|
|
Post by Scott M on Apr 18, 2018 14:36:28 GMT
When I look at miles covered and feet of ascent for my own rides, and others, on Strava, I've noticed that for most folk most of the time, the number of feet is roughly 50 times the number of miles, i.e. 10 mile ride will have 500ft, a 20 mile ride will be 1,000ft and so on. There are exceptions, e.g. a particular event on a hilly route, but for the run-of-the-mill rides, the ratio seems to hold, give or take. Some riders notably buck this trend, such as tribanist, who usually has about double the amount of climbing, but he's clearly some sort of masochist. Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on why this might be... The nature of the UK roads, meaning that in many areas that's the amount of climbing you get for distance covered? It's feels like a manageable amount of climbing per mile covered due to physiology of the 'average' cyclist? It's pure random chance, and I'm clearly spending too long looking for patterns in numbers? Scott. |
|
|
|
Post by erictherat on Apr 18, 2018 22:51:01 GMT
Ok - i work in metric - so no idea about ft and miles! Firstly I find strava varies wildly in its elevation stats - comparing my elevation (recorded on garmin 200) to other riders doing the same ride - my elev data is always the lowest - no idea why? - could be because i use an old device? heres an example from an audax: mine - www.strava.com/activities/600243863 = 1738m some others at random from flyby: www.strava.com/activities/599837392 - 2077m www.strava.com/activities/600240706 2332m www.strava.com/activities/599705396 2555m all distance the same - on the same day on the same route. These differences are very significant - so comparing one person's elev data with another's is impossible. Elevation does obviously vary according to where you live. I ride in the Peak district - so do lots of hills, although in the winter it is lower as I dont venture onto the high moors. Funnily today was my first ride of the summer - www.strava.com/activities/1515496057 Looking forward to a hilly summer - love the ups and downs of the peak district. No way would I swap it for flatlands. elevation does not give a true reflection of the hardness of a ride either - eg - snake pass is a real easy ride - giving 350m of elev, but with a good surface and an easy and steady 6%. veloviewer.com/segments/612981compared to swiss hill - only 44m of elev... but brutal on really nasty cobbles veloviewer.com/segments/3522907erm - so in answer to your pondering....i pass |
|
|
|
Post by Rocket on Apr 19, 2018 11:58:15 GMT
Most people live somewhere flat and since most of their rides begin and end where they live then their rides are predominantly flat. When I was based in Mossley an average ride was at least 1,000 ft for every 10 miles. If I was training properly then 2,000 ft for every 10 miles was easy to find. Now I'm back in the flatlands those rides have gone to pot and with timetrialling a lot of my rides are now pancake flat.
Some people like hills and go out of their way to ride them. Some people don't like hills and go out of their way to avoid them.
Your perception of other people's ride stats may well be skewed by the nature of the people you have surveyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by william39 on Apr 20, 2018 1:13:17 GMT
Ok - i work in metric - so no idea about ft and miles! Same for me but quick calc gives 100m for 10k roughly? This is a 'flat' ride for me. No choice where I live and I find it very difficult to do a ride with average HR less than 150. |
|
|
|
Post by tribanist on Apr 20, 2018 10:38:33 GMT
Yes, I think it's largely a reflection of people's local environments, sometimes along with tastes that are shaped by the local habitat. Unless I stick to cycling up and down about 100m of road outside my house, I'm going to hit some pretty steep hills; the whole area relatively close to me is chock full of them. But that's then shaped my preferences, so I'm basically happiest doing fairly hilly rides - although the odd nice flat one is always a welcome change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott M on Apr 20, 2018 16:16:21 GMT
Just to disprove my theory, I deliberately picked a route today that I knew would give me a higher climbing ratio. Think I'll go back to my usual amount of climbing next time out!
|
|
|
|
Post by KiwiBeard on Apr 28, 2018 6:32:17 GMT
Ok - i work in metric - so no idea about ft and miles! Same for me but quick calc gives 100m for 10k roughly? This is a 'flat' ride for me. No choice where I live and I find it very difficult to do a ride with average HR less than 150. Yes, me too. Although Sydney would seem to be less hilly than the Alps, typically I get 1000m elevation for a 100km I consider that 'flat'. When I lived in Kingston, Surrey, I once did a 100k ride with 126m elevation. |
|
|
|
Post by karma846 on May 19, 2018 4:29:27 GMT
1000 feet for every 10 miles up here in the peak district. Very hard to avoid that, not many flat bits and where there are you've normally climbed a few hills to get to them.
|
|
