Death Ride, schmeth ride: check this out!

http://www.dairylanddare.com/

300 km and 18,946 vertical feet.

You mountain dwellers think your rides are so tough ;-)

I think I'll be doing the 200 km.

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy wrote:
http://www.dairylanddare.com/

300 km and 18,946 vertical feet.

You mountain dwellers think your rides are so tough ;-)

I think I'll be doing the 200 km.

D'ohBoy

It sounds like something I would at least attempt. 18,946' of climbing
must mean that much free coasting back down, and I don't take 8 x 15
minute rest stops. Besides, 300 KM is only about 200 miles (quick,
someone get a calculator and tell me how wrong I am). I would probably
come in on my headlight, but I think I WOULD make the 300 KM, even on a
mountain bike. Sore and tired and sleep the next day (all day), but I
would do it.
Bill Baka

D'ohBoy wrote:
http://www.dairylanddare.com/

300 km and 18,946 vertical feet.

You mountain dwellers think your rides are so tough ;-)

I think I'll be doing the 200 km.

D'ohBoy

Problem is, they appear to have used TopoUSA for their elevation gain
calcs, and TopoUSA is known to overestimate by anywhere from 30-80%+
depending on how many curves are on the road (the calc problem is the
the vectors are too long relative to real road segments, leading to the
approximation being very poor). So in the real world, when someone
uses more precise measurement techniques, I would venture the
eleveation gain for the 300K to be anywhere from 10-12K feet. Not bad,
but not anywhere near 18K. Nice marketing ploy, though.

- rick

"Rick" wrote in message
oups.com...

D'ohBoy wrote:
http://www.dairylanddare.com/

300 km and 18,946 vertical feet.

You mountain dwellers think your rides are so tough ;-)

I think I'll be doing the 200 km.

D'ohBoy

Problem is, they appear to have used TopoUSA for their elevation gain
calcs, and TopoUSA is known to overestimate by anywhere from 30-80%+
depending on how many curves are on the road (the calc problem is the
the vectors are too long relative to real road segments, leading to the
approximation being very poor). So in the real world, when someone
uses more precise measurement techniques, I would venture the
eleveation gain for the 300K to be anywhere from 10-12K feet. Not bad,
but not anywhere near 18K. Nice marketing ploy, though.

- rick


Ditto - TopoUSA is notorious for overestimating.

And with the maximum climb not even 500', I'd have a hard time believing the
total elevation gain is more than 12,000 feet. That would amount to a
"hilly to mountainous" ride with about 64 feet of climbing per mile.

FWIW, the real Death Ride has about twice as much climbing per mile (117
feet per mile, by my estimates). Plus, elevations in excess of 8000 feet,
and much longer climbs.

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

Longer climbs are not necessarily harder. In fact I'd argue that they
make is easier. This ride is tough because of the short, steep, brutal
climbs that force the body into the anaerobic zone. On big mountains,
the rider has no choice but to find a sub-threshold steady state that
can be maintained for long periods of time. I've talked to folks who
have done both the Wisconsin Horribly Hilly Hundreds
(http://www.horriblyhilly.com) and the Colorado Triple Bypass and swear
that the HHH is a tougher ride. If you disagree, come out and try it
for yourself! Also, we'll be doing preview training rides on the
course with Garmin and Polar devices. My experience from riding in the
area is that the results from these devices are pretty damn close to
those that I get from Topo.

"GaryG" wrote in message
...
"Rick" wrote in message
oups.com...

D'ohBoy wrote:
http://www.dairylanddare.com/

300 km and 18,946 vertical feet.

You mountain dwellers think your rides are so tough ;-)

I think I'll be doing the 200 km.

D'ohBoy

Problem is, they appear to have used TopoUSA for their elevation gain
calcs, and TopoUSA is known to overestimate by anywhere from 30-80%+
depending on how many curves are on the road (the calc problem is the
the vectors are too long relative to real road segments, leading to the
approximation being very poor). So in the real world, when someone
uses more precise measurement techniques, I would venture the
eleveation gain for the 300K to be anywhere from 10-12K feet. Not bad,
but not anywhere near 18K. Nice marketing ploy, though.

- rick


Ditto - TopoUSA is notorious for overestimating.

And with the maximum climb not even 500', I'd have a hard time believing
the
total elevation gain is more than 12,000 feet. That would amount to a
"hilly to mountainous" ride with about 64 feet of climbing per mile.

FWIW, the real Death Ride has about twice as much climbing per mile (117
feet per mile, by my estimates). Plus, elevations in excess of 8000 feet,
and much longer climbs.

--
~_-*
...G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

And then there's the Devil Mountain Double -- 209 miles, 18,703 feet of
climbing, including a couple of 18% grades, and sustained climbs of over
3000 feet, many miles long.

-Jim

Quoth Bill:

...but I think I WOULD make the 300 KM, even on a
mountain bike. Sore and tired and sleep the next day (all day), but I
would do it.

Easy to say, not so easy to do. I'd pay $20 to chuckle at you grinding
up the 15+ % grades around here all day long on a mtn bike.

Your legs must be even stronger than the Great Ed Dolan's!

300 km ~ 186 miles.

D'ohBoy, who has done the Death Ride (well, four passes, but I'll be
finishing this year) and ridden the areas for both the HHH and the
Dairyland Dare

Dairyland Dare Moderator wrote:
Longer climbs are not necessarily harder. In fact I'd argue that they
make is easier. This ride is tough because of the short, steep, brutal
climbs that force the body into the anaerobic zone. On big mountains,
the rider has no choice but to find a sub-threshold steady state that
can be maintained for long periods of time. I've talked to folks who
have done both the Wisconsin Horribly Hilly Hundreds
(http://www.horriblyhilly.com) and the Colorado Triple Bypass and swear
that the HHH is a tougher ride. If you disagree, come out and try it
for yourself! Also, we'll be doing preview training rides on the
course with Garmin and Polar devices. My experience from riding in the
area is that the results from these devices are pretty damn close to
those that I get from Topo.


Don't forget the elevation aspect. I am not certain, but I would say the
real Death Ride has an average elevation of over 9,000 feet.
Oh, and it is over 25,000 feet total gain.

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado

Owner/Operator of the Pekingnese Ranch.

"Craig Brossman" wrote in message
...
Dairyland Dare Moderator wrote:
Longer climbs are not necessarily harder. In fact I'd argue that they
make is easier. This ride is tough because of the short, steep, brutal
climbs that force the body into the anaerobic zone. On big mountains,
the rider has no choice but to find a sub-threshold steady state that
can be maintained for long periods of time. I've talked to folks who
have done both the Wisconsin Horribly Hilly Hundreds
(http://www.horriblyhilly.com) and the Colorado Triple Bypass and swear
that the HHH is a tougher ride. If you disagree, come out and try it
for yourself! Also, we'll be doing preview training rides on the
course with Garmin and Polar devices. My experience from riding in the
area is that the results from these devices are pretty damn close to
those that I get from Topo.


Don't forget the elevation aspect. I am not certain, but I would say the
real Death Ride has an average elevation of over 9,000 feet.
Oh, and it is over 25,000 feet total gain.

Not quite...

The highest pass is Ebbett's - 8730 feet elevation, and I suspect the
average elevation is a bit over 7000..

The total climbing for the 5 passes is 15,000.

GG


--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado

Owner/Operator of the Pekingnese Ranch.

"Dairyland Dare Moderator" wrote in message
oups.com...
Longer climbs are not necessarily harder. In fact I'd argue that they
make is easier. This ride is tough because of the short, steep, brutal
climbs that force the body into the anaerobic zone. On big mountains,
the rider has no choice but to find a sub-threshold steady state that
can be maintained for long periods of time. I've talked to folks who
have done both the Wisconsin Horribly Hilly Hundreds
(http://www.horriblyhilly.com) and the Colorado Triple Bypass and swear
that the HHH is a tougher ride. If you disagree, come out and try it
for yourself! Also, we'll be doing preview training rides on the
course with Garmin and Polar devices. My experience from riding in the
area is that the results from these devices are pretty damn close to
those that I get from Topo.


Short steep hills *can* make for a tough ride...at times I've found it hard
to find a rhythm on them, and they can certainly add up over the course of a
ride. They can also be mentally challenging, as there's no real "reward"
(or bragging rights) for doing 6 500' climbs, as opposed to a single 3000
foot climb.

But, compared to my experience on Carson Pass at last year's Death Ride (17
miles of climbing into a 20 mph headwind, when I already had 90 miles and
12,000 feet of climbing in my legs), I just don't think a series of
200'-500' rollers would present near the challenge.

It's a whole different game when you're forced to commit to climbing for 1-2
hours. Most 500 foot climbs are over and done with in 10-12 minutes, and
then you're relaxing on the downhill.

longer climbs being easier
The evidence offered by the major tours seems to point in the opposite
direction - most grand tours are decided not on the short steep rollers of
northern France or Tuscany, but in the big mountains of the Alps and
Dolomites.

being forced into the anaerobic zone by short climbs.
I disagree. That's just a matter of technique and pacing, no matter how
long the climb.

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists