# Why is total elevation per stage not given?



## jeff400650 (Mar 29, 2014)

I have watched every stage of TDF this year for the first time. I am new to following pro bicycling. During the broadcast they go on and on about how much climbing is being done on mountain stages, but, unless I am missing something, they never actually state the total elevation in feet or meters that the riders will climb. They are always showing/stating the geographical elevation at the top of mountains, but that is rather irrelevant. 

Why not say "Today's stage 13 will cover 124 miles and 12,048 feet of elevation gain"? Instead they say "3 catetory 4, and 1 category 2 climbs with a finishing elevation of 4,200 feet"


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

Follow one or more of the riders on Strava.

You'll then know exactly what it takes to do a stage.

https://www.strava.com/pros/michal_kwiatkowski


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

jeff400650 said:


> I have watched every stage of TDF this year for the first time. I am new to following pro bicycling. During the broadcast they go on and on about how much climbing is being done on mountain stages, but, unless I am missing something, they never actually state the total elevation in feet or meters that the riders will climb. They are always showing/stating the geographical elevation at the top of mountains, but that is rather irrelevant.
> 
> Why not say "Today's stage 13 will cover 124 miles and 12,048 feet of elevation gain"? Instead they say "3 catetory 4, and 1 category 2 climbs with a finishing elevation of 4,200 feet"


Good question. For most riders, the total elevation gain is a good measure of the difficulty of the ride. That's how I decide my rides, when I am in the mountains. But for racers? And the race itself?

The cat of the climbs is more important for knowing what is likely to happen in the race than total elevation gain. Say there was a 10k elevation day. All 2s and 3s would be one thing, but ending with an HC would mean the race would be totally different. The pros can do 3s all day, pretty much. Not with a smile, but they could do it.

IOW, leading riders attack on cat 1 and HC. They rarely attack on cat 3s... unless there is an HC next.

For energy burned, comparing stage to stage, total elevation is a good measure (along with speed obviously, as fast flat stages can be pretty rough). For understanding the race, not so much.


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

The official TdF site could give more overview, but they don't. Why not? I don't know. From my own personal interest over the recent 13 years, I have just figured out what aspects of the course might be relevant to the race. I agree that the overall elevation rise or drop is not as impactful as the climbs, and where they are located with respect to the finish line. But elevation gain is important.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

The TdF site has all the information, but they don't display or summarize it terms of elevation climbed. You can calculate it thought from the stage profiles and the mountain passes and hills information. It seems in general, that in the TdF, the metric most widely cited is distance and grade for each of the climbs.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

ibericb said:


> The TdF site has all the information, but they don't display or summarize it terms of elevation climbed. You can calculate it thought from the stage profiles and the mountain passes and hills information. It seems in general, that in the TdF, the metric most widely cited is distance and grade for each of the climbs.


plenty of up and down that is not part of the categorized climbs. 

funny thing is a race like amstel has more climbing than some mountain stages. Which should illustrate why total climbing it itself is not that useful number. 
Say, for the case of argument, a stage has 100 km of 1% uphill climb. so what? not making one iota difference in the race. Yet in total climbing it would count as alpe d'huez.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

den bakker said:


> plenty of up and down that is not part of the categorized climbs.
> 
> funny thing is a race like amstel has more climbing than some mountain stages. Which should illustrate why total climbing it itself is not that useful number.
> Say, for the case of argument, a stage has 100 km of 1% uphill climb. so what? not making one iota difference in the race. Yet in total climbing it would count as alpe d'huez.


Great points. 

In racing I believe it really gets back to power consumption, and the nature of competition. For fitness tracking total climb is a reasonable metric to track. But in a race it's about power, and in turn speed, which varies as the course varies. Road gradient coupled with distance is typically more direct to use, but the same can be done with elevation change (rise) and distance.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

Today's a good day.
From Cycling News...


> The numbers tell the story
> 
> 61.5km of climbing - more than any other stage in this year's Tour.
> 4,106m of vertical gain - more than any other stage.
> 18km - La Toussuire is the longest summit finish of the race - 2.2km longer than Plateau de Beille.


That's about 13.5k'.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

It's the TDF. So, it's a lot. If you could do it, you'd be there....:thumbsup:


----------

