If you have a room with a length of five meters, measure one meter height at one end of the wall and then draw a line on the wall from the floor at one end to a point one meter above the floor at the other end of the wall. And imagine that you have ride on that line (20%) few km...
Ok, I agree that 14% is extremely hard, we can see how difficulty is for cyclists to climb mountains, but I can't understand one thing. 14% is 8º, but if you see the moountain profile it looks like 80º...
like this one:
Of course the profile is not in scale (height = distance) so that we can understand something from it From example, see as the height meters climbed in the Tourmalet from Bareges (nearly 1000m) corresponds to about 30~35 kms horizontally (in the distances)
lluuiiggii wrote:
Of course the profile is not in scale (height = distance) so that we can understand something from it From example, see as the height meters climbed in the Tourmalet from Bareges (nearly 1000m) corresponds to about 11 kms horizontally (in the distances)
fixed
an altitude increase of 975m in 11km
works out to be 8.86% average for those 11kms
samdiatmh wrote:
fixed
an altitude increase of 975m in 11km
works out to be 8.86% average for those 11kms
Not what I meant
Andriy asked why, if 14% is ~8º, in the profiles it looks like 80º or so. And the answer is that 1 meter in the Y axis (height meters) does not correspond to 1 m in the X axis (horizontal distance). Then, as a comparison that could be easily done, the approx. 1000 m climbed in the Tourmalet from Bareges does not at all correspond to 1 km horizontally, and more more like 30 kms horizontally, as this image shows:
So that's why a 5º, 6º road in real life looks like an 80º in the profile (actually 65º in this example of the Tourmalet).
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
