Climb Difficulty Database Started: Ideas Welcome.

[benpounder]

Inspired by a comment I read upon these threads, I put together a spreadsheet which tabulates climb difficulty according to an equation I found on ClimbByBike.com. Now opinions may vary as to how valid this equation is, but what I would like to see/do/participate in, is the establishment of a database where my fellow cyclingnews forum participants can input, and quickly reference how classic, and obscure road climbs stack up against one another. (It would be cool if it could be expanded to Mtn bike routes.)

First problem is I have neither the time nor finances to host such a site (I put this together watching the Eurosport early morning coverage of the Tour - as it was mostly boring, my 0500hr to 0700hr were filled with obviously esoteric pursuits). Second, I dont know how to set up an internet database where all users could add info without changing the underlying criterion. I think it would be cool to have a couple of different equations that rationally emphasis different difficulty aspects (elevation, length, gradient, prevailing winds, strada blanca, pave... goats... tifosi), both available and sortable.

Given how contentious this forum can get, I think it would be nice to have a 'mostly' agreed upon ranking system with which we can employ in all our heated debates. And a place where we can put our favorite 'nasty climb' up against the real beasts (with links to real route maps and altimetrys).

Here is a screencap of what I have compiled already:

Of course if this kind of thing is already available (yeah, ClimbByBike has it all, but it is not sortable by TdF/Giro/Vuelta/Hero of the Cycling Universe standards), I'd love to know where I can find it.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

Inspired by a comment I read upon these threads, I put together a spreadsheet which tabulates climb difficulty according to an equation I found on ClimbByBike.com.

Something like this has been done already. http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/6/29/1543466/tour-de-france-lets-rank-the-climbs

I feel it is a waste of one's effort. The formula is flawed, as it does not take altitude, length of climb and net climbing into account. Dan Connelly, who's a member here, will tell you why. Over to Dan...

 

[Martin318is]

There is a fair bit of information already on sites like this one:

http://www.cycle2max.com/

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

John Summerson has his books Climbing (by bike) which are excellent IMO. But even John, who has a pretty complex formula for rating climbs, says it's not exact.

Gradient, elevation gain, altitude, distance, road surface, typical weather, etc.

I like your list and efforts, Benpounder. But for US climbs one would have to include Mauna Kea and Loa, Halealkala in Hawaii, some Sierra climbs. Roads also change. Every year bits of Mauna Kea get paved, and when it's all paved or enough to ride, it will surely be the hardest ride on the planet. Also, each year Pike's Peak gets paved more and more. When it tops out it will be more difficult than Mt. Evans.

Lists and charts however invite discussion and intrigue.

 

[Martin318is]

not to mention traffic, prestige, etc

 

[SirLes]

I think these sites and information are useful when planning routes to give an idea of difficulty, what is feasible and comparing different days but of course any formula will be flawed.

IMO the biggest single factor is weather.

 

[Deagol]

......, each year Pike's Peak gets paved more and more. When it tops out it will be more difficult than Mt. Evans.
.......

More elevation gain, steeper?

It's been many many years since I've been up that road and I don't remeber the road well enough to compare.

Side note: I did MTB up the Barr Trail to the summit and that was the hardest thing I've ever done..

 

[galaxy1]

i did the climb to hautacam (very difficult, btw) the other day in an electric storm, punctured at the top and came down in the dark - does that count as difficult?

anyway, even ignoring all the extra factors and just focussing on gradient and length, these formulas miss the different 'character' of climbs.
tourmalet is just a very long aerobic drag at an ok gradient - difficult, sure, but actually this is quite comfortable even for a tourist, if long-winded.

other climbs on your list such as mortirolo are famous mostly for their ridiculously steep pitches - and probably feared by many pros - but this of course means that there will be much flatter sections as well.

these two types of climb do not compare easily, and do not even favour the same type of rider (although being very light and very strong never seems to hurt).

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

In Summerson's book his words are:

"Once this entire climb is paved (planned) it will be one of the 5 most difficult in the US."

He ranks Mt. Evans 20th most difficult in the US*

He says nothing about Mauna Kea being fully paved, though I believe this is going to take a lot longer.

*climb ratings do not adjust for altitude, which is a mistake in my eyes.

 

[eleven]

It certainly makes for interesting discussion. If I am reading the "ranking" category correctly, I think there's a flaw in the calculation somehow:

Mt Washington Auto Road: ranked 238
Alpe D'Huez: ranked 141

Does this mean to say something like "AdH is the 141'st hardest climb"? While Mt Washington is 238, ranked "easier" than ADH? In reality, Mt Washington is a far harder climb than AdH. or I'm reading it wrong....

 

[roundabout]

238 and 141 are the results of the equation on the spreadsheet, the bigger the number the harder the climb

 

[ericthesportsman6]

It certainly makes for interesting discussion. If I am reading the "ranking" category correctly, I think there's a flaw in the calculation somehow:

Mt Washington Auto Road: ranked 238
Alpe D'Huez: ranked 141

Does this mean to say something like "AdH is the 141'st hardest climb"? While Mt Washington is 238, ranked "easier" than ADH? In reality, Mt Washington is a far harder climb than AdH. or I'm reading it wrong....

Your reading it wrong. The higher the ranking #, the more difficult the climb.

 

[Deagol]

*climb ratings do not adjust for altitude, which is a mistake in my eyes.

Yeah, totally.
It would be interesting if there really was a way to quantify all of this, taking all factors into account.

 

[benpounder]

It certainly makes for interesting discussion. If I am reading the "ranking" category correctly, I think there's a flaw in the calculation somehow:

Mt Washington Auto Road: ranked 238
Alpe D'Huez: ranked 141

Does this mean to say something like "AdH is the 141'st hardest climb"? While Mt Washington is 238, ranked "easier" than ADH? In reality, Mt Washington is a far harder climb than AdH. or I'm reading it wrong....

There are certainly flaws with any ranking system. One thing that is impossible to calculate is pace. Alpe d'Huez is not hard because of its length. Nor is it a wall at 7.6%. It's top elevation is paltry compared to many others. No, it is how fast it is riden (and how many... fans more concerned with getting on the teley than the actual race) that makes it so difficult in the mind of the pro peloton.

No eleven, of all the climbs I've imput, AdH ranks at 38th. The number you refer to is the result of a somewhat arbitrary equation that takes into account length, vertical rise, and finishing elevation.

Additionaly (and I think some have mistaken my intent), I'm not trying to propose an absolute ranking system, only a binder of systems which we can employ in our heated debates that is readily accessible and editable. Seven years ago, I rode the south approach to Col de la Madeleine and I was blown away. Even though I've ridden Telegraphe/Galibier, Mt Evans, Manghen, Ventoux, and Monte Grappa, Madeleine is the hardest climb I ever have done. Equations dont express that. But that was me on one day, and I fully admit my personal assessment is highly subjective.

My intent was to propose a community database where we all can input those beasts we all have faced, and compare them to the beasts others have faced. Frankly, I dont care which climb ranks the hardest (on any rational scale), I hope for a database where us knuckleheads can evaluate and contribute, and thus have a quasi-objective basis for our continuing arguments.

On a final note, I'm more than willing to add to my spreadsheet, and show results if my fellow forum participants want to provide me the data. I'd really like to have this open access, but until someone has a good idea for hosting such a database, it will be necessarily and understandably restricted.

 

[benpounder]

"Once this entire climb is paved (planned) it will be one of the 5 most difficult in the US."

He says nothing about mauna-kea

Have you ridden it? I'd love the data for a real ride. Going from 0m to 4205m has to be... impressive and really, really difficult.

 

[tortoisedr]

Side note: I did MTB up the Barr Trail to the summit and that was the hardest thing I've ever done..

Ouch, I rode it twice... 1993 and 1994... Rough steep switchbacks out of Manitou, eases off a bit into Barr Camp, then hell... Look up at the face you have to climb, try not to despair! The 16 Golden Stairs were the hardest bits of climbing I've ever done. The sound of my heart was so loud I thought I needed ear plugs. Then, finally, the summit. Over the cog tracks, and hundreds of fat tourists who drove up ask you if you had a nice ride...

The descent isn't much better. Has anyone ever calculated their lactate threshold for their forearms?

Why did I do it twice? No answer. Would I do it again? Hell yes!

I think that if they allowed bikes on the auto road it would be an easy climb by comparison!

 

[eleven]

Your reading it wrong. The higher the ranking #, the more difficult the climb.

phew! Thanks for that. Now it makes more sense.

 

[benpounder]

But for US climbs one would have to include Mauna Kea and Loa, Halealkala in Hawaii, some Sierra climbs. Roads also change. Every year bits of Mauna Kea get paved, and when it's all paved or enough to ride, it will surely be the hardest ride on the planet. Also, each year Pike's Peak gets paved more and more. When it tops out it will be more difficult than Mt. Evans.

Lists and charts however invite discussion and intrigue.

Actually, Mt Washington and Pikes Peak are quite similar ranking at 238 and 224 respectively. You are right about Mauna Kea. Starting in Hilo, you've got 65.5km at an average gradient of 6.2% and topping out at 4205m. Its ranking? A staggering 370! If you shorten the route by starting at Saddle Road (SH200) you only have 23.5km at 9.2% for a rating of 291.

As I mentioned, I was hoping to open source this so that anyone could input their favorites, as I don't have exhaustive knowledge of climbs world wide. I'm sure there are some monsters in South America.

[my edit]Oops, Pikes Peak is quite a bit tougher than Evans (198). For some reason, I read Evans and thought Washington.

 

[Nearly]

I cannot comment on the US peaks as sadly I have not ridden them (yet) but I have climbed many of those listed in the OP (quite a few more than once) and many more which I have rated according to the Climbbybike formula. On balance (including to adjust for weather and subjective factors such how I felt or how fit I was at the time or how far I had ridden before I hit the climb in question) I would have to say that as far as I am concerned the formula is pretty spot on.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Have you ridden it? I'd love the data for a real ride. Going from 0m to 4205m has to be... impressive and really, really difficult.

I have not, nor will I ever. I won't even ride Haleakala, which is "easier".

Part of what makes Mauna Kea so impossible is that

• The sheer elevation, and gain, are staggering, more than any other single climb on the planet.
• It's almost impossible to acclimate, as there are only a few high roads on the island. You'd have to camp high up.
• Going from 0 to 4200m (13,000') can give you altitude sickness even if doing so by car.
• The steepest parts are near the top, some over 20%.
• The weather is extremely changeable. You may have 88 degrees and humidity at the bottom, rain in the middle, followed by hot sun over a lava field, then blowing snow at the top.
• The winds can be high in the last few miles, and you wouldn't know it until you got close. So much so the road signs have holes punched in them to let the wind blow through.
• There is no support in the upper third of the climb. Nowhere to even get water. You must have a support vehicle that is in good condition.

To me the climb shouldn't fully be on any list though without an asterisk, as there are large sections that are not paved. Even though it is paved at the top. Much of the upper middle are long stretches of little more than well-oiled dirt. Other sections of pavement are pretty old and broken up. It may be another 20 years before the entire road is paved.

As far as one solid paved climb goes, I believe Mauna Loa has more pavement, up to something like 11,500' from sea level. However, much of the upper section of this climb is old, beaten up asphalt.

Here's an excellent link, to a site about the roads.

 

[craig1985]

I have not, nor will I ever. I won't even ride Haleakala, which is "easier".

Part of what makes Mauna Kea so impossible is that

• The sheer elevation, and gain, are staggering, more than any other single climb on the planet.
• It's almost impossible to acclimate, as there are only a few high roads on the island. You'd have to camp high up.
• Going from 0 to 4200m (13,000') can give you altitude sickness even if doing so by car.
• The steepest parts are near the top, some over 20%.
• The weather is extremely changeable. You may have 88 degrees and humidity at the bottom, rain in the middle, followed by hot sun over a lava field, then blowing snow at the top.
• The winds can be high in the last few miles, and you wouldn't know it until you got close. So much so the road signs have holes punched in them to let the wind blow through.
• There is no support in the upper third of the climb. Nowhere to even get water. You must have a support vehicle that is in good condition.

To me the climb shouldn't fully be on any list though without an asterisk, as there are large sections that are not paved. Even though it is paved at the top. Much of the upper middle are long stretches of little more than well-oiled dirt. Other sections of pavement are pretty old and broken up. It may be another 20 years before the entire road is paved.

As far as one solid paved climb goes, I believe Mauna Loa has more pavement, up to something like 11,500' from sea level. However, much of the upper section of this climb is old, beaten up asphalt.

Here's an excellent link, to a site about the roads.

Sounds like an ironic punishment you would get if you went to hell. The climb that never ends...

As for Mt Evans, what is that makes it so hard, as the gradient isn't that bad (genuine question)?

 

[benpounder]

...I would have to say that as far as I am concerned the formula is pretty spot on.

I've ridden some of the classic Alp climbs, and a few of the Dolomite routes, and I'd agree that, generally speaking, the equation is fairly accurate.

But, as engineers are wont to do, I've been playing around with it, trying to see if I can incorporate both pitch (percentage of road steeper than __%) and road condition (percentage of road not paved). Finestre ranks quite high, but if you include the last kms that are unpaved, logic indicates it should get tougher. Same with Pikes Peak, Alto de l'Angliru, and Plan de Corones Kronplatz. My problem is I just dont have a comprehensive database to test my altered equations.

Again, this is why I started this thread. I had hoped that likeminded cyclists could join together and contribute their knowledge to establish such information - and yes including personal anecdote - with which such a ranking system could be developed.

[my edit]
Craig, length and altitude are what makes Evans rank high. Upthread someone mentioned that if you pace yourself, it really is not that tough. And that is true, but then you'd be out for a sunday stroll and not racing. Someone else mentioned that blowing up at altitude is quite different that blowing at lower altitudes. This is also true. Doesnt matter how fit you are, nor how full of nutrients, your blood just cant carry the necessary oxygen to your body.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re. Evens: Upthread someone mentioned that if you pace yourself, it really is not that tough. And that is true, but then you'd be out for a sunday stroll and not racing. Someone else mentioned that blowing up at altitude is quite different that blowing at lower altitudes.

All true. Pacing can be done on any climb. Mt. Washington, Alpe d'Huez. It's just a matter of the gearing and how much time you want to spend on the climb.

Agree completely on altitude. That's why it's somewhat frivolous to have a rating that compares Mt. Washington to Mt. Evans (or Pike's Peak). The numbers on Washington are harder. It's much steeper, and more gain (depending on where you start). But it's also a climb you don't need to acclimate to at all. Evans however you can somewhat acclimate to, making it "easier". But most people that ride it are still ending up 10,000' higher than what they are used to. Some more than that, which can be absolutely brutal. Put in another perspective, imagine a climb that is twice as high up as the Stelvio...

 

[craig1985]

What sort of altitude Mt Evans is at before you even start the climb?

 

[Ferminal]

Perhaps a start would be to have a Google Docs spreadsheet.