start. Of
> course, as the pictures make clear, it's not exactly a normal paved
> road.
>
> Shorter and steeper climbs are famous. In California, for example,
> Fargo Street in Los Angeles attracts people with more legs than sense
> for an annual festival. It's claimed at anywhere from 30% to 35%.
>
> Pictures: http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargo.htm
>
> Results: http://www.lawheelmen.org/fargolst.htm
>
> Note that 61-year-old Doug Kubler climbed the hill 50 times that day.
>
> Some riders prefer to sit on the front of a tandem to make it easier
> to keep the front wheel down. Others zig-zag to reduce the effective
> grade. But most of them just pedal up the hill.
>
> However, lots of people claim (in good faith) that climbs are much
> steeper than they reallly are.
>
> In Colorado, a common mistake is to peek at a large-scale topo map,
> note the elevation change between the beginning and the end of a ride,
> measure the straight distance between the two points, and mistakenlyl
> calculate a 15% average grade for a 1 mile ride.
>
> But the road actually winds for 3 miles, so the grade is really only
> 5%, not 15%. It may even have a few very short stretches of 15% grade
> (usually involving cutting the corners on hairpins), but it's awfully
> hard to find half a mile of 15% grade paved road in Colorado.
>
> But if there are significant 20% paved grades in Yorkshire, this site
> would love to add them to their list:
>
> http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore.aspx?sid=509256be501f45528041e30bbd878d45&lingua=eng&da=az
>
> For U.S. posters, the site has a very short list of North American
> climbs:
>
> http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
> or http://tinyurl.com/m23m4
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

I've always wanted to do a ride like that. I'm still trying to figure out
whether I can climb the street I live on, which is very steep and windy.
I usually go from my house to another street, where it's much less steep..
I've never tried going up the street I live on, but part of that is
because I'm more afraid of cars than the incline. The good news is that
there a lot more hills where I currently live in CT than where I used to
live in AZ.

Thanks for the information.

--
Bob in CT

 

[Peter]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:44 GMT, "Peter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South and
>>West, but kind of flat towards the East.
>>There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually
>>very
>>short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20% hills,
>>so it's a bit different).
>
> [snip]
>
>>Peter
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> You might look for your rides in the 112 English climbs detailed here:
>
> http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
> or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy
>
> The steepest half-kilometer grade that they list in England is 16.6%
> at Long Mynd out of Church Stretton:
>
> http://www.salite.ch/5500/5500.gif
>
> They'd be interested in paved roads with 20% grades. Over 10% is
> marked in red on the graphs, and is rare.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
>
Hi Carl,

I guess it all depends how you measure you climbs. In England 10% is pretty
common - although the climb may only be a few hundred metres long.
As I said, Northwards of Leeds there are some 20% climbs, albeit for short
distances.

OS Maps show steep climbs with chevrons, and rides are created around these.
http://www.ctcdevon.co.uk/chevrons.htm

The steepest climbs are probably recognised as the Lake District climbs of
Hardknott and Wrynose at 30% in sections and (if I remember) 20% for several
hundred metres.
http://www.cumbriawaycycleroute.co.uk/HardknottWrynosePass.jpg
These are quite hard to get up - with rear panniers on there is a risk of
toppling over backwards. A friend of mine fell off when he tried to put his
foot down for a rest and discovered the ground wasn't within reach because
of the gradient.

Rgds, Peter

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:17:12 GMT, "Peter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:44 GMT, "Peter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South and
>>>West, but kind of flat towards the East.
>>>There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually
>>>very
>>>short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20% hills,
>>>so it's a bit different).
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Peter
>>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> You might look for your rides in the 112 English climbs detailed here:
>>
>> http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
>> or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy
>>
>> The steepest half-kilometer grade that they list in England is 16.6%
>> at Long Mynd out of Church Stretton:
>>
>> http://www.salite.ch/5500/5500.gif
>>
>> They'd be interested in paved roads with 20% grades. Over 10% is
>> marked in red on the graphs, and is rare.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>>
>Hi Carl,
>
>I guess it all depends how you measure you climbs. In England 10% is pretty
>common - although the climb may only be a few hundred metres long.
>As I said, Northwards of Leeds there are some 20% climbs, albeit for short
>distances.
>
>OS Maps show steep climbs with chevrons, and rides are created around these.
>http://www.ctcdevon.co.uk/chevrons.htm
>
>The steepest climbs are probably recognised as the Lake District climbs of
>Hardknott and Wrynose at 30% in sections and (if I remember) 20% for several
>hundred metres.
>http://www.cumbriawaycycleroute.co.uk/HardknottWrynosePass.jpg
>These are quite hard to get up - with rear panniers on there is a risk of
>toppling over backwards. A friend of mine fell off when he tried to put his
>foot down for a rest and discovered the ground wasn't within reach because
>of the gradient.
>
>Rgds, Peter

