Where does Climbpro get it's gradients from?

dpawlyk said:

In any case, the elevation gain is not a great measurement of ride difficulty since it doesn't include grade

Really. I'd be very interested in hearing your reasoning behind this?

I don't deny that the gradient can make a climb harder, but does it make the ride harder?

If two routes of the same length had the same overall height gain, but the climbs on one of the routes were 10% instead of 5%, wouldn't it just mean that you would be ascending the same height over a shorter distance therefore a larger percentage of the ride would be comparatively easier making up for the extra difficulty of the climb. Plus although the climb with the shallower gradient would be twice as long, in an ideal world you should be able to climb it twice as fast so the overall time spent climbing should be relatively similar

However if you had two routes of the same length and one had 2000m of climbing with the other 4000m, Both may have climbing at say 5% therefore if you could maintain the same speed over the climbs you would be climbing twice as long over the same ride distance with a greater percentage of your ride spent climbing

I may be missing something crucial but, I would consider the second scenario a harder ride 

"I don't deny that the gradient can make a climb harder, but does it make the ride harder?"

If the climb is harder, isn't the ride harder?

I've done 4000 feet in 50 miles.

I've done 4000 feet in 14 miles.

The latter is harder.

Most cyclists will find a 5% grade reasonably easy.

Fewer will find 17% easy. Some might need to walk.

Even fewer will find 22% easy.

If the climb is harder, isn't the ride harder?

> To me; not necessarily, my analogies were maybe getting a bit mixed up there. What I was alluding to was the same height gain over 5% could be say 10km and take 30min, At 10% it would be 5Km but could still take around 30min. Athletically the energy expenditure should be pretty similar.

When you get to the extreme gradients, other factors become more important, not just the athletic ability. Technique, physiology, mental preparedness & of course fatigue play a more important role in overall climb perception.

Where I live is close to some of the steepest climbs in the UK. I've seen people completely psyched out at the foot of these climbs and resort to walking before they've even attempted them...Athletically the climbs maybe completely within their capabilities but because of the other factors these climbs have become the hardest of all....Impossible 

I've done 4000 feet in 50 miles.

I've done 4000 feet in 14 miles.

The latter is harder.

I think we are coming to the same conclusion from different angles. I was comparing different altitude gains over the same distance, whereas your analogy is comparing the same altitude gains over different distances

The outcome however is the same; you end up climbing for a larger percentage of your ride therefore the ride is harder. To me the gradient is a minor factor and although I'm equating the ride difficulty to ascent over distance, which err wait a minute isn't that 'grade' if the ride starts & finishes at the same altitude the overall grade would be a quite unremarkable & humbling 0% 

Oh yes...22% = easy, two things I never associate with each other

"I was comparing different altitude gains over the same distance, whereas your analogy is comparing the same altitude gains over different distances"

More altitude over the same distance is obviously going to be harder, isn't it? But is that due to the grade or altitude?

A single 1000 foot climb at 22' is going make a 50 mile ride harder than 1000 feet spread over the same 50 miles.

People might not be able to do the first climb (they might not have the power or the gears) when they could do the second ride without much difficulty.

It's harder even outside of being "psyched" (talking about the psychology confounds the discussion).

dpawlyk said:

More altitude over the same distance is obviously going to be harder, isn't it? But is that due to the grade or altitude?

To me it's the altitude not the grade. the climbing may all be at 5% Just more of it

dpawlyk said:

A single 1000 foot climb at 22' is going make a 50 mile ride harder than 1000 feet spread over the same 50 miles.

I don't think it does, the grade of the climb makes that climb harder but the rest of the ride would be easier than the ride where the climbing is spread over the distance.

All I know is that when I plan a ride I'll base my time estimates for the entire ride hence it's difficulty on how much ascent I'm going to do over a given distance I don't even look at the grade of the climbs

However when I'm on or approaching an individual climb & want to gauge my efforts & recovery points so I can get my nutrition right for that climb I will look at the elevation profile, guage it's ascent & distance, which yes is the overall grade. This is where the elevation & hopefully climbpro screens come into play

dpawlyk said:

As the grade increases, it gets harder until it becomes impossible.

I agree totally, though as I alluded to previously to me the grade just makes that climb easier or harder not necessarily the entire route.

I think the discussion has run it's course & is running the risk of going round in circles. Regardless of the methods someone chooses to use in order to determine the difficulty of a ride, climb or any other feature of a route; if it works for them then it's a viable method. What anyone else thinks, well does it really matter as it's that person who has to ride it not the other.

I'll have to go & find a nice steep climb at the weekend.... It's been a while since I've chewed on the handlebars Happy Days