# miles ridden or vertical feet climbed? Better stat?



## drjeff (Jun 5, 2010)

I know the obvious answer is "it's a combo of the 2" but does one or the other make a difference to you between say a "good" ride/workout and a "really good/great" ride/workout?

Myself, maybe because I can be a sucker for punishment (and regularly ride a 6 mile loop with 1500+ ft of climbing) looks at the vertical feet climbed as my preferred of the two stats - also realizing that the more I climb, the more I get to descend on my way back to my car


----------



## o3jeff (Jun 5, 2010)

Combination of the two. 10 miles and 200 vertical is nothing, but 3 miles and 1000 vertical will have me out of breath for a bit!

I like a good combination of the two for good ride


----------



## mondeo (Jun 5, 2010)

Both. More of a miles + elevation change. 1000 ft I'd say is worth about 10 miles or so (road riding, that is.)

If 10 miles + 200 ft is nothing, then you're not going fast enough.


----------



## marcski (Jun 5, 2010)

drjeff said:


> I know the obvious answer is "it's a combo of the 2" but does one or the other make a difference to you between say a "good" ride/workout and a "really good/great" ride/workout?
> 
> Myself, maybe because I can be a sucker for punishment (and regularly ride a 6 mile loop with 1500+ ft of climbing) looks at the vertical feet climbed as my preferred of the two stats - also realizing that the more I climb, the more I get to descend on my way back to my car



Both, plus add average speed in as a third barometer too.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 5, 2010)

Vert/Mile seems better than either taken individually. 2000' in 36.5 miles was a heck of a lot easier than 2124' in 27 miles -- just to compare rides I have done from the past two weekends. And while 34.5 miles last week was perhaps my second longest ride of the year so far, it was only 1279' vert. On the flip side, 1500' vert in 19ish miles is my local big hill climb which is quite a work out despite the short miles.

Then there are rides during which you ride a lot of miles and have one big hill versus other rides that are shorter but have a lot of up and down or other rides with more constant climbing with low grade but longer stretches. All different types of rides in which the miles/vert could be the same but different riders will like different rides differently. I like rolling up/downs to start but hate them at the end of a ride (which sucks for me because I can't ride from home without doing them first AND last no matter where I go!).

I just try to find a good mix of vert/miles for my mood, energy level, and physical readiness depending on the day. Difficult to find the ideal mix but when I get it right, it feels good.


----------



## MR. evil (Jun 6, 2010)

I have been on fairly flat rides that were uber technical that seemed like way more of a work out vs long rides with lots of vert. Lynn woods would be a great example. Did a 5 mile loop there with Austin that felt like 12 plus miles with about 5000 feet of climbing.


----------



## Marc (Jun 6, 2010)

Workout quality depends mostly on how hard you push.  But it's easier to be lazy on flat.


----------



## gorgonzola (Jun 7, 2010)

i'm with with evil...although i log my miles i'm not a huge stats guy - but for mtb i think technical difficulty trumps all and makes the rest kinda useless. the 6 mile loop at bear creek probably has less than 750' vert but navigating the rocks and the nature of the climbs kick my ass every time alot more than most of the longer and hillier rides .


----------



## bvibert (Jun 7, 2010)

The most important stat to me is the fun factor.  Next to that is amount of blood spilled and difficultly of breathing.

I keep track of miles, but that's just because it's the easiest to quantify.


----------



## Talisman (Jun 7, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Next to that is amount of blood spilled .



Rocks & tree bark or biting insects & animals?


----------



## bvibert (Jun 7, 2010)

Talisman said:


> Rocks & tree bark or biting insects & animals?


Rocks and tree bark are the usual suspects.  Sometimes it's pointy branches (and other such sharp vegetation) and not the bark so much though.


----------



## MR. evil (Jun 7, 2010)

gorgonzola said:


> i'm with with evil...although i log my miles i'm not a huge stats guy - but for mtb i think technical difficulty trumps all and makes the rest kinda useless. the 6 mile loop at bear creek probably has less than 750' vert but navigating the rocks and the nature of the climbs kick my ass every time alot more than most of the longer and hillier rides .



For me, it's that on really technical ride you also have to use slot of upper body strength in addition to your legs.


----------