Dear Peter,

It does indeed depend on how things are measured.

Shorter sections can be much steeper, but judging by these profiles,
there's no 500 meter section above . . .

16.4% on Hardknott from Brotherilkeld:
http://www.salite.ch/hardknott1.htm

14.4% on Hardknott from Cockley Beck:
http://www.salite.ch/hardknott.htm

11.2% on Wrynose from Cockley Beck:
http://www.salite.ch/wrynose1.htm

13.0% on Wrynose from Fell Foot:
http://www.salite.ch/wrynose.htm

But they're still beastly steep, particularly if you're hauling
panniers. And the road and highway departments love to put up signs
about the very steepest sections.

Accuracy is another troublesome area. Fargo Street in Los Angeles is
rather short, fairly steady, and extremely hard to pin down--I've seen
"official" estimates ranging from 30% to 35%.

My daily ride is counter-clockwise because I prefer to descend through
the 10% upper corner in the short S-bend down to the Arkansas River
and climb back up the bluffs a few miles away in two gentle stages.
It's much nicer to hit 37 mph on the runout and return on the highway
than to struggle back up the steep gully.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Jenny Brien]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:44 GMT, "Peter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South and
> >West, but kind of flat towards the East.
> >There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually very
> >short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20% hills,
> >so it's a bit different).
>

> The steepest half-kilometer grade that they list in England is 16.6%
> at Long Mynd out of Church Stretton:
>
Been there, climbed that.
>
> They'd be interested in paved roads with 20% grades. Over 10% is
> marked in red on the graphs, and is rare.
>
I know of several short (less than half k) hills in Britain and Ireland
marked at 1 in 5 and steeper. Whether that's accurate or not, they are
all much steeper than Long Mynd. The worst that I know of is down the
side of Harlech Castle in Wales, marked (if I remember right) as 1 in 2
and a half! I tried cycling down it, but had to dismount - every time
I braked, the back wheel lifted.

FWIW, a short 1 in 5 is rideable on a 48 x 20.


--
Do onto pedestrians as you would have motorists do onto you.

 

[Kinky Cowboy]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:05:46 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:44 GMT, "Peter"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I live in Leeds in Yorkshire. It's kind of hilly to the North, South and
>>West, but kind of flat towards the East.
>>There's very little above about 8% Eastwards and any hills are usually very
>>short. More undulating than hilly really. (Northwards there are 20% hills,
>>so it's a bit different).
>
>[snip]
>
>>Peter
>
>Dear Peter,
>
>You might look for your rides in the 112 English climbs detailed here:
>
>http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
>or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy
>
>The steepest half-kilometer grade that they list in England is 16.6%
>at Long Mynd out of Church Stretton:
>
>http://www.salite.ch/5500/5500.gif
>
>They'd be interested in paved roads with 20% grades. Over 10% is
>marked in red on the graphs, and is rare.
>

We have plenty of hills steeper than 16% in England, although they
don't sustain for long. Hill climb courses are often less than 1km
long.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:12:31 +0100, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]>
wrote:

>We have plenty of hills steeper than 16% in England, although they
>don't sustain for long. Hill climb courses are often less than 1km
>long.
>
>Kinky Cowboy*

Dear Kinky,

Er, judging by the altimetry, English climbs steeper than 16% are
rarely as much as _half_ a kilometer long--that's the unit used for
the grades.

