That's funny. There are a couple of Strava segments around town that are relevant here. One is 4.4% for only 0.4 miles (i.e. very similar to "Heartbreak Hill" on the Boston Marathon course); the other is 3.8% for 0.7 miles. As a runner I regularly pass cyclists on both, and that's from the minority who will even attempt them. I see many more walking their bikes, and I suspect the next street over from the shorter one has three to five times as many cyclists precisely because it goes around instead of over. Simply put, 5.7% for a mile is out of most cyclists' and runners' range, never mind the vast majority of the population who aren't either. I doubt even those who can handle it have "this isn't a hill" on their minds very much. Yes it damn well is a hill, and it's very noticeable even if you're one of those easy-mode folks who can build up speed at the start and coast down the other side at the end.
Most sports cyclists consider 5% a "steady climb". I don't doubt that you regularly pass cyclists on both, but for a sports cyclist I can confirm that - as the OP said - 6% is considered a mild gradient.
Cycling races regularly have hills above 10%. For example in the recent Giro d'Italia race the final 10km of the Blockhaus climb average 9.4% and the final 6km of the Santa Cristina are over 10%.
If you aren't looking to climb hills you'd avoid it for sure, but that isn't what the OP claimed.
Yes, it's a hill. Maybe a small hill, maybe a mild gradient, but still a hill. We already have multiple sports involved in this thread, and none of them have goalposts so let's not move any. The motorists, who have it even easier physically than the cyclists, call it a hill. Maybe we should just let them. Turning it into an "I'm so tough" contest is just silly, especially from folks who are squarely in the middle of the effort-per-mile scale.
Is referring to my previous comment where I said it was pretty mild.
The road in my backdoor that I use for my short cycling climbing loops is averaging 5.8% over 18.8km, from sea level to 1100m. It is only difficult because it includes 2 small descents in between which mean that some parts have to be double-digit gradients, including one at +17%, to reach that final elevation. Appart from that 17% part it is still considered a relatively easy climb.
So is it a hill? Yes. Is it a really small and mild one, also yes.
Since you persist ... have you ever tried that climb without a few thousand dollars worth of carbon fibre and aluminum to help? That was my original suggestion, and unlike some I'm sticking to it.
And I've seen people climb it with some 2-3 decade old 26" MTB and I climbed far more difficult climbs with my 13kg (28lbs) fat bike and my 15kg (33lbs) full suspension trail bike.
That's still not what I asked about, is it? People need to stop saying "it's easy for me" when "it" isn't what we were talking about. It's like a compulsion. 5.7% for a mile is still a hill and doing it on foot would put any ideas to the contrary out of anyone's mind. Doing it with a 3-4x mechanical advantage, even with 20% extra weight, proves nothing either about whether it's a hill or about the commenter.
>>> have you ever tried that climb without a few thousand dollars worth of carbon fibre and aluminum to help?
>> I've seen people climb it with some 2-3 decade old 26" MTB and I climbed far more difficult climbs with my 13kg (28lbs) fat bike and my 15kg (33lbs) full suspension trail bike.
> Not what I was asking.
That would be "yes". I don't understand how you think he didn't answer your question.
Edit: unless you mean "have you run/walked up it?" - but I don't understand what the point of that question would be.
> Not sure what point you're trying to make or refute
The person you responded to said "Even by cyclists standard, 6% is pretty mild." and you said "That's funny" and went on to say how some cyclists struggle on it.
I was confirming that "cyclists" (as in people who enjoy the sport of cycling as opposed to ride a bike to get somewhere) generally think a 6% hill is mild.
