Printable View
Hi, i'm not sure if this is the right bit of the forum to put this but i was wondering if anyone has useful tips for putting schedules together for rounds and things like that. Obviously the bob graham has some very well established schedules but i have a few things i'm putting together myself later this year and want to try and figure out a rough schedule.
I've come across the Naismiths rule before briefly but isnt that more applicable to hiking?
any tips or advice would be great thank you
you might like to look at this book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Training-Up.../dp/1938340841
It's a bit pricey but covers the sort of things I think you're interested in
There is a Kindle version but I think flicking forwards and backwards would be difficult for a technical book like this
Are you bothered about speed, or predominantly endurance?
Naismith's works just as well for fellrunning too, though I've found from personal experience that the ratio is more like 1:8 (100m climb = 800m distance) since we're used to doing hills.Quote:
Originally Posted by ponte_ricky
And bear in mind the extension to Naismiths about steep descents being slower too. That's even more dependent on terrain, but 1:2.5 (100m steep descent = add 250m distance) is a very rough approx.
Anyway... that's my take on Naismiths since you mentioned it.
I don't have it to hand at the moment, but I seem to remember that Phil Scarf's analysis of fell race results gave a ratio of 1:7.92, very close to your 1:8. But, as you point out, the big problem with Naismith is that it doesn't take into account what happens on descents: faster on gentle descents, then becoming much slower on steeper descents. Any simple linear rule won't work!Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJ
I have (or had) a bit of a formula for predicting race times...
It was something along the lines of 10mins/mile + 10mins/1000ft..... but you then had to apply a multiplier depending on roughness of terrain (ie a Cat B race you'd multiply by a figure of less then 1, but something like Peris or Wasdale could be multiplied by 1.2-1.5)
It was reasonably accurate for a rough calculation. But it's ages since i used it, and now i just look at race results and have a rough idea of who i should be near to.
I had a simple way of working out a time factor for races. For example if a race was 13 miles and 5000' adding them together gives 18 - if I could run that in 3hrs, ie 180 minutes, the factor was 180 divided by 18, so 10. It proved pretty accurate for me up to 4 or 5 hours. For longer races/events you could amend the factor based on your performance in training. You could also amend it for metric measurements I suppose (but good luck metricating time) My factor of 10 worked well for me in my 30s and 40s - one advantage of it is that you can amend it as you age. Sadly mine is now more like 15.
I have my % of winning time (% of finishers and other data) for all the 1200 fell races (in over 300 different events) I have completed (excluding relays, night races, etc) so I could just look at the race record time and know where I should finish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
It is, of course, some years since I could look at Billy Bland's time and just add on a bit.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
That is basically the same thing as mine! In fact i think i pinched it off a thread on here originally...
1200 races!!
I was on schedule to pass the 100 landmark by spring/summer last year... obviously things didn't go to plan, and i am currently marooned on somewhere around 95-97 until they resume again.
Phil also once set a problem for his students - assuming a conical hill and all things equal, if you are to get from one side to the other, is it quicker to go over the top, around it, or somewhere in between?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
Interestingly the answer is always somewhere in between - how far up the shoulder of the hill depends on how steep it is.
We've done a handful of mountain marathons together and discussed mathematics on the way. Happy Days!
For MMs I've always gone with something like 100m of climb = 1km of flat, so 2km of flat running might be 12 minutes and 1km with 100m climb about the same. It's only ballpark and the terrain makes a huge difference, but it's easy to work out on the fly and add/subtract time as appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJ
Possibly me - I mentioned it on a thread a few years ago, back when my factor was actually 10!Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
That's what Naismith's rule is, Hank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
I've also done some work on the conical hill problem. If you're really interested in the maths, I can send you a copy of what I've done.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJ
Yes please Anthony that'd be interesting. my email address is watchcave at hotmail dot comQuote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
Sparing Anthony's blushes may I point out to others that The "Critical Gradient" Should we go straight up hills or zig zag? is in the Autumn 2010 Fellrunner on page 70.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
I think there's more to it than maths, especially on a long run or MM. Over or round is the classic problem. I tell people on FRA nav courses it depends on more than time or distance. Do you need to eat? Easier while you climb than sprinting around. Likewise for checking the map and planning the next leg. Do you need a water source? How easy is the feature you are aiming for to find? Might be on a track that makes it easy if you are running round, might be 500' down a featureless slope in thick mist if you go over. In good conditions is there advantage in going high to perhaps get a view of the ground ahead? Its more of a nav/route choice issue than what's maybe the fastest/shortest on paper. .Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
He might be on to something that fella.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJ
OK, I've sent you my article with all the analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJ
Indeed: in my published work, I have been careful to acknowledge that there are many factors that I have not taken account of. Probably the most important is terrain: the difference in speed between running on a path or a grassy hillside and running through deep heather or tussocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Huge example of this came on the first South Wales Mountain trial... a leg of 2-3 miles across to the other side of Fan Fawr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Everyone except for myself contoured round. But i took the steep 500ft climb straight over the summit...
My thoughts were not so much distance saved (i don't think it saved any distance at all), but then having the vast majority of the leg running downhill, approaching the checkpoint from above, and hopefully avoiding the abundant tussocky and marshy ground.
Your own relative strengths/weaknesses also play into it.
Leg 1-2 on the map below...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L-C...Z8qWyOaY_/view
I'm surprised you were the only one who went up and over Travs as it looks the obvious choice to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
Unless,of course, one would be certain of a decent trod around the hill.
My knowledge of that area is that it is really tough underfoot when off any paths.
Did your time for that leg justify your route choice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llani Boy
I'm not sure on exact leg times, but i managed to keep up (and even gain) on some of the lead guys, who included a couple of the better fellrunners from S.Wales, and a National level orienteer.
I expect the very steep profile view of Fan Fawr from point 1 would have put a lot of people off... it looks like a tough climb from there...
Unfortunately on the long leg 5-6 i decided to play "follow the leader" instead of sticking to my guns, and dropped out of contention.
And yes it is a tough area to run... the Four Fans race being a good race to find out all about it!
Thanks for all the responses. I havent logged in for a few days so hadn't realised there had been so much discussion.
The main reason I ask is I've put a few routes together that I'd like to have go at later this year and just want to put some rough scheduling together to get an idea of what I might expect to be hitting certain splits in. Then I guess I can do some recces and test if those splits are likely to work or not.
So on Bill's suggestion, if I was to run 800m flat in say 5 mins, if I went and ran with that same intensity up a hill I should be doing about 100m in 5 mins? And if I was to run 250m flat in 3 minutes I would expect to run 100m down a steep hill in 3 mins?
Just to check I've understood that right? And then just make a few small adjustments on top of that based on terrain?
Thanks
If you run 800m flat in 5 mins, then you would expect to run 800m with 100m climb in 10 mins (5 mins for the distance and 5 mins for the climb).Quote:
Originally Posted by ponte_ricky
It's generally easier to think of it as converting climb to an equivalent distance:
So for example you have a run of 10km that has 500m of ascent & descent in it. The 500m ascent is equivalent to 4000m of flat running (500*8), so estimate your time for the run as the time it would take you to run 14km on the flat.
Obviously, as others said, that's a huge simplification - a hilly run may be more likely to be on uneven, difficult ground so you can't compare it to a flat run on a good surface. But its a good rule of thumb that's served me well.
The downhill bit...
What it's saying is that once the downhill slope gets too steep your progress actually slows up. Thinking of an uneven descent here, not on a road.
So if you descend 500m in 1km, you should consider that equivalent to a distance of 2.25km (1km for the distance and 2.5*500 for the descent).
But that's even more of a simplification than the uphill bit. And it only applies for really steep descents. So maybe just ignore that!!
The only question is what factor to multiply the ascent by to equate to distance.
Hank and Naismith use 10
Mark G and Travs use about 5.3 (1000'->1mile)
Phil Scarf and I use 8
Pick your own favourite number!
thanks Bill, yeah i spent some time looking at some previous race efforts (did a TT on the old whicken hill race last week) and worked it around the 8:1 calculation you've kindly explained and it work out pretty close (about a minute quicker than my actual time. but as you say, it doesn't really factor in the fact that theres a short section of heather bashing near the top which probably added that extra minute on. but i can play around and modify and customise the formula slightly to suit my strengths and weaknesses and terrain types i suppose.
Thanks i really appreciate your help.
Travs is there a routegadget for that race?
I really enjoy checking my routes against others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew
There is indeed...
https://www.ngoc.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#127
You'll see me on the results (6th) but my route isn't drawn on there.
On inspection it seems someone else did take a similar route on the leg.
I totally agree that RouteGadget is absolutely brilliant, and i've spent hours looking up the various LDMT's and picking/comparing routes.