I raced that course years ago, having done a track day on a motorcycle in the past, and even on a bicycle The Corkscrew is surprisingly tight. Not anything like doing it on/in a motorized vehicle, but more effort than I thought it would be. Mainly because that hill can pile on some serious speed. Sadly, I don't think I have the Garmin file from that race and can't look up exactly how fast I'd go down that hill.
133 feet doesn't mean an awful lot without knowing the gradient. I looked it up and it's 11%. That is surprisingly high! Not surprised people struggle on it. For trained cyclists it's not massive but will definitely be tough if you're not ready for it.
It depends on where you live and how much you bicycle.
133ft @ 11% is a speed bump to most competitive or avid amateur cyclists. Where I live 1000ft of climbing per hour would be "hilly" but not mountainous. In mountainous regions you can very easily go on rides requiring climbing > 10,000ft over the course of a 3-5 hour ride.
It is actually common to have bicycle races at car race tracks, I've done it. But on one of these F1 courses you'd race many many laps of the track and the officials would pull anyone out of the race if they fall behind to avoid anyone getting lapped and causing safety issues.
If you ride that 133ft hill on the race track 10-30x in the course of a race then it starts to be annoying as there is going to be someone who attacks up the hill every lap, and if you fall off the back on the hill you'd stand a good chance of not catching up and being pulled from the race. A typical road race would have the lower categories doing around 8 laps of a track like COTA to get to a 25 mile race and the upper classes would be doing 30ish to get to a race closer to 100 miles.
> 133ft @ 11% is a speed bump to most competitive or avid amateur cyclists.
I've been a competitive-ish triathlete for five years, and I have to disagree.
From "The Climbing Cyclist, Gradients and cycling, an introduction" [1]:
* 0%: A flat road
* 1-3%: Slightly uphill but not particularly
challenging. A bit like riding into the wind.
* 4-6%: A manageable gradient that can cause fatigue
over long periods.
* 7-9%: Starting to become uncomfortable for seasoned
riders, and very challenging for new climbers.
* 10%-15%: A painful gradient, especially if maintained
for any length of time
* 16%+: Very challenging for riders of all abilities.
Maintaining this sort of incline for any
length of time is very painful.
Agreed. GP mentions 1000ft/hour being "hilly" but thats something like 1000ft in 1000000ft at serious cyclist rate, so averaging 1%-ish. Obviously it's unlikely to be uniform, but doesn't really support the argument. If you are on a 10% grade for any length of tim you know it even if you are a pro.
The point was the hill is only 133 feet high, at 11% it's about 1000ft long, less than 1/4 mile. The duration of the climb is very important as well as the grade and in the case of this racetrack hill there's just no duration.
It's over in less than a minute for a fit cyclist. You would hit the bottom of the hill at > 20mph and your momentum is going to help you get partway up the hill before they hit the point they even have to climb at a steady speed. It's not even long enough for "climber" type cyclists to be able to start dropping heavier sprinter type cyclists because it's a quick little effort and you're over the top. Even if you're in a race and had to do 10 laps (a short beginner level distance) you would still only climb 1330 feet across a 30 mile race, which would generally be considered a fairly flat race.
The Tour De France has a classification system for climbs.. this one would be so short it would not necessarily even get a classification since it's not even 0.5km.
A really scary climb would be > 10% for 10km or more. I had mentioned the Mt. Washington Hill climb in NH. That is 7mi/11km at a 13% average grade with essentially no letup the entire climb and some sections exceeding 20%. An excellent time is anything under an hour and twenty minutes and if you can break 1 hour you're putting in a world class performance. A winning time up that mountain would considerably longer than a 10 lap race of COTA, average speed at COTA for an elite group would be around 30mph for 10 laps of COTA in all likelihood.
The hill at this race track is not even going to register to most serious cyclists.
Agree duration is an important factor, an nobody would suggest this was a "real" climb in the tour-de-france sense.
I think we are differing mostly on semantics. I would say for a serious cyclist, it will register but would not be any kind of challenge. Not sure why you are bringing elite cyclists (cf again, TDF) into it, there is an absolutely massive gap between the average serious cyclist and the elites.
