# So how do US climbs compare to the European climbs



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

The European mountain stages of the pro tour always look so impressive on TV. Never been there in person. It's difficult to judge how tough they actually must be, watching from a heliocopter camera. Over the years, I've sen some pretty tough climbs in the Western US mountains. Are these even close to as tough as the ones in Europe?
Europeans do build roads to the wildest places. 

I'll put forward these climbs in the Everest Challenge race in the Eastern Sierras in California as pretty tough. Just for comparison, if anyone cares to comment.
http://everestchallenge.com/EverestChallengeBible.htm
Day one of the EC race climbs 15400' and the next day, it does 13500' starting at a base elevation of around 4000'. One single climb on day one gains 6100' and on day two, one of the passes gains 5800'. Does Alp du Huez go up that much? Or some of the other famous summits?

Also coming to mind is the Beartooth Highway in Montana (that one looks a lot like some European roads we see during the Grand tours) and a few of the summits in Colorado..

Don Hanson


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I can only speak from experience in Italy, Sardinia, and some riding in Provence. I rode in Montenegro but I don't count it. This may be slightly OT, but alot of the difficulty in Euro climbs is that the engineering of the roadways is different. In Sardinia and parts of Italy, there appear to be no civil engineers. They just built roads up the side of a mountain with grades that vary between 3 and 20%. The same road in the US would have been graded and excavated to even out the steepness. I have done rides in the US that were very long and steep, but usually the grades didn't vary much. Usually between 4-8%. One of my favorite loops in Sardinia had two 15% grades within 100 meters of each other. One of my least favorite climbs had a few 20% grades.


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

Don't have much U.S. experience but some in France. After 8% for an extended period things can get sorta painful. Long stints at 9%, 10%, or more start to become tough. Alpe d Huez IMO is one of the easier ones because you get a lot of change of direction to keep your mind distracted. The worst for me are the Ventoux types where you see long distances ahead. You see the prize but it takes so long to get there I have a hard time disconnecting my brain from the task and dread sets in.


----------



## bmxhacksaw (Mar 26, 2008)

One of my local climbs is the Teton Pass near the WY/ID border. It climbs 2164' in 5.93 miles with a 10% average grade. Its max grade is 14%. The last time I climbed it a butterfly flew through my front wheel like it wasn't even there.


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

It's hard to compare them because when one looks at the profiles of a european stage race the hills are usually described with altitudes. It's easier to understand how difficult they are based on the total vertical climbed and the grade.

There are plenty of big mountain passes in the United states. The biggest single hills are probably Haleakala and Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Not all of the road to Mauna Kea is paved but the climb is about 14,000 feet vertical. There are a bunch in the eastern Sierras that compare with the ones in Europe. Wyoming highway 14A east of Lovell has a climb of almost 7,000 feet and the last 13 miles to the west summit is a 10% grade. Parts of Beartooth pass, 14A and mount Evans in Colorado have the character of a european road - narrow and winding. Mount Evans, Pikes Peak (dirt road) and Mauna Kea climb to 14,000 feet elevation. There are plenty of big passes in the USA.

By the way, Beartooth pass above Red Lodge was destroyed by flooding a few years ago and has been rebuilt so that the part from Red Lodge to the top of the switchbacks is now excellent for cycling. Also Dead Indian pass is now paved to a high standard.


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

bmxhacksaw said:


> One of my local climbs is the Teton Pass near the WY/ID border. It climbs 2164' in 5.93 miles with a 10% average grade. Its max grade is 14%. The last time I climbed it a butterfly flew through my front wheel like it wasn't even there.


Actually from Hungry Jack's in Wilson it's 5.6 miles. This is an average grade of 7.3%. Much of the climbing is 10% but none of it is steeper than that.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

A friend & I determined that one of the Tour climbs was very similar to Mt. Magazine in Arkansas (about 7 miles @ 6-7%). I don't recall which one it was, though. I remember Phil kept talking about how it was a relentless climb because the grade didn't change much, and it was long... which is a lot like the South climb of Magazine


----------



## bmxhacksaw (Mar 26, 2008)

Tlaloc said:


> Actually from Hungry Jack's in Wilson it's 5.6 miles. This is an average grade of 7.3%. Much of the climbing is 10% but none of it is steeper than that.


My data came from a friends computer. Whatever it is it kicks my butt.


----------



## Barry Muzzin (Sep 18, 2006)

*Colorado climbs...*

This website http://www.rmccrides.com/ClimbDB/climb_frame.html is useful and uses a common rating system for climbs based on vertical rise multiplied by average grade.

