longest bicycle descent?

writes:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:46:00 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

writes:

What are the longest (not steepest) descents?

That is, where would a lazy fellow get to coast the farthest? A
little pedalling is acceptable, here and there, but the descent in
general has to be steady and steep enough to allow 15-20 mph
coasting, which translates to around a 2 to 3% grade.

From the top of the Galibier to Embrun looks to be just about all
downhill, maybe 45 miles? It's a drop from 2646 meters to about 475
meters. I haven't ridden that road past Briancon, so I don't know
if there's any climbing between there and Embrun. Going the other
way from Galibier into Grenoble brings one from 2646 meters to about
250 meters, if my Michelin atlas is correct. I don't feel like
adding up all the little numbers to get the distance, but it looks
to be about 50 miles. It wouldn't be all downhill, there'd be
streches you'd have to pedal and a couple of slight rises. I
remember it being a long way down from the top of the Izoard to
Guillestre, maybe 20 miles. These are good quality descents as well
as long ones.

Dear Tim,

Maybe the middle entry, the one called Chatelard?

http://tinyurl.com/5lkuo

Clicking on it shows a relief graph with gradients running around 35
km (and maybe more, since the graph goes down to only 700 meters
above sea level), but there's an ugly 5km 3.4% climb in the middle.

I've gone up that in the other direction, from St. Michel de Maurienne
up to Galibier. From the Galibier side, that "ugly climb" ((which is
the Col du Telegraphe) would be barely noticeable- you'd coast up a
fair amount of it and a 3.4% climb is not so much to climb. It's
much tougher going up the other side of Telegraphe. ;-)

On 31 Aug 2004 05:46:51 -0700, (DirtRoadie) wrote:

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message ...
... From my own experience, though, there is a really long
descent down the Lochsa River near the Idaho/Montana border. It
is 65 miles or so, but a very mild grade -- probably in 3- 4 %
range on average.

That would be an elevation change in the range of about 10,300 to
13,700 feet over that distance. I expect your estimate of the grade is
a bit high. I would also expect that if it is a road following a
river, it may be any easy cruise but is probably not truly
"coastable."

He mentioned that he only rode it going up, so that means the estimate's going
to be on the high side.

Ron

On 31 Aug 2004 05:46:51 -0700, (DirtRoadie) wrote:

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message ...
... From my own experience, though, there is a really long
descent down the Lochsa River near the Idaho/Montana border. It
is 65 miles or so, but a very mild grade -- probably in 3- 4 %
range on average.

That would be an elevation change in the range of about 10,300 to
13,700 feet over that distance. I expect your estimate of the grade is
a bit high. I would also expect that if it is a road following a
river, it may be any easy cruise but is probably not truly
"coastable."

He mentioned that he only rode it going up, so that means the estimate's going
to be on the high side.

Ron

"RonSonic" wrote in message
...
On 31 Aug 2004 05:46:51 -0700, (DirtRoadie)
wrote:

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message
...
... From my own experience, though, there is a really long
descent down the Lochsa River near the Idaho/Montana border.
It
is 65 miles or so, but a very mild grade -- probably in 3- 4
%
range on average.

That would be an elevation change in the range of about 10,300
to
13,700 feet over that distance. I expect your estimate of the
grade is
a bit high. I would also expect that if it is a road following
a
river, it may be any easy cruise but is probably not truly
"coastable."

He mentioned that he only rode it going up, so that means the
estimate's going
to be on the high side.

Always! I will never get an inclinometer or altimeter for fear
of learning that all my 2000 foot climbs are only 1000 foot
climbs -- or that my 10% climbs are only 7%. I was totally
bummed out after buying my first Avocet cyclometer in the early
'80s and finding that my long rides were not as long as I thought
by about 15%. I have no electronics on any of my bikes, but I
may go back to racing next year and buy a cyclometer just to keep
myself honest about speed and distance. -- Jay Beattie.

"RonSonic" wrote in message
...
On 31 Aug 2004 05:46:51 -0700, (DirtRoadie)
wrote:

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message
...
... From my own experience, though, there is a really long
descent down the Lochsa River near the Idaho/Montana border.
It
is 65 miles or so, but a very mild grade -- probably in 3- 4
%
range on average.

That would be an elevation change in the range of about 10,300
to
13,700 feet over that distance. I expect your estimate of the
grade is
a bit high. I would also expect that if it is a road following
a
river, it may be any easy cruise but is probably not truly
"coastable."

He mentioned that he only rode it going up, so that means the
estimate's going
to be on the high side.

Always! I will never get an inclinometer or altimeter for fear
of learning that all my 2000 foot climbs are only 1000 foot
climbs -- or that my 10% climbs are only 7%. I was totally
bummed out after buying my first Avocet cyclometer in the early
'80s and finding that my long rides were not as long as I thought
by about 15%. I have no electronics on any of my bikes, but I
may go back to racing next year and buy a cyclometer just to keep
myself honest about speed and distance. -- Jay Beattie.