Gearing matters. If you're riding a dedicated tri bike with typical race gears then an 11% gradient is tough. On a road bike with a compact crankset it's fine.
Just to correct this point for anyone who doesn't follow the sport like the author:
> This F1 fansite claims that cars can get to around 110 km/h (~70 mph) climbing this thing, which we very much did not achieve.
The fansite link is stating that cars will brake to approach the sharp left-hander of turn 1 at 110km/h (~70mph) (site claims 85km/h on the apex), they'll do well in excess of that on the run up (300km/h+ on a flying lap or still comfortably beyond 200km/h from a standing start).
With that out of the way it looks a great way of using a racetrack when cars aren't going around it, and I'll have to see if there's anything similar in the UK as a lot of racetracks will often have very pleasant surrounds and similarly undulating elevations for a bit of a challenge. (Brands Hatch strikes me as having a lot of potential for a particularly pleasant ride)
There's a local racetrack here in Waterford, Michigan, US (north of Detroit) which hosts road bike races. It really is a great use, because it's a closed/non-open-to-public route which is generally well paved and free of the usual road debris (gravel, grass, car parts, glass).
Bicycle road races are otherwise pretty complicated to put on, because they require a section of road that can be closed (eg: private industrial park / campus), sometimes work done to the road to clean it beforehand, etc. Using a race track has a lot of this done for you.
I have a habit of looking at the calendars of the tracks F1 goes to, just out of curiosity. Many of them have bicycle events in addition to car events, for exactly the reasons you would think (and mentioned): well-maintained roads with no cars, an interesting, undulating course, nice surroundings, and infrastructure for crowds.
As an example, the 2020 UCI Road World championship was centered around the Imola track, and looking at their schedule they frequently have other cycling events.
The Clash triathlon series uses NASCAR tracks for their races. The scenery is a bit monotonous for athletes, but the bike courses are very safe and it gives spectators a better view of the action.
The UCI Tour of California has been to Laguna Seca too, it was one of my least favorite bike race watching experiences.
Professional road cycling generally has no barriers between spectators and the riders except in key areas or start/finish lines. A race track designed for cars of course has enormous run off areas and view blocking steel safety structures, tire walls for 150mph+ accidents - you don't need these for a bike race. The result is spectators generally sat far, far further away and the atmosphere is IMO much worse for it. I've had far more fun sat at the side of mountain stages with friends and a few beers.
That said, of course it has the advantage you get to see the riders multiple times instead of just once as is case on most point to point stages, but easy access to live streams on phones/tablets makes the race so easy to follow at the roadside anyway.
On the other hand maybe some separation between the cyclists and spectators isn't a terrible idea? Or at the very least require the spectators to have a least a minimal level of situational awareness.
I don't ride a road bicycle for safety reasons, but I do live in Austin. One of the unexpected benefits of COTA is many bicyclists I've met have praised the bicycling events there. Some large bicycle races even use it as a starting point.
I know that Castle Coombe has regular bicycle races - both criteriums and time trials.
Pretty sure many of the circuits do, as its a good way to use the track and get some cash in, as they are often regulated in the number of motor races due to noise issues.
Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal is the track for the Canadian Grand Prix F1 race. It's usually open to cyclists, and when I was there a few years ago I rented one of those horrible Bixi bikes and made a few laps.
Yea the track in Montréal is open to cyclists for most of the season; along with the mountain itself it is one of the two main places in the city where cyclists tend to train.
Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is a fantastic place not just for cycling, but also running and roller-blading. I have been there for a couple of runs - the lanes are clearly demarcated, and the track is a real treat to run on.
I've done this once. It was OK, but at the end of the day it's like shutting down a highway and letting you bike on it. It's just a huge (from the POV of a cyclist) empty concrete road. I'd much rather bike around the actual city or do a trail through trees with some sights to see.
Basically, it's all of the bad and boring aspects of driving excepts you're on a bike. But to me one of the best parts of biking is that you're not in a cage on a boring highway. It also has big "drive my truck to the gym to do a run" vibes since it's in the middle of nowhere.
That said, turn 1 is a (fun) beast and being around a bunch of people excited to cycle is the best part.
I've not been yet but the draws for me are (1) the novelty and (2) an uninterrupted ride. There aren't many places you I've found to ride that isn't stop and go while also being safe. If only 360 wasn't suicide to ride.
I am sure it's fun, but there ARE actual velodromes in the US and they're much more interesting for spectators and cyclists than something that's set up for a car.
A typical setup for a velodrome is 1/3 of a Kilometer oval with 30 degree banked turns (you don't even notice that angle at velodrome speed, 20+ mph, because you're pretty much perpendicular to the surface and riding on the circumference). This gives spectators a view of the whole track and it's setup for many different UCI-sanctioned events-- match-sprint, madison, time-trials, kerin/moto-pacing, etc.
I wish there were more velodromes, it's a great sport and especially exciting to watch because all the action happens in a matter of minutes.
Velodrome and road cycling are completely different disciplines. This is like saying that why bother building purpose built track and field venue so you can do the 100m run there when just some random piece of tarmac would do (it works for marathons so obviously it is fine as a running surface)
> I am sure it's fun, but there ARE actual velodromes in the US and they're much more interesting for spectators and cyclists than something that's set up for a car.
Austin also has an "velodrome-like" track called the Veloway. It's outside, so it can get hot, and it's not an oval track, but it's very fun.
> The Veloway at Circle C Ranch Metropolitan Park was constructed in the early 90’s and was the first facility of its kind in the United States. The Veloway is a 23’ wide, 3.1 miles (5K) long bicycle tract that traverses the natural terrain. People travel from all over the metropolitan region to cycle here on a daily basis. The project was partially funded by a Texas Parks and Wildlife Grant.
Note on typography: I know this is very common in the US, but I just cannot get used to em-dashes without spaces around them. I tried for ~30secs to figure out what "circling-or" and "cyciling-the" might be, until I realized that those dashes are meant to separate, not join. IMHO "circling - or cycling - the tack" is much easier to read.
44 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 20.8 ms ] thread133ft @ 11% is a speed bump to most competitive or avid amateur cyclists. Where I live 1000ft of climbing per hour would be "hilly" but not mountainous. In mountainous regions you can very easily go on rides requiring climbing > 10,000ft over the course of a 3-5 hour ride.
It is actually common to have bicycle races at car race tracks, I've done it. But on one of these F1 courses you'd race many many laps of the track and the officials would pull anyone out of the race if they fall behind to avoid anyone getting lapped and causing safety issues.
If you ride that 133ft hill on the race track 10-30x in the course of a race then it starts to be annoying as there is going to be someone who attacks up the hill every lap, and if you fall off the back on the hill you'd stand a good chance of not catching up and being pulled from the race. A typical road race would have the lower categories doing around 8 laps of a track like COTA to get to a 25 mile race and the upper classes would be doing 30ish to get to a race closer to 100 miles.
I've been a competitive-ish triathlete for five years, and I have to disagree.
From "The Climbing Cyclist, Gradients and cycling, an introduction" [1]:
[1]: http://theclimbingcyclist.com/gradients-and-cycling-an-intro... (archive: https://archive.is/Nx8HX)It's over in less than a minute for a fit cyclist. You would hit the bottom of the hill at > 20mph and your momentum is going to help you get partway up the hill before they hit the point they even have to climb at a steady speed. It's not even long enough for "climber" type cyclists to be able to start dropping heavier sprinter type cyclists because it's a quick little effort and you're over the top. Even if you're in a race and had to do 10 laps (a short beginner level distance) you would still only climb 1330 feet across a 30 mile race, which would generally be considered a fairly flat race.
The Tour De France has a classification system for climbs.. this one would be so short it would not necessarily even get a classification since it's not even 0.5km.