As a point of comparison, Mt. Evans is the most difficult climb in Colorado with a rating of 9.0. Alpe D'Huez is a 10.0 and the Ventoux is a 12.7 using the same formula.


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

bmxhacksaw said:


> My data came from a friends computer. Whatever it is it kicks my butt.


I looked at the UCJH's site. According to the flier for the race the distance is 4.7 miles and the vertical is 2284 feet so the average grade would be 9.2% if this is accurate. Still the maximum grade is "only" 10%.

My bike computer says the distance is 5.6 miles - close to yours. I wonder what's right. It kicks my butt as well. 10% is very steep for a road bike.


----------



## Spin42 (Sep 8, 2004)

*Good book for you guys*

Most difficult cycling climbs in the US
More information about the book.

Like everything, there will be some disagreement, but the author does a good job putting it together. Enjoy, if you have the luxury of planning a vacation around a ride or an experience, this is a good book.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

What am I missing here? Those of us who have climbed in Colorado are less than impressed by the much much lower altitude climbs of the grand tours. Last time I checked the difference between climbing between 11000 to 13000 (or even higher) is infinitely harder than climbing from 6000 to 8000 or 8000 to 10000. I cant speak for road conditions but the altitude is not even in the same league. Alpe Duez is historical and all but hardly comparable to 100's of climbs in the Rockies. (Of course an obnoxious grade anywhere for an extended period will take you out at any altitude)


----------



## Spin42 (Sep 8, 2004)

I understand your view point, that's why I said not everyone will agree.
The book is about the toughest climbs and are rated on length and gradient not the elevation. Riding a flat road at 14,000' would hurt...crap, walking at 14,000' would hurt. The book is a good resource for US climbs, you don't have to agree with how he rates them.


----------



## Susan Walker (Mar 21, 2008)

The right gear can compensate any gradient. The race makes a climb hard.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Barry Muzzin said:


> This website http://www.rmccrides.com/ClimbDB/climb_frame.html is useful and uses a common rating system for climbs based on vertical rise multiplied by average grade.
> 
> As a point of comparison, Mt. Evans is the most difficult climb in Colorado with a rating of 9.0. Alpe D'Huez is a 10.0 and the Ventoux is a 12.7 using the same formula.


Mount Washington in NH? Brasstown Bald?


----------



## Spin42 (Sep 8, 2004)

Mt Washington State Park in New Hampshire.
Never been to Brasstown, from what I've read the climb is 8 miles, the nasty steep stuff is about 3 miles. For comparison, the Onion Valley climb is 13 miles long with pitches of 20%. I guess you would have to decide for yourself which is harder, like I said, not everyone is going to agree with the author. It's a fun book to have on the night stand though!


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Susan Walker said:


> The right gear can compensate any gradient. The race makes a climb hard.


True dat.

Climbs on their own are basically just uncomfortable. It's keeping up with others (or dropping them) that hurts.


----------



## ridenfish39 (Jun 20, 2008)

Whiteface Mountain in Lake Placid NY is a good one that can be ridden anytime the toll road (last 5 miles) is closed. I have been at the top when the wind is blowing at 50 mph.
It is 8.2 miles with an 8.9 % average gradient that really never lets up.


----------



## yessl (Nov 1, 2005)

Something for the New England riders...

http://www.northeastcycling.com/Global_Climbs.html


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

So, it seems like the climbs in the Grand Tours in Europe may be spectacular mainly because of their scenery and famous because they've gained big reputations, what with all the historic riders racing them. Not because they are so far *above* the climbs we see here in the US mountains.

Maybe climbs should/could be rated using power. Isn't one unit-measure of power based on how much energy it takes to lift one Kilo one meter? Or something like that? With some variation, that would be a pretty good *actual* measure of the difficulty of a climb. You don't expend enough watts, you don't make the summit. You crawl up a climb in Granny Gear, you are putting out low power but for a long period of time....You sit on Contador's wheel up that same climb, you put out huge power, but for a really short period of time. It should add-up essentially the same, if measured in units of power..eh? 

Discounting aerodynamic drag, couldn't one quantify, with real data, how much effort it actually takes to climb figuring it that way? Hence, we'd have a real base for "How difficult is ______ climb?" "It takes ______ "whatevers" to get up"..

That being said, the elevation where the climb takes place..Yeah, that is a big factor in how difficult that climb will be. I live at ~300' elevation on the east side of the Cascade range and regularly do training rides with 3k to 6k feet of climbing..Without great (aerobic)difficulty. But the same elevation gains, when started at higher (Like Teton Pass, mentioned in this thread, 6200' base elevation) those are much tougher, and the really high climbs in the Rockies and the Sierras, those above 10,000'...I finish those with worn out 'lung muscles' from trying to get in enough O2..
Don Hanson


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

Sorry Spin, I was referring to the overall thread, not your post. 

