Google Maps can now tell cyclists how HIGH they will get Google has added elevation information for cyclists into its online Google Maps offering, a boon for those biking in unfamiliar areas, as well as for those who – like your humble Reg reporter – are well past their prime. The feature is accessed simply by clicking on the bicycle icon in the map's info box after you input two …
At least in part anyway. I just tried entering a trip I know well on a bike here in the UK and was actually surprised to see it select the route I would take - it isn't very long since Google took you out of the way with those locations to send you along main roads. However, no elevation figures.
Google tells me that it is 6.2 miles. Ordnance Survey tell me that end to end it is an overall 300' climb - no easy way to tell the actual amount climbed since it is up and down along the way. On the other hand I give the route one way (uphill) and it quotes the time as 36 minutes which is about right. In the reverse (along the identical route) it states 30 minutes whereas I reckon on it being closer to 20, although admittedly that's on a dedicated road bike, mountain bikes may need to slow down a bit more for corners.
Overall conclusion must be that it obviously knows something of the terrain even if it isn't quoting the precise figures.
riddle me this: "mountain bikes may need to slow down a bit more for corners."
Primarily that's down to the tyres, although there are umpteen other less significant factors: ultimately it shouldn't be too surprising that a bike designed from the outset to be as fast as possible on roads is faster on roads than one designed to navigate dirt trails and rough terrain.
Road bike tyres don't give an awful lot of grip (most methods of improving grip cost speed) but the grip they do provide is very consistent as the amount of lean varies - the tyres have a semicircular cross section and are either completely slick or have negligible tread. It doesn't matter if the bike is vertical or keeled over 45⁰ - the size and shape of the contact patch with the road doesn't significantly alter.
Mountain bikes in contrast have much broader tyres with deep treads to provide additional grip on lose surfaces. They are also made of tougher compound which is naturally less sticky to provide the strength needed for that deep tread, and are more oval in profile. That means that as the bike is leant over the contact patch gets smaller as you get more onto the shoulder of the tyre.
This gets worse with "combination" tyres, where the tread becomes a lot more pronounced as you move away from the centre - the idea there is that in an upright position with fully inflated tyres you have little tread in contact with the road which is what you want for grip, but if you partially deflate the tyres for off-road use the additional "knobbles" engage with the looser off-road surface. With those if you lean the bike over you stop riding on the low-tread area, resulting in a pronounced (and sometimes abrupt) loss of grip.
The net result is that a road bike is much more grippy at a decent angle of lean than a mountain bike, and it's that which ultimately governs how fast you can take a corner.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes I'm aware that a lot of city folks ride hybrids but the world is a lot bigger than that and different parts of the world are not the same. There are more trails than roads in the greater area where I live. In fact there isn't a lot of paved travel to be had. The Trans Canada Trail is across the street from me and all I see are mountain bikes (and quads of course). It's the bicycle of choice in BC and that has a lot to do with the kinds of roads we have and the kind of terrain that is available.
Gone are the days of 3/4" tyres pumped to 115lbs
Maybe where you live, but around here the majority of people who ride outside of town are riding road bikes or hybrids. There are some mountain bikes, but they're a minority. I have a hybrid, and I can travel on gravel if I want to/have to, but I prefer to avoid it. It isn't even the gravel so much as how rough the gravel roads are, and the risk of getting sprayed by gravel when someone comes flying by!
Gravel roads are often washboarded which makes terribly rough going unless you have a suspension bike, have deep potholes that are invisible when covered by gravel, and are a complete mess for days after a heavy rain.
What are the system requirements to see this new elevation info, anybody here know? Because it doesn't appear on Maps using my old PPC Mac desktop. Even on my up to date iPad using Atomic Web Browser set to spoof Safari Desktop I don't see elevations, just get the same site as on my Mac.
Yes I know I am a planker for owning Apple thingies, can we move on please?
I'm planning a route, and I know that a couple miles of it have a moderate incline that will tire my riding companion. Google says the route is "mostly flat" and doesn't give any elevation data. Ride the City says there's an "elevation gain" of 190 ft, but doesn't say where the gain will be.
> I know that a couple miles of it have a moderate incline that will tire my riding companion. Google
> says the route is "mostly flat" and doesn't give any elevation data. Ride the City says there's an
> "elevation gain" of 190 ft, but doesn't say where the gain will be.
Unless the 190 ft elevation gain is in the form of a wall that you have to ride up on, your riding companion needs to get in better shape.
I am posting this from Red Rock Hill (south of Twin Peaks and east of Mount Davidson) and I find this quite valuable for determining which routes won't overtax the caliper brakes on the bike I'm riding these days. (Tweakers stole my modern, disc-brake model.)
Hey! Just because we have a useable amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere here is no reason to laugh.
I've had a couple of automobile trips where I really wanted to figure out elevations - basically long trips in the Western US, not in summer, unfamiliar roads.
Wanted to find lowest elevation in case of snow. E.g. thru Payson AZ or Flagstaff AZ. I picked Flagstaff and slid off highway 17. Got back on with no problem... maybe Payson would have had snow also...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
