Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: BG length

  1. #11
    Master XRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Down south now
    Posts
    2,684

    Re: BG length

    Quote Originally Posted by Full Moon Addict View Post
    BG at the official distance of 72.
    Where does this "official distance of 72" come from?

    Bob Graham Round website states:

    The Bob Graham Round of 42 peaks is one of the most demanding challenges in England.With a ascent of app' 28,500ft and a app' distance of 74 miles.
    I have read that the distance could be as low as 61 miles.

    However the distance is not important as the challenge is to reach all 42 peaks from the start to the finish within 24 hours.
    Fox Avatar "Protected" by Hester Cox - Printmaker

  2. #12
    New Member Devon Cream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    4

    How far?

    65, 66, 68...72 miles. How can you give a physical length measurement to such varied rugged and hard terrain. 65 miles on road or 65 miles over the Lakeland Fells - there is no comparison. I feel that whatever the distance people need to be prepared for something that is really hard and if 72 miles makes them think they need to do a little more prep then all the better.

    Having done the Fellsman this year at around 62 miles (what a great event) I can assure you that the Bob Graham Round is a lot further than just another 3 miles, and I don't mean simply distance......


  3. #13

    Re: BG length

    Fresh from doing the BGR this weekend, my GPSs (had to swap at Wasdale when the juice ran out) had the total length as 66.4 miles, including a slight detour in the clag, wind and rain off Ill Crag and another one of Pillar

    The oft quoted 6 mile road run in is not quite 5 miles and that's from the farm at the road head.

    Not that it's that important.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Full Moon Addict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lake District
    Posts
    384

    Re: BG length

    Quote Originally Posted by XRunner View Post
    Where does this "official distance of 72" come from?

    Bob Graham Round website states:



    I have read that the distance could be as low as 61 miles.

    However the distance is not important as the challenge is to reach all 42 peaks from the start to the finish within 24 hours.

    the distance doesn'tmatter if the BG is viewed in isolation - then the challenge is just to get round within 24 hours whatever the distance is. However, it does matter when comparing the BG with other rounds. The oft quoted 72 or 74 miles inflates the difficulty of the BG compared with other rounds. Also the 61 miles underplays it - thats based on map packages which aren'tas accurate as GPS systems measuring the route actually taken.. thats why I think its important that we stop calling it 72 or 74 miles. 65-66 miles is what it actually is so lets start using the accurate figures!

  5. #15
    Master Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Darkest eckythumpland
    Posts
    1,691

    Re: BG length

    I tend to agree with you - the mapping packages measure map miles rather than miles on the ground. Presumably GPS takes into account slope etc. I've changed my site to indicate 65 - 66 miles (though I may have missed one or two references and individual sections are still from Memory Map so don't add up to the "new" total).

    Variants on the route taken, of which the three largest are:
    1. The route from Gt Calva to Blencathra
    2. The route between Dollywagon and Fairfield
    3. The order in which High Raise and Sargeant Crag are taken
    Probably only amount to around 3/4 of a mile total if you take the longest route in each case. Pretty well all the other route choices are six vs. two threes and depend more on what type of ground you like.

  6. #16

    Re: BG length

    I'd add Stake Pass vs more direct route up Rossett Pike, but yeah, in the grand scheme of things these variants do little to affect the total distance.

    ST

  7. #17
    Senior Member Margarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    952

    Re: BG length

    I think the mountains are getting smaller so it is shorter than when Bob did it.
    I'm gonna get that cwazy gwouse...

  8. #18
    Master XRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Down south now
    Posts
    2,684

    Re: BG length

    Quote Originally Posted by Margarine View Post
    I think the mountains are getting smaller so it is shorter than when Bob did it.
    Blame global warming and the rising sea level.

    Do mountains actually get smaller if the sea level rises?
    Fox Avatar "Protected" by Hester Cox - Printmaker

  9. #19
    Master XRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Down south now
    Posts
    2,684

    Re: BG length

    Is there a list of check points with approximate distances, height gained and lost between these points?

    The road crossings could also be included as check points.
    Fox Avatar "Protected" by Hester Cox - Printmaker

  10. #20
    Master Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Darkest eckythumpland
    Posts
    1,691

    Re: BG length

    Mountains do get smaller with rise in sea levels, or at least the height attributed to them does.

    http://www.aqvi55.dsl.pipex.com/run/bgr_facts_c.htm but the values are in km & metres. The distances/heights are taken from Memory Map, the height gains don't take into account small dips just the bigger ones so may be slightly under.

Similar Threads

  1. Stride length and speed
    By Tufty in forum Training
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26-01-2009, 04:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •