Can we agree on the length of the BG? I've used a garmin over the whole length of it twice now and I make it just over 65 miles both times. No way is it 72 miles and I've also found that the map packages underestimate where the ground is steep and broken. May be a start would be to change the official distance on the bobgrahamround web site?
If anyone asks me (non - fell runner) how long it is, it is ALWAYS 72 miles. Not a yard less.
Tao begets one. One begets two. Two begets all things.
It was originally quoted in the Cumberland and Wesmorland Herald as "practically 140 miles" after Bob Graham completed the first round on 13/14 June 1932.
Fox Avatar "Protected" by Hester Cox - Printmaker
I think it we should recognise 65 miles as the 'official' as well as the actual distance.
Which, of course, begs the question of fell race lengths and it seems a shame not use advances in technology to verify data - even the Scottish Mountaineering Club are having near-Munros measured.
Talking of the SMC i have just downloaded their contour maps (for free) onto my GPS and what a revelation.Originally Posted by FellShoeShuffler
Beats paying 120 quid for the garmin topo maping, the gps is transformed thank you SMC.
Somewhere between 62 and 65 miles for the BGR
The older I get the Faster I was
I think that the mapping software deals in "map miles" I.E. they don't take into consideration slope, whereas GPS does. Taking straight lines between summits using the mapping software gives approximately 60 miles so that can be taken as an absolute minimum.
Of course what we are really after is the length of the most efficient route which I think will be somewhere around 65 miles.
Bob Graham Round = Bob Graham Round.
Unless mountains move the distance won't change, only measuring devices evolve and become more accurate (in theory).
I simply cannot come to grips with the current obsession with measuring everything more accurately and making some big deal out of it, simply because we can.
But I'm an old fogey, just b****r off, run, and try not to become desperately lost is my attitude
Don't roll with a pig in poo. You get covered in poo and the pig likes it.
I have sympathy with molehill here... Fells mountains whatever have always been difficult to measure accurately in miles. Fellrunners know this and always have a pretty good idea how "far" things are. I suppose we need an approximate guide but BG = BG and it's the same for all routes on hills. The difficulty arises when we pioneer something new and 'need' to slot it in to the hierarchy. Even with all the technology, a long description of the route, terrain etc, and a couple of attempts are still needed before we really know how hard it is! I could say YOU have to attempt it yourself before you know - but that would be a bit of an extreme view.
I personally think each route stands on it's own merits yet I still find myself measuring - same as everyone else!
exactly right trundler - if someone does something new and measures it (accurately) as 65 miles, then it looks like its shorter than the BG at the official distance of 72. BG is the best known yardstick for this sort of thing so its important to get it right I think.
I'm sure if the GPS measures the distance at less than 72miles then it is. Not sure what the benefits of changing the stats are though. Anyway, I guess it depends on the route you take. I'd guess Billy Bland had in down to less than 65miles
I wouldn't rely on the figures from mapping software though. I added quite a steep descent and climb onto one of my runs recently which took about 12 minutes extra and memory map only clocked it at 0.2miles further. I think it's more accurate than my old piece of string though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote