General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Elevation change per mile difficulty? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2009-10-18 6:00 PM

User image

Extreme Veteran
694
500100252525
Subject: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
I training on  a regular bike loop of just over 16 miles (see link).  This loop has some hills, turns, rough roads and very light traffic which typical of the races I have done and plan to do in the future.  The total climbing over the 16 miles is 1,063 feet.  However, i

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/training/map.asp?routeid=110052

Recently I have been able to complete this route at an average speed of 19.3MPH.  It takes just about every bit of my energy to make this speed and I am out of the saddle on several of the hills.  Doing repeats on this route has provided me a tangible measurement of my bike fitness improvement. 

My question is; "Is 1,063 feet in 16 miles a lot?" 


It sure feels like a lot when I am doing it.  I did a Century mid year and it was only 4,900 or so in 100 miles.  As I think about it, that seemed pretty tough also.

Thanks








2009-10-18 6:24 PM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
Well, assuming your elevation gain data is correct, it's a good amount of climbing. What are you using to measure that? GPS or a built in altimeter?

EDIT- Oh, I see, you used a mapping program here. Yeah, that's a lot. On my normal 30 mile ride I get about 1000, so that double the distance.

Edited by bryancd 2009-10-18 6:26 PM
2009-10-18 6:26 PM
in reply to: #2465804

User image

Extreme Veteran
694
500100252525
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
I am using the BT route manager.
2009-10-18 6:28 PM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Champion
7595
50002000500252525
Columbia, South Carolina
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
There are some excellent posts (see especially posts from breckview) about measuring elevation.  I'd search for and read some of them.

But yeah, if that number is accurate, it's a pretty decent amount of climbing.
2009-10-18 6:43 PM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Extreme Veteran
1996
1000500100100100100252525
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
Mark, I mapped that route on Mapmyride.com and it came out to a little over 400 feet. Not sure how accurate it is though.

 http://www.mapmyride.com/route/us/ca/redding/287125590934475865
2009-10-18 6:46 PM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Expert
1379
1000100100100252525
Woodland, California
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?

In my experience, mapmyride.com always comes up with a lower number than other mapping sites, including the BT tracker (which I use).



2009-10-18 7:59 PM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Master
1651
10005001002525
Breckenridge, CO
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
MKAH - 2009-10-18 5:00 PM
My question is; "Is 1,063 feet in 16 miles a lot?" 


I would say riding a course with that much climbing at 19.3 mph in training is excellent. Congrats on your fitness.

Is it a lot? That course has 65 climbing feet per mile. In comparison two of our local rides which I think are probably near the limits of what's possible in the US on a paved road loop (as opposed to repeats on a short steep hill) are below:

1) I rode the Triple Bypass this year which measured 13,000 feet of climbing on BT over 118 miles (110 feet per mile).
2) The Mount Evans Hill Climb is about 7000 feet over 27.4 miles which roundtrip would be 128 feet per mile.

ETA:
3) The Lookout Mountain loop I do in Golden, CO is 2310 feet over 15.85. (146 feet per mile). http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/training/map.asp?route...

But keep in mind these are the three hilliest routes that I know of here in Colorado's Rocky Mountains. I just wanted to give you a reference so that you can define "a lot" for yourself. Also, Mt Evans and Lookout Mountain are famous climbs where professional hill climb races have been held for decades.


Edited by breckview 2009-10-18 8:15 PM
2009-10-18 8:21 PM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Extreme Veteran
430
10010010010025
Madison, WI
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
Not to hijack this thread, but how accurate is Garmin for this kind of thing? When I initially read this post, it didn't seem to be all that impressive to me, simply because I'm used to seeing my results from Garmin and it really doesn't seem to be that much climbing that I'm doing. For instance, I have a 19.50 mile ride that has 3,742 for elevation gain. Now, this route was a hill repeat and there was a substantial amount of climbing, but...that's apparently three times the average gradient of the OP and that doesn't seem right at all.

Thanks!
2009-10-18 8:24 PM
in reply to: #2466017

User image

Extreme Veteran
430
10010010010025
Madison, WI
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
tetchypoo - 2009-10-18 8:21 PM Not to hijack this thread, but how accurate is Garmin for this kind of thing? When I initially read this post, it didn't seem to be all that impressive to me, simply because I'm used to seeing my results from Garmin and it really doesn't seem to be that much climbing that I'm doing. For instance, I have a 19.50 mile ride that has 3,742 for elevation gain. Now, this route was a hill repeat and there was a substantial amount of climbing, but...that's apparently three times the average gradient of the OP and that doesn't seem right at all.

Thanks!
I take that back...that wasn't even my hill repeat route. o_0
2009-10-18 8:37 PM
in reply to: #2466017

User image

Master
1651
10005001002525
Breckenridge, CO
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
tetchypoo - 2009-10-18 7:21 PM
For instance, I have a 19.50 mile ride that has 3,742 for elevation gain.


If that were a loop or an out-and-back about half the mileage would be up and the other down. So the climbing would be a 7.3% average grade. That would be an enormous climb comparable to the hardest climbs in the Tour De France. We don't have sustained paved climbs that steep in Colorado.

My first Garmin was ridiculously inaccurate on the high side. They sent me another recently and it appears to have a software filter in it so it reports lower climbing gains but I haven't tested it enough to have an opinion on how accurate it is now.

I suggest that you map the route manually on BT's Route Tracker and compare to what your Garmin reports. As mentioned above, Mapmyride computes climbing gains that are low for my routes. I know exactly what my climbing gains are because I've computed them manually using USGS benchmark elevations.
2009-10-19 6:18 AM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Extreme Veteran
694
500100252525
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
Thanks everyone. 


2009-10-19 6:22 AM
in reply to: #2466017

User image

Expert
1123
1000100
Falls Church, VA
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
tetchypoo - 2009-10-18 9:21 PM Not to hijack this thread, but how accurate is Garmin for this kind of thing? When I initially read this post, it didn't seem to be all that impressive to me, simply because I'm used to seeing my results from Garmin and it really doesn't seem to be that much climbing that I'm doing. For instance, I have a 19.50 mile ride that has 3,742 for elevation gain. Now, this route was a hill repeat and there was a substantial amount of climbing, but...that's apparently three times the average gradient of the OP and that doesn't seem right at all.

Thanks!



your garmin is probably inaccurate, but I'm also going to argue that the route posted in the OP is getting some favorable math from BT's route tracker to get that total. 

I've got a route that is similar in grade (according to the route tracker), and in both routes, I can't see how the climbs add up to 1,000.  If you click the elevation graph (in the OP), only 3 climbs are in the 100 foot range, with one of them being about 150 feet, and the rest are little rollers.


Edited by Bioteknik 2009-10-19 6:36 AM
2009-10-19 7:01 AM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Champion
19812
50005000500020002000500100100100
MA
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
I would double check the BT tracker as I have had ridiculous results with it. There is a way to have it recalculate the elevation gain. I have done that on some routes and had the same route be 2.5 times great or less than previously.  Garmin also tends to be off and I find it often over states climbing.

If you go into your route tracker, click route in edit mode, you'll see a tab on upper left to reset elevation. If it is close number probably pretty accurate if it changes a lot hard to know which is right but I tend to err on the side of lower number due to the way it calculates.

For example I just recalculated your route and this is what BT tracker came up with...

Route By: KathyG
Redding, California - United States
Branstetter Bike Loop (Bike)


Distance
Overall:16.34 miles26.30 km


Climbing
Overall:4239 feet1292.0 ms


Edited by KathyG 2009-10-19 7:07 AM
2009-10-19 8:25 AM
in reply to: #2466320

User image

Master
1651
10005001002525
Breckenridge, CO
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
KathyG - 2009-10-19 6:01 AM
I would double check the BT tracker as I have had ridiculous results with it. There is a way to have it recalculate the elevation gain.


That's a good point. Whenever I use the Route Tracker after I'm done mapping the route I click "Reset Elevation" until I get the same results twice in a row. For some reason the BT-RT (usually) has a more accurate interface with the elevation database after a Reset Elevation than in real-time when mapping a route.

Before I replied to his post I did that for his route and came up with the same climbing that he did.

In terms of how much vert his route actually contains, with three 100' climbs I think the total *could* be 1064'. If those three climbs are a 5% grade they'd only represent one mile so he'd only need to rack up 763' over the next 14.6 miles. Because I don't think BT-RT has any minimum climb filter in it and the elevation database has 2-3' contours (I think), just a bunch of small rollers could add up to that amount of climbing vert. I looked at the "Terrain" view of his route and it looked hilly.

However, in terms of "Climbing Difficulty" and its effect on average MPH, comparing two climbs with equal climbing gain. The route that attains that climbing vert with fewer climbs is going to be harder. Eg. in terms of his route, if the 1064' was in one sustained climb over a mile and the rest were perfectly flat, the route would be much harder and slower.

I think that Mapmyride does contains some software filters. Something like:
If climb < 50 feet, then climb = zero
would reduce alot of people's routes to near zero climbing.

I know my latest Garmin contains filters because I ran with it on a flat track and while the elevation was moving quite a lot up and down +- ~10 feet, the climbing gain was not. On a flat track, any elevation change is error and the Garmin did a pretty good job at filter those out. As I recall, it was averaging about 80' in false climbing per mile. But the problem with this type of algorithm is that the Garmin can't tell the difference between the false climbing and real climbing. If I was on a course that had true +- 10' elevation changes the Garmin would filter those out too.