Browse through a few of the climbs at the site and see what they
measured for yourself:

http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy

The steepest half-km that I noticed was 16.4%, but I'm willing to
learn of paved climbs not on the list (the site would love to hear
about them), and I naturally agree that shorter sections are steeper.

We tend to see a 15%, 20%, 25%, or 30% road sign meant for a hairpin
or a short bend and then apply it quite a ways up the road through
much flatter sections.

(After a short stretch of real 30% grade, you can't blame your legs
for thinking that that the road is still much too steep, even if it
drops back to 12% for four times as long.)

The misunderstanding is harmless, but you'll rarely lose money betting
that people overestimate grade and distance.

Odometers have improved our notions of distance, but grade is still
harder to measure than the seats of our pants realize.

I've measured the grade of that upper curve in my daily S-bend down to
the Arkansas River. It really is about 10%. But it's also noticeably
steeper than most of the rest of the S-bend. For some reason, however,
I prefer to mention that 10% corner. The speedometer keeps me more
hon--er, accurate about top speed, which was 37.5 mph today.

For fun, try filling out the test below. It shows why we have such
trouble judging grade. Skip a few degrees as you go higher. If there's
any interest, I'll post the answers (which I certainly don't
remember).

1% grade = _____ degrees 16% grade = _______ degrees
2% grade = _____ degrees 17% grade = _______ degrees
3% grade = _____ degrees 18% grade = _______ degrees
4% grade = _____ degrees 19% grade = _______ degrees
5% grade = _____ degrees 20% grade = _______ degrees
6% grade = _____ degrees 21% grade = _______ degrees
7% grade = _____ degrees 22% grade = _______ degrees
8% grade = _____ degrees 23% grade = _______ degrees
9% grade = _____ degrees 24% grade = _______ degrees
10% grade = _____ degrees 25% grade = _______ degrees
11% grade = _____ degrees 26% grade = _______ degrees
12% grade = _____ degrees 27% grade = _______ degrees
13% grade = _____ degrees 28% grade = _______ degrees
14% grade = _____ degrees 29% grade = _______ degrees
15% grade = _____ degrees 30% grade = _______ degrees

That covers grades up to the 30% on the sign whose link appeared in an
earlier post. The point of the exercise is to remind us just how hard
it would be to estimate a grade accurately without instruments, which
is why the climbs of Europe site uses altimetry rather than just
repeating what everyone "knows".

Don't misunderstand me--I'm not denigrating UK climbs. I firmly
believe that there are plenty of paved half kilometers in England
steeper than I'm willing to pedal up.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:55:41 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:12:31 +0100, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>We have plenty of hills steeper than 16% in England, although they
>>don't sustain for long. Hill climb courses are often less than 1km
>>long.
>>
>>Kinky Cowboy*
>
>Dear Kinky,
>
>Er, judging by the altimetry, English climbs steeper than 16% are
>rarely as much as _half_ a kilometer long--that's the unit used for
>the grades.
>
>Browse through a few of the climbs at the site and see what they
>measured for yourself:
>
>http://ciclismo.sitiasp.it/motore2....=null&da=az&come=af&lingua=eng&commenti=False
>or http://tinyurl.com/gf8dy
>
>The steepest half-km that I noticed was 16.4%, but I'm willing to
>learn of paved climbs not on the list (the site would love to hear
>about them), and I naturally agree that shorter sections are steeper.
>
>We tend to see a 15%, 20%, 25%, or 30% road sign meant for a hairpin
>or a short bend and then apply it quite a ways up the road through
>much flatter sections.
>
>(After a short stretch of real 30% grade, you can't blame your legs
>for thinking that that the road is still much too steep, even if it
>drops back to 12% for four times as long.)
>
>The misunderstanding is harmless, but you'll rarely lose money betting
>that people overestimate grade and distance.
>
>Odometers have improved our notions of distance, but grade is still
>harder to measure than the seats of our pants realize.
>
>I've measured the grade of that upper curve in my daily S-bend down to
>the Arkansas River. It really is about 10%. But it's also noticeably
>steeper than most of the rest of the S-bend. For some reason, however,
>I prefer to mention that 10% corner. The speedometer keeps me more
>hon--er, accurate about top speed, which was 37.5 mph today.
>
>For fun, try filling out the test below. It shows why we have such
>trouble judging grade. Skip a few degrees as you go higher. If there's
>any interest, I'll post the answers (which I certainly don't
>remember).
>
> 1% grade = _____ degrees 16% grade = _______ degrees
> 2% grade = _____ degrees 17% grade = _______ degrees
> 3% grade = _____ degrees 18% grade = _______ degrees
> 4% grade = _____ degrees 19% grade = _______ degrees
> 5% grade = _____ degrees 20% grade = _______ degrees
> 6% grade = _____ degrees 21% grade = _______ degrees
> 7% grade = _____ degrees 22% grade = _______ degrees
> 8% grade = _____ degrees 23% grade = _______ degrees
> 9% grade = _____ degrees 24% grade = _______ degrees
>10% grade = _____ degrees 25% grade = _______ degrees
>11% grade = _____ degrees 26% grade = _______ degrees
>12% grade = _____ degrees 27% grade = _______ degrees
>13% grade = _____ degrees 28% grade = _______ degrees
>14% grade = _____ degrees 29% grade = _______ degrees
>15% grade = _____ degrees 30% grade = _______ degrees
>
>That covers grades up to the 30% on the sign whose link appeared in an
>earlier post. The point of the exercise is to remind us just how hard
>it would be to estimate a grade accurately without instruments, which
>is why the climbs of Europe site uses altimetry rather than just
>repeating what everyone "knows".
>
>Don't misunderstand me--I'm not denigrating UK climbs. I firmly
>believe that there are plenty of paved half kilometers in England
>steeper than I'm willing to pedal up.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