I believe the OP asked if ..."any climbs in the US are even close to the tough Euro climbs". The answer to that question is exactly the opposite... there are no climbs in the Grand Tours that are even remotely in the same league as the toughest US climbs. Its simple physiology, climbing at 13000+ is many many times more difficult than climbing at 8 or 9000. Unless you have done it, you just dont know. The TV guys make good drama out of "scary" climbs like Mt Ventoux, but those climbs are dimminutive compared to climbs in the Western US. Theres really no comparison. Sorry to burst the Euro balloon.


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

Gnarly 928 said:


> ...Maybe climbs should/could be rated using power. Isn't one unit-measure of power based on how much energy it takes to lift one Kilo one meter? Or something like that?...


That would make the difficulty of a climb equal to its height which is mostly correct. However for most climbers the grade is important as well because one has to expend the energy to climb some vertical distance in a shorter time. The elevation is less important because someone who is in good shape aerobically will have a high oxygen carrying capacity.

I live at about 5,000 feet and I didn't notice the elevation on Mount Evans but I did have to pace myself to save my legs. Tom Danielson did it in about an hour and fourty five minutes.

To win a stage of a European stage race with a hill top finish one has to be able to climb the final hill at a rate of ascent of 1,700 or more vertical meters per hour. The queen stages of the grand tours have something like 15,000 vertical feet in one day. That's climbing!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Sherpa23 said:


> True dat.
> 
> Climbs on their own are basically just uncomfortable. It's keeping up with others (or dropping them) that hurts.


Plus in GT's they hit multiple Cat1's, 2's or if your are unlucky HC's before you hit Ventoux. Oh, and you rode 90+ miles already. Oh, and you have ridden for 9 of the last 10 days, 100+ miles every day. Oh, and the contenders' teams are railing the pace at the bottom. 

Piece of cake. . .

And the Angrilu is pretty darn tough- Pro's on triples tough.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

European climbs typically have a cafe at the summit and US climbs typically do not. The cafe may not make the climb any easier, but having something to eat or drink after the climb and an opportunity to put on a windbreaker or stuff a newspaper down the front of one's jersey, definitely makes the descent more comfortable.:thumbsup:


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

bigmig19 said:


> What am I missing here? Those of us who have climbed in Colorado are less than impressed by the much much lower altitude climbs of the grand tours. Last time I checked the difference between climbing between 11000 to 13000 (or even higher) is infinitely harder than climbing from 6000 to 8000 or 8000 to 10000. I cant speak for road conditions but the altitude is not even in the same league. Alpe Duez is historical and all but hardly comparable to 100's of climbs in the Rockies. (Of course an obnoxious grade anywhere for an extended period will take you out at any altitude)


But the climbs in Colorado are moderate in terms of grade and height gained. The altitude is not a big issue for acclimatised riders- except for the really high climbs (Mt Evans). The Alps and Pyrenees are more rugged and the roads reflect the terrain.


----------



## Cruzer2424 (Feb 8, 2005)

bigbill said:


> I can only speak from experience in Italy, Sardinia, and some riding in Provence. I rode in Montenegro but I don't count it. This may be slightly OT, but alot of the difficulty in Euro climbs is that the engineering of the roadways is different. In Sardinia and parts of Italy, there appear to be no civil engineers. They just built roads up the side of a mountain with grades that vary between 3 and 20%. The same road in the US would have been graded and excavated to even out the steepness. I have done rides in the US that were very long and steep, but usually the grades didn't vary much. Usually between 4-8%. One of my favorite loops in Sardinia had two 15% grades within 100 meters of each other. One of my least favorite climbs had a few 20% grades.



+1

No one in the US is crazy enough to build roads like that.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Cruzer2424 said:


> +1
> 
> No one in the US is crazy enough to build roads like that.


Mount Washington is pretty insane!


----------



## pdainsworth (Jun 6, 2004)

My local major climb (Port Angeles, Wa.), Hurricane Ridge, is somewhat comparable to Ventoux (which I rode in the 90's). It climbs from sea level to 5200 feet over about 17.5 miles. It has some long stretches of road where you can see the grade ahead of you, and the top of the climb... oh so far away. The toughest portion is the first 6 or 7 miles, up to Heart of the Hills.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

http://www.mapmyride.com/ride/united-states/ca/borrego-springs/848774048

If your in Socal or southwest AZ this loop has a pretty good climb in it. I think there is also a MTB trail in the area but I haven't tried it.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

kytyree said:


> http://www.mapmyride.com/ride/united-states/ca/borrego-springs/848774048
> 
> If your in Socal or southwest AZ this loop has a pretty good climb in it. I think there is also a MTB trail in the area but I haven't tried it.


