Wonderful weather with temperatures of 1.5 to 4 degrees.

Some of the lakes were already frozen.

I would be interested in: What kind of tool is it? And the gradient values are definitely not right. It is about 1% total gradient, not 3% at 600m on almost 60km. Or what does the information refer to?

This is from Sigma Data Center. But I agree with you. That cant be true. I have now looked at several tours, where the ratio is e.g. 100 km and 1,000 hm. It mostly shows the 3% average gradient instead of 1%. I don't understand either.

A good tool if you want to know exactly:



kreuzotter.de/deutsch/steigung.htm



It could of course be that it only takes the km that you have ridden uphill, but if I look at the graph it would be at least half that, since there are almost no flat sections, and then we would be at 2%. Strange. But tour is still nice ;-)

Right, you're right again. Can and may only calculate the km uphill and the middle section of the route is also very flat, approx. 10 km and less than 0.5%.

Yes, but the total gradient results from the total kilometers. If I drive 10 km as flat as a top, then 10 km with 1000 meters of altitude (so Sa-Calobra-wise :)), then I still have "only" 5 percent on average - and not 10 percent. Really strange how or what Sigma calculates what ...

That's right (but only if it is 10 km pot level). But if I go 10 km with 1000 m down and 10 km up with 1000 m, then it is 10% up on average. The downward slope is not calculated. That is a fact.

No, sorry, you are making a mistake in reasoning. In our example: It doesn't matter whether 10 km of it is flat or sloping. All of this does not fall into the incline (!), Whereby 10km downhill are of course more beautiful ;-) And if you did, it would be the other way around, i.e. if you had a downhill… Leer más

I did the math. If I drive 10 km with 10 hm, that's 0.1% gradient. He cannot calculate or record that at all, that would be absurd. So the whole thing can be right somehow. That is the mean value of the slope.

Your specified tool says: You can calculate the altitude difference with incline and decline. This is your case. But we as cyclists don't want that and only want the mean value of the gradient. This is mine.

When I drive 100 km, 99 km of it perfectly flat and 1 km with 100 m ascent. Then I am interested in the one km with a 10% gradient. That means I have an average gradient of 10%. I am not interested in anything else.

That also means that he calculates in my favor.

This also means that it calculates all… Leer más

Another example.

At home is the Hesselberg with a climb of 3.0 km and 223 m elevation gain.

I made a section from the beginning of the incline to the summit and back down again. That is, 2 x 3 = 6 km. He rounded up 8% (actually 7.7%) on the 3 km incline, and in my opinion that is correct.