BG length

[XRunner]

http://www.aqvi55.dsl.pipex.com/run/bgr_facts_c.htm but the values are in km & metres.

Thanks Bob.

From these figures it is possible to deduce the height loss between each check point.

e.g Skiddaw to Great Calva
Height difference + height gain = 925 - 680 + 206 = 451 metres.

[macc ladd]

Not sure why anyone is that bothered by the distance. I only use "72 miles but I expect it is a bit shorter" when talking to a non-runner. The only way to compare rounds is to look at the times of the runners that are doing it, the records etc. Objective measures such as distance/height gained/lost seem insignificant to me compared to the reputation the round has and the times taken. Isn't the Ramsay the shortest but reputed to be the hardest?...

[Margarine]

No, they really are getting smaller. Mountains do. Skiddaw is an old bugger, much older than Everest, which is getting bigger.

[IainR]

The only way to compare rounds is to look at the times of the runners that are doing it, the records etc. .

Not really.

Look at the records 13 hrs for the BGR, 18-19 hrs for the PBR?

I don't think the PBR is 'that' much harder. But the times for the BGR will be lower as it is supposedly a bit easier but also so well recced and known now that every possible short cut and trick has been excersised.

I'd be very suprised if the PBR record does not fall within the next 3 years, 5 at the outside, it is still quite a young round. Yet I'd be very suprised if the BGR record fell within the next 10 years, even 20 years.

[alwaysinjured]

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 .

Be careful of GPS distances:

First, if ever the GPS signal becomes weak for a period, as on any steep hill side where the device can only see part of the sky, it straightlines the route to the last coordinate, so a lot of small "wiggles" in the route will be lost

Second the devices are inaccurate when they can only see part of the sky

THird, I doubt VERY much that GPS correctly allows for steep gradients - there is not much incentive for GPS mfrs. to spend a lot of time perfecting something of interest to so few people

Perhaps somebody could test this from the data they already have & do a calculation. For example the climb of fairfield. How far does the GPS say that is, and does it match up with a trig calculation?

[macc ladd]

Look at the records 13 hrs for the BGR, 18-19 hrs for the PBR?

Mark Hartell did the PBR record in 18:10, his fastest BG was 14:54 (2nd fastest). That gives a reasonable comparison. As you say, Gavin Bland's BG record of 13:53 will take some beating.

[IainR]

I'd disgaree, most people will be within 1 - 2 hrs of their BGR time, maybe the BGR is more runnable, if you are fit enough to run it so that may explain the bigger gaps at the lower times, but most whop get round the BGR in 22-23 hrs, get round the PBR in 23-24 hrs.

[macc ladd]

But then if you are doing the BG in 22-23 hours you aren't under pressure, but if you are between 23-24 hours on the PB you will be sweating a bit more, so I think there is more of a gap that those figures imply.

[IainR]

Maybe, I do think PBR times will fall as more and more people do it, route knowledge increases, paths become worn, more people who have completed who will pace.

Hopefully, if I run the Glen Clova race OK then I figure I've recovered from last weeks ultra and will have a go, weather permitting, at the start of August.

[Toreador]

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

The mountains may get smaller, but the height attributed to them remains the same. OS heights are based on the mean sea level at Newlyn, fixed at the value measured between 1915 and 1921.