An email just asked why I haven't posted the answers for what grade%
means in degrees.

Er, because I saw no posts showing curiosity?

But if grade% = tan(degrees, then . . .

>For fun, try filling out the test below. It shows why we have such
>trouble judging grade. Skip a few degrees as you go higher. If there's
>any interest, I'll post the answers (which I certainly don't
>remember).

1% grade = _0.57 degrees 16% grade = ___9.09 degrees
2% grade = _1.15 degrees 17% grade = ___9.65 degrees
3% grade = _1.72 degrees 18% grade = __10.20 degrees
4% grade = _2.29 degrees 19% grade = __10.76 degrees
5% grade = _2.86 degrees 20% grade = __11.31 degrees
6% grade = _3.43 degrees 21% grade = __11.86 degrees
7% grade = _4.00 degrees 22% grade = __12.41 degrees
8% grade = _4.57 degrees 23% grade = __12.95 degrees
9% grade = _5.14 degrees 24% grade = __13.50 degrees
10% grade = _5.71 degrees 25% grade = __14.04 degrees
11% grade = _6.28 degrees 26% grade = __14.57 degrees
12% grade = _6.84 degrees 27% grade = __15.11 degrees
13% grade = _7.41 degrees 28% grade = __15.64 degrees
14% grade = _7.97 degrees 29% grade = __16.17 degrees
15% grade = _8.53 degrees 30% grade = __16.70 degrees

Basically, add 0.57 degrees for each 1%, slowly decreasing to 0.53 or
so in this range. Very few people can estimate such tiny angles.
Mostly, we gear down and lower our speed until we stop gasping for
breath.

And yes, there are two kinds of grade%, one that uses elevation
divided by map distance (you went 5280 feet from point A to point B on
a map and climbed 528 feet, so grade = 10%) and the other that uses
elevation divided by actual distance (the hypotenuse is longer, so in
real life you had to pedal 5,306 feet, 4 inches, an extra 26.33 feet
per mile, a difference of only 0.5%.

At "30%" grade, however, the disparity between the two methods becomes
more noticeable. Either way, you climb 1584 feet, but one way, you
pedal only 5036.8 feet (steep), the other way you pedal 5512.5 feet
(spreading the work out over 10% more distance).

That there are two ways to calculate grade% is one explanation for the
30% to 35% range of estimates for steep hills like Fargo Street in Los
Angeles.

In real life, of course, paved roads rarely maintain grades as even as
railroad grades for very long--there's no pressing need for such
precision with cars or bicycles.

CF