 That climb is one I do a couple of times per week during my winter sojourn to California. We (Borregans) sometimes call it "around the block" and it is a tough climb up Montezuma. I was thinking of that climb when I asked for opinions and comparos to the Euro-climbs. That climb can also be combined with a 'side-trip' up Mt. Palomar or Mt. Laguna. 

They are using Palomar as a "kicker" in this year's Tour of California and I plan on riding over to watch or volunteer on the course.


http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/Route/stages/stage8.html

Looking at the whole stage map and route, this day looks pretty comparable to a very very hard stage in Europe..It is at fairly low elevation mostly though, unlike some of the Rocky Mt. climbs I have done. The climb up Palomar is all below tree line, but it does have a bunch of switchbacks. The East Grade, down which they will descend, that's reminiscent of the Alps that I've seen on Telly..Not quite so steep as the uphill side (the South Grade?) but a pretty exposed and more open vegetation.

I am sure it'll be very humbling to see how fast those guys go over Palomar..

Don Hanson


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

The main difference is that in the US you moan and swear in english whereas here you have to groan and swear in italian, french and spanish


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Cruzer2424 said:


> +1
> 
> No one in the US is crazy enough to build roads like that.


There's a number of roads with 15%+ grades where I live. The road I live on has a 23% section. These are mountain roads, not city blocks.

This is one of the more famous local steep climbs:
http://www-graphics.stanford.edu/~lucasp/grade/bohlmanonorbit.html


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

bigmig19 said:


> Sorry Spin, I was referring to the overall thread, not your post.
> 
> I believe the OP asked if ..."any climbs in the US are even close to the tough Euro climbs". The answer to that question is exactly the opposite... there are no climbs in the Grand Tours that are even remotely in the same league as the toughest US climbs. Its simple physiology, climbing at 13000+ is many many times more difficult than climbing at 8 or 9000. Unless you have done it, you just dont know. The TV guys make good drama out of "scary" climbs like Mt Ventoux, but those climbs are dimminutive compared to climbs in the Western US. Theres really no comparison. Sorry to burst the Euro balloon.


I think you are exagerating the effect of altitude. Climbing at 13000 ft is maybe 30% harder than at 7000ft. In any case, I think hardest climbs in the US are not found in the Rockies- Mt Washington in NH and the many climbs in the Sierra Nevada are tougher. Probably the only climb worthy of HC status in CO is Mount Evans.
The other thing to consider is that one can chain many climbs together in a European 200km route which makes the final climbs really hard.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2008)

Gnarly 928 said:


> That climb is one I do a couple of times per week during my winter sojourn to California. We (Borregans) sometimes call it "around the block" and it is a tough climb up Montezuma. I was thinking of that climb when I asked for opinions and comparos to the Euro-climbs. That climb can also be combined with a 'side-trip' up Mt. Palomar or Mt. Laguna.


Funny, it was the first thing I thought of when I saw your original post. The scenery up the Montezuma grade reminds me of some of the pictures I have seen of Mt Ventoux. I was stationed at Camp Pendleton for awhile and it was something to be able to out and ride places like Mt Palomar and along the coast in the same day.

EDIT: Another thing I remember about that loop is a pretty short but insanely steep pitch as you are headed east back to Borrego Springs but I couldn't find it on a map earlier. It wasn't very long at all but was actually the steepest place I remember in that whole loop.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> There's a number of roads with 15%+ grades where I live.


Cruzer lives in the area where you live too.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

PhatTalc said:


> I think you are exagerating the effect of altitude. Climbing at 13000 ft is maybe 30% harder than at 7000ft. In any case, I think hardest climbs in the US are not found in the Rockies- Mt Washington in NH and the many climbs in the Sierra Nevada are tougher. Probably the only climb worthy of HC status in CO is Mount Evans.
> The other thing to consider is that one can chain many climbs together in a European 200km route which makes the final climbs really hard.



This is not a criticism but more of a clarification:

Everybody knows that the category of a climb is partially dependent on where it comes in a race, right? A climb that might be HC in one race might only be a 1 or even a 2 in another. That's something that I think might be overlooked. A climb on its own doesn't earn the rating as its place in the big picture plays a significant role.


----------



## lemonlime (Sep 24, 2003)

pdainsworth said:


> My local major climb (Port Angeles, Wa.), Hurricane Ridge, is somewhat comparable to Ventoux (which I rode in the 90's). It climbs from sea level to 5200 feet over about 17.5 miles. It has some long stretches of road where you can see the grade ahead of you, and the top of the climb... oh so far away. The toughest portion is the first 6 or 7 miles, up to Heart of the Hills.