A really scary climb would be > 10% for 10km or more. I had mentioned the Mt. Washington Hill climb in NH. That is 7mi/11km at a 13% average grade with essentially no letup the entire climb and some sections exceeding 20%. An excellent time is anything under an hour and twenty minutes and if you can break 1 hour you're putting in a world class performance. A winning time up that mountain would considerably longer than a 10 lap race of COTA, average speed at COTA for an elite group would be around 30mph for 10 laps of COTA in all likelihood.
The hill at this race track is not even going to register to most serious cyclists.
I think we are differing mostly on semantics. I would say for a serious cyclist, it will register but would not be any kind of challenge. Not sure why you are bringing elite cyclists (cf again, TDF) into it, there is an absolutely massive gap between the average serious cyclist and the elites.
> This F1 fansite claims that cars can get to around 110 km/h (~70 mph) climbing this thing, which we very much did not achieve.
The fansite link is stating that cars will brake to approach the sharp left-hander of turn 1 at 110km/h (~70mph) (site claims 85km/h on the apex), they'll do well in excess of that on the run up (300km/h+ on a flying lap or still comfortably beyond 200km/h from a standing start).
With that out of the way it looks a great way of using a racetrack when cars aren't going around it, and I'll have to see if there's anything similar in the UK as a lot of racetracks will often have very pleasant surrounds and similarly undulating elevations for a bit of a challenge. (Brands Hatch strikes me as having a lot of potential for a particularly pleasant ride)
Details: https://www.flyingrhinocc.com/flying-rhino-race-series
Bicycle road races are otherwise pretty complicated to put on, because they require a section of road that can be closed (eg: private industrial park / campus), sometimes work done to the road to clean it beforehand, etc. Using a race track has a lot of this done for you.
As an example, the 2020 UCI Road World championship was centered around the Imola track, and looking at their schedule they frequently have other cycling events.
https://www.triathlete.com/events/challenge-u-s-splits-with-...
Professional road cycling generally has no barriers between spectators and the riders except in key areas or start/finish lines. A race track designed for cars of course has enormous run off areas and view blocking steel safety structures, tire walls for 150mph+ accidents - you don't need these for a bike race. The result is spectators generally sat far, far further away and the atmosphere is IMO much worse for it. I've had far more fun sat at the side of mountain stages with friends and a few beers.
That said, of course it has the advantage you get to see the riders multiple times instead of just once as is case on most point to point stages, but easy access to live streams on phones/tablets makes the race so easy to follow at the roadside anyway.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/27/sport/tour-de-france-crash-in...
Because it's one of those comments that took 3s to write but would take a lot of effort to properly respond to, because it's 'not even wrong'.
Basically, it's all of the bad and boring aspects of driving excepts you're on a bike. But to me one of the best parts of biking is that you're not in a cage on a boring highway. It also has big "drive my truck to the gym to do a run" vibes since it's in the middle of nowhere.
That said, turn 1 is a (fun) beast and being around a bunch of people excited to cycle is the best part.
https://www.austintexas.gov/department/southern-walnut-creek...
https://radamring.de/en/disciplines/24h-bike-race/
A typical setup for a velodrome is 1/3 of a Kilometer oval with 30 degree banked turns (you don't even notice that angle at velodrome speed, 20+ mph, because you're pretty much perpendicular to the surface and riding on the circumference). This gives spectators a view of the whole track and it's setup for many different UCI-sanctioned events-- match-sprint, madison, time-trials, kerin/moto-pacing, etc.
I wish there were more velodromes, it's a great sport and especially exciting to watch because all the action happens in a matter of minutes.
Austin also has an "velodrome-like" track called the Veloway. It's outside, so it can get hot, and it's not an oval track, but it's very fun.
> The Veloway at Circle C Ranch Metropolitan Park was constructed in the early 90’s and was the first facility of its kind in the United States. The Veloway is a 23’ wide, 3.1 miles (5K) long bicycle tract that traverses the natural terrain. People travel from all over the metropolitan region to cycle here on a daily basis. The project was partially funded by a Texas Parks and Wildlife Grant.
http://austintexas.gov/department/veloway
(PDF link) https://velodrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-Freds-...