Edited by breckview 2009-10-19 8:25 AM
2009-10-19 8:28 AM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
That's why I like my SUUNTO T6C, it has a built in altimeter.
2009-10-19 8:52 AM
in reply to: #2466450

User image

Master
1651
10005001002525
Breckenridge, CO
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
bryancd - 2009-10-19 7:28 AM
That's why I like my SUUNTO T6C, it has a built in altimeter.


Unfortunately, pressure based altimeters have the exact same error problems as GPS elevation computations. But when you have elevation readings from two devices, you can probably write a much better software filter.

I used to get a lot of interesting mountaineering project invites because I had a rep of being strong, and being an expert in map/compass backcountry navigation using pressure based altimeters (I always carried two). My main local climbing buddy was a GPS guy. With both of us doing our thing we could follow pretty much any alpine climbing route. But it was art not a science.


2009-10-19 5:46 PM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Veteran
295
100100252525
Ft Campbell, Kentucky
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
So, after reading this........I found the map maker stuff and did the route I was using as a train up for the HIM in Germany..........I did not know it had this much elevation. over 11,000 feet worth........wow. Now I almost feel super human.

This site has alot of good stuff on it, I never even knew this existed till today..........good stuff!!!

It does take a long time to figure the routes though. But, now I know.
2009-10-19 6:07 PM
in reply to: #2465781

Extreme Veteran
502
500
Washington
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
Ooh, that BT route tracker is very cool, I had never used that! I'll have to keep in mind my routes so I can see the elevation changes, I live in a hilly part of Kansas (yes, Kansas has a few hills).  The last mile home has a nice ~105 foot gain which always seems to wear me out.


Edited by ionlylooklazy 2009-10-19 6:07 PM
2009-10-19 8:07 PM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Expert
1690
1000500100252525
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
very cool tool, didnt know I could use it thought it was for contributors only, 400 feet in my 2 mile course!!!! No wonder my mile times are slow.
2009-10-19 8:07 PM
in reply to: #2466492

User image

Extreme Veteran
417
100100100100
Davidson
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
Breckview,
What problems have you seen with altimeters providing accurate elevation data?  They are far more accurate than non-WAAS GPS signals.

Greg
2009-10-20 7:34 AM
in reply to: #2465832

User image

Extreme Veteran
694
500100252525
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
blairrob - 2009-10-18 4:43 PM Mark, I mapped that route on Mapmyride.com and it came out to a little over 400 feet. Not sure how accurate it is though.

 http://www.mapmyride.com/route/us/ca/redding/287125590934475865


Rob,

When I mapped this route, I used plenty of data point fairly closes together.  This may account for the discrepancy between out elevations. 

Mark


2009-10-20 7:43 AM
in reply to: #2467857

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
trinewby - 2009-10-19 8:07 PM

Breckview,
What problems have you seen with altimeters providing accurate elevation data?  They are far more accurate than non-WAAS GPS signals.

Greg


I agree they are more accurate, but not perfect. My SUUNTO when I switch between the GPS and altimeter, are often close, and then I use a mapping system or GOOGLE EARTH to provide a third data point. The alitimeter still tends to be the closest it seems.
2009-10-20 7:49 AM
in reply to: #2467631

User image

Champion
9407
500020002000100100100100
Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
Laffenguy - 2009-10-19 7:46 PM

So, after reading this........I found the map maker stuff and did the route I was using as a train up for the HIM in Germany..........I did not know it had this much elevation. over 11,000 feet worth........wow. Now I almost feel super human.


I would guess that the elevation gain is wrong; this would give about a 7% grade (assuming it wasn't point to point up a mountain) which would be incredibly challenging over the 45km you would be climbing.

I checked Mapmyride and it gives about 3700ft of total climbing which seems more reasonable.  Granted it still shows some 8% grades for about 1km and 5% for a couple of km's so still a pretty challenging ride.

Shane
2009-10-20 8:05 AM
in reply to: #2465781

User image

Champion
5376
5000100100100252525
PA
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
One question about road steepness.  I believe there is a definite difference in a road's stated "grade" versus the actual.  Someone help me out with this but basically, the incline is a rise over run calculation but it's often stated as the -1 TAN or something where 45* = 100%. 
2009-10-20 8:07 AM
in reply to: #2468328

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Elevation change per mile difficulty?
Pector55 - 2009-10-20 8:05 AM

One question about road steepness.  I believe there is a definite difference in a road's stated "grade" versus the actual.  Someone help me out with this but basically, the incline is a rise over run calculation but it's often stated as the -1 TAN or something where 45* = 100%. 


Maybe the stated grade is the steepest part of the hill?
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Elevation change per mile difficulty? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2