That's a beautiful climb; one of my favorites! I love passing the cars on the way down.


----------



## pdainsworth (Jun 6, 2004)

lemonlime said:


> That's a beautiful climb; one of my favorites! I love passing the cars on the way down.


Yeah. Some nice, easy, fast corners up there. Particularly now that the repaving is done.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Gnarly 928 said:


> http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/Route/stages/stage8.html
> 
> Looking at the whole stage map and route, this day looks pretty comparable to a very very hard stage in Europe..


Let's keep things in perspective. 
http://cyclingnews.com/road/2008//giro08/?id=stages/giro0815


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

pdainsworth said:


> My local major climb (Port Angeles, Wa.), Hurricane Ridge, is somewhat comparable to Ventoux (which I rode in the 90's). It climbs from sea level to 5200 feet over about 17.5 miles. It has some long stretches of road where you can see the grade ahead of you, and the top of the climb... oh so far away. The toughest portion is the first 6 or 7 miles, up to Heart of the Hills.



Ventoux is a toughie, 7.1 average is deceptive because of the first few k only being 1-3% and then you get 9 k of grades averaging 9.38. The cruelest is the last 6 completely exposed in the swirling wind. Vent=Wind Tout=any/all, so even the name Ventoux is appropriate.


----------



## moonmoth (Nov 8, 2008)

PhatTalc said:


> Probably the only climb worthy of HC status in CO is Mount Evans.


This is what John Summerson's "Climbing by Bike" book says, too. Grand Mesa North and Trail Ridge East would be the next most difficult in Colorado, but they are not HC's.

Top 10 most difficult USA road bike climbs, from his book.

1. Mt. Washington
2. Mauna Loa
3. Hakeakala
4. Mauna Kea
5. Onion Valley, CA
6. Horshoe Meadows, CA
7. White Mountain, CA
8. Sherman Pass West, CA
9. Whitney Portal, CA
10. Mt. Evans, CO

For Ventoux (21.4K at 7.5%) fans, Summerson makes the claim that Sherman Pass is longer (24.4K) and almost as steep.


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*Path of least resistance...*

In Northern California there are a lot of roads that fit your Sardinia description. My personal opinion (backed by nothing more than personal observation). is that the road's designers were concerned about building a road as easily as possible and keeping excavation to a bare minimum. Either they did not have the equipment for major excavation or they did not have the time or money (or both). As a result, the road was laid out along the "path of least resistance" (to its construction). Stated differently, they built the road as cheaply and as easily as possible, thus leading to a road that follows the contours of the land as they found them. These roads are often very twisty with short pitches of insanely steep grade.

Spend some time cycling in Northwestern Sonoma County and you will encounter all kinds of crazy road configurations.


----------



## bmolloy (Nov 7, 2004)

+1 for the Palomar climb in this years tour of California being equal to european climbs. I just did it a few days ago and it is a workout at any speed. 4,425' in 13 miles. That is a 6.5% grade average for that 13 miles they will face smack dab in the middle of the stage. For those planning to watch on the slopes of Palomar, get an early start. There is absolutely nowhere to park anywhere close! (This climb does have a cafe at the top! That hot chocolate was GOOD!)

<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kFMO7qfojzi4Jhvlg6XdcQ"><img src="https://lh5.ggpht.com/_0FgyIRU8waM/SUBHHVO799I/AAAAAAAAAV8/0lvTs6IBUOw/s400/get.mb.jpeg" /></a>


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

bmolloy said:


> +1 for the Palomar climb in this years tour of California being equal to european climbs. I just did it a few days ago and it is a workout at any speed. 4,425' in 13 miles. That is a 6.5% grade average for that 13 miles they will face smack dab in the middle of the stage. For those planning to watch on the slopes of Palomar, get an early start. There is absolutely nowhere to park anywhere close! (This climb does have a cafe at the top! That hot chocolate was GOOD!)
> 
> <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kFMO7qfojzi4Jhvlg6XdcQ"><img src="https://lh5.ggpht.com/_0FgyIRU8waM/SUBHHVO799I/AAAAAAAAAV8/0lvTs6IBUOw/s400/get.mb.jpeg" /></a>


I have climbed Palomar about 100 times. It is a great climb but it is not as hard as most of the great climbs in the Dolomites or Alps. There is a big difference between 5-7% and 8-12%. Add in that you often have 10-15,000 feet of climbing in a stage in Europe. The ToC stage has about 6-7,000 feet.


----------



## uno-speedo (Oct 26, 2004)

Palomar Mountain is compared to Alpe d'Huez.

http://www.socalvelo.com/sub/palomar.html


----------



## uno-speedo (Oct 26, 2004)

It'll be interesting to see how fast the pro's climb Palomar.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/features/palomar.html


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

uno-speedo said:


> It'll be interesting to see how fast the pro's climb Palomar.
> 
> http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/features/palomar.html


According to Ferrari the autobus, the group of riders who are off the back and ride together to make the time cut, have a VAM of 4,000 feet per hour. This would mean Palomar, store to store, in just over an hour. 

If you take the fastest time up Alp de Huez for just the climbing part (3750 feet) at 36:30 this would be around 42-44 minutes pace for Palomar. Given the time of the season, it's location in the stage, I would expect the top riders to be around 45-50. Crazy fast.


----------



## uno-speedo (Oct 26, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> I would expect the top riders to be around 45-50. Crazy fast.


What about Cavendish


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

uno-speedo said:


> What about Cavendish


Off the back


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*prosthat train on it*



uno-speedo said:


> It'll be interesting to see how fast the pro's climb Palomar.
> 
> http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/features/palomar.html


take under an hour. I think Floyd holds the unofficial time record. There is a race up it every summer

the first 5-6 miles is just a slog, like you find on many climbs

the last 7 are pretty relentless


----------



## uno-speedo (Oct 26, 2004)

Just read that Landis does Palomar in 29 minutes  




> Landis says he’s fit — he’s not the strongest he’s ever been, but definitely not the weakest. His says his times on the nearby climbs, specifically the grueling slog up Palomar Mountain, are reassuring.
> 
> “I measure the top half (of Palomar), from the cattle grate to the Yield sign on top,” Landis said. “From the grate I’m around 29 minutes, maybe I could take another minute off that.”


OUCH camp: Landis' new team has a firm eye on Tour of California


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

uno-speedo said:


> Just read that Landis does Palomar in 29 minutes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is only a little more then 1/2 the climb. 

I think he is bluffing. That is a fast time but not super fast.


----------



## uno-speedo (Oct 26, 2004)

bigpinkt said:


> That is only a little more then 1/2 the climb.
> 
> I think he is bluffing. That is a fast time but not super fast.


Ah, good to know.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

uno-speedo said:


> Just read that Landis does Palomar in 29 minutes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, everybody measures their time from the store at the bottom stop sign to the yield sign at the top. Rominger did it in 48 min when Mapei used to come out for training camps. Floyds gone a bit faster and Horner is close. The funny thing is there are a handful of MTB climbs out my front door in the Santa Ana MTN's that are harder.


----------



## bikeman68 (Feb 10, 2009)

"The right gear can compensate any hill"?
so if you covered a distance over your limit, say 70mi, your on Wintergreen Mtn climb in Va with 12 percent grade, you bonked, and you still have 36 mi to go to get back to Ch, ville, can you make it if you have the right gear?


----------



## bikeman68 (Feb 10, 2009)

Did anybody here climb the Mur de Grammont, ot the Mur de Huy?
Thse are the big hills in the Belgian classics, or the other classics around Northern Europe. Are any of them steeper than 17 percent? I have some wicked hill climbs to ride in CT, some are up to 20 plus percent, very steeeep.
You can hit climbs of 17 percent in the Naugatuck river Valley in Naugatuck, or the other area's towns.


----------



## bikeman68 (Feb 10, 2009)

Mount Washington is well over 20 percent grade huh?
What was the gradient of the Angrilu in Spain? That was too excessive for the Vuelta.I saw pro riders needing Touring Triple cranks on their bikes! Ullrich had a triple!
The Tour de France does'nt get that extreme with climbs, no more than a very difficult for Mountains 12 percent grade as far as I know, so no need for pro's running triple cranks in France.


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

Height and distance have nothing to do with it, it all about the combination.
Elevation gain and distance to get to the top are what makes hard climbs hard.

A.D. = 13.5km in 1100m @7.9% avg gradient, THAT is HARD!
Ive heard alot of the climbs in rockies for instance are high but long so have much lower gradients 4/5% averages (great for training and ego boosting Id say :wink5: )
Ive heard lance call the sierras in CA similar to european climbs, but not 'as steep' so probably 5-6% average gradients.

Also European climbs are very different in different countries and even different regions of the same country!

French Alps: less steep and longer
French Pyrenees :more steep and shorter
Italy: steeper period! usually shorter


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

bikeman68 said:


> Mount Washington is well over 20 percent grade huh?
> What was the gradient of the Angrilu in Spain? That was too excessive for the Vuelta.I saw pro riders needing Touring Triple cranks on their bikes! Ullrich had a triple!
> The Tour de France does'nt get that extreme with climbs, no more than a very difficult for Mountains 12 percent grade as far as I know, so no need for pro's running triple cranks in France.


Angliru goes over 20% in some spots. I don't know what I think about that one. On one hand, it is very exciting to watch such a steep mountain ascent. On the other hand, I like this sport to stay clean and 20%+ climbs are asking a little bit too much for many. The Vuelta is looking for a bigger audience, and having the meanest climb in grand tours helps with that. In the opinion of some riders and coaches however, this decision by the Vuelta organizers is the equivalent of turning the race into a circus to get more publicity.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

bikeman68 said:


> Did anybody here climb the Mur de Grammont, ot the Mur de Huy?
> Thse are the big hills in the Belgian classics, or the other classics around Northern Europe. Are any of them steeper than 17 percent? I have some wicked hill climbs to ride in CT, some are up to 20 plus percent, very steeeep.
> You can hit climbs of 17 percent in the Naugatuck river Valley in Naugatuck, or the other area's towns.


I've climbed the Mur du Grammont and the Mur du Huy. Plenty.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Colorado's best climbs and best passes are on dirt. In Europe, they would likely be paved. Just mt 2 cents.


----------



## bikeman68 (Feb 10, 2009)

*Mtn climbs verses European Classics*

hey roadies
I know what you mean with hard Mtn climbs, with a series of ongoing moderate grades being long and draining. I used to climb in the Mtns of Va alot, with the routes being 75-105 mi to get back home in Charlottesville. I wonder if I could handle that now, at age 41 if I start heading my training into 3 plus hour rides?
Now with the steep climbs of the classics, its a different type of hard, because even though they are a series of hills, there are many, and very steep, like 17-20 plus percent.Very leg sapping. I have some hills like that in the Southern Half of CT, as well as in Litchfield County CT, and this is a good training tool for racers to utilize here in this state.
One of my questions was geared toward any riders who have ridden or raced the big name hills climbs of the European Classics, such as Muur de Huy, or the "Huy Wall" in Belgium, or the repeat cobbled climbs of the Amstel Gold in Holland? This stuff really makes the big boys strong, and is the only way for classics favorites to ride the legs off one another in these great single day classics. These specialists do not do as well in the Mtns, but have more raw power, and shine in these shorter, steep hills that litter the long courses of an excess of 160 miles.
This view might help alot of amateurs win their events more,instead of thinking of Long Mtns as the only way to train. Just think of the Dutch riders, and how good they are, despite thier home land being very flat for most of it.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Pablo said:


> Colorado's best climbs and best passes are on dirt. In Europe, they would likely be paved. Just mt 2 cents.


If by "best" you mean hardest, you are right. We have very few steep paved roads here. The average grades are low, although there are plenty of tough climbs. There are a few climbs here that if you do them in the right order, you can simulate a hard TdF or Giro stage. You would probably add a dirt climb or two in there, for sure.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Sherpa23 said:


> If by "best" you mean hardest, you are right. We have very few steep paved roads here. The average grades are low, although there are plenty of tough climbs. There are a few climbs here that if you do them in the right order, you can simulate a hard TdF or Giro stage. You would probably add a dirt climb or two in there, for sure.


By "best," all also meant the most scenic, nicest, challenging, inspiring . . .


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

My experience in the northwest may differ elsewhere, but the engineering of a road in the US varies greatly depending on who built it and what the road was built for. I can name dozens of paved Forest Service and BLM roads in this part of the world that are as steep as many of the famous climbs in Europe -- paved with an average grade for 8-10km of at least 8% and sections over 20% . The roads were engineered, but were designed to be built quickly and allow logging trucks safe access. Roads that are intended for regular vehicle travel, built by state, county and federal highway organizations are virtually always engineered to have a steadier grade that is friendly to high speed highway traffic and trucking. The same is also usually true of ski-access roads.

Many of the steep, famous climbs in Europe are very old roads and they weren't built for commercial trucking (which is much less common in Europe). They may also follow the routes of roads the preceded cars by centuries.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Pablo said:


> By "best," all also meant the most scenic, nicest, challenging, inspiring . . .


I thought you might say that...


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

bikeman68 said:


> Did anybody here climb the Mur de Grammont, ot the Mur de Huy?
> Thse are the big hills in the Belgian classics, or the other classics around Northern Europe. Are any of them steeper than 17 percent? I have some wicked hill climbs to ride in CT, some are up to 20 plus percent, very steeeep.
> You can hit climbs of 17 percent in the Naugatuck river Valley in Naugatuck, or the other area's towns.


I did the Muur de Grammont (de Ronde cyclosportive), but not the Mur de Huy. It was actually not as bad as I thought it was. The cyclosportive route is a bit different from the race route. In the sportive, you are made to go through the road parallel to the main thoroughfare where there are cafes, etc. The sportive route is the same as the route they take in Het Volk / Het Nieuwsblaad / Gent-Gent. The Het Volk part is probably the worst part, I think in the teens for about 150 meters? The cobbled part in the top is not bad at all. If you look at the climb profile of de Kappelmuur, you see that the max grade comes in the middle, I think right before the Het Volk route meets de Ronde's race route. 

The worst was actually the Paterberg, maxing out at 20.3%. The climb comes after a nice steady descent following de Oude Kwaremont, so as luck has it I dropped my chain at the bottom and again in the middle. So I walked up that damn climb. 

The Koppenberg was also a b***h, maxing out at 22%, but you do see it coming so you can prepare for it (plus minus people keeling over their bikes all around you and slippery parts near the edges). 

For sheer shock value, the Molenberg takes it. It was the first climb, and you don't see it coming in on a big multi-lane road. Then you have to make a sudden right-hand turn into a small road that looks like somebody's driveway, and up you go. Watch the DVDs, you'll see what I mean. 

OK, there goes my review of a few Belgian climbs.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

The worst part of Huez is the first few km which are like an unending wall of asphault (at least it seemed to me). From there I found it hard, but it goes back and forth between 6-8% enough for me to recover. 

Galibier, now that one nearly killed me. The elevation and constant headwind approaching from Valoire were real factors.


----------



## bikeman68 (Feb 10, 2009)

*the big climbs in Netherlands*

Hey
thats a great report of the big climbs. did you ride the whole route of the classics?
Can you tell me if the training there is extra special because of this?I mean with the repeat steep gradients, cobbles, that all adds up with resistance, so does that build more strength compared to typical USA routes? I always thought that the route profiles in Northern Europe were one of the factors that made the riders so good.
And what was the lowest gear you needed? Your wheels too, what wheels were proven here, to hold up? I do know that the durability requirement gets even more intense while racing on these routes.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

bikeman68 said:


> Hey
> thats a great report of the big climbs. did you ride the whole route of the classics?
> Can you tell me if the training there is extra special because of this?I mean with the repeat steep gradients, cobbles, that all adds up with resistance, so does that build more strength compared to typical USA routes? I always thought that the route profiles in Northern Europe were one of the factors that made the riders so good.
> And what was the lowest gear you needed? Your wheels too, what wheels were proven here, to hold up? I do know that the durability requirement gets even more intense while racing on these routes.


In Netherlands? Who are you replying to?


----------



## bikeman68 (Feb 10, 2009)

Oh, I guess Netherlands does not include Belgium?
well I meant to refer to all of the great land of the European Classics, such as Holland, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Germany, but mainly Belgium and Holland, where the cobbles,wind, and rain are.
Bummer with Leipheimer in the Giro huh? He will need a big surprise to win


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

bikeman68 said:


> Oh, I guess Netherlands does not include Belgium?
> well I meant to refer to all of the great land of the European Classics, such as Holland, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Germany, but mainly Belgium and Holland, where the cobbles,wind, and rain are.
> Bummer with Leipheimer in the Giro huh? He will need a big surprise to win


Sorry to correct you again but technically speaking Holland is only a small part of the Netherlands, and not near where races like Amstel Gold is. That race is in the south part of the Netherlands, close to the border of Belgium. 

I didn't do the entire route of de Ronde, only the "bottom part". Look in the map links from rvv.be. It includes all the climbs but not the long slog in the flats from Brugge where the race starts. 

For your information, I brought a Cyfac cross frame with Campagnolo Khamsin wheels, with slick 28s mounted. The bike works great, except that that particular wheelset is really stiff. If I could do it again I'd bring a traditional 32-spoke wheelset but I think that the slick 28 tires were a good call. The gearing I had was 50/34 front and 12-25 rear. It may be a bit better to bring a 27t rear so that you can spin up the hills. I also wish I had double-wrapped the bar tape. 

If you were to train for it I'd say work on your strength and sustained power efforts. Once you lose your momentum it's very hard to regain it on a cobbled road, regardless of whether it's going up, straight, or down. I was just getting back into riding, and I did lots and lots of base miles but not much power effort. 

I can't claim that the above applies to races other than de Ronde, but I hope it helps. 

There are tons and tons of races in the Flemish Ardennes (de Ronde, Het Volk, Gent-Wevelgem, etc.) that if you like that type of riding you can just stay in Gent or Geraardsbergen and enjoy days of riding without needing to plan your trip so much.


----------

