Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: building schedules

  1. #1
    Member ponte_ricky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Mytholmroyd
    Posts
    39

    building schedules

    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

  2. #2
    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?

  3. #3
    Master BillJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Calder Valley
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by ponte_ricky View Post
    I've come across the Naismiths rule before briefly but isnt that more applicable to hiking?
    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.

    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.
    "And the winds blow and the sky looks cool / So I make my home in the clouds"

  4. #4
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Within sight of Leicestershire's Beacon Hill
    Posts
    1,642
    Quote Originally Posted by BillJ View Post
    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.

    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!
    In his lifetime he suffered from unreality, as do so many Englishmen.
    Jorge Luis Borges

  5. #5
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    3,516
    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.

  6. #6
    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.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Travs View Post
    ...I just look at race results and have a rough idea of who I should be near to.
    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.

    It is, of course, some years since I could look at Billy Bland's time and just add on a bit.
    Last edited by Graham Breeze; 27-01-2021 at 11:21 AM.
    "...as dry as the Atacama desert".

  8. #8
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    3,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark G View Post
    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.

    That is basically the same thing as mine! In fact i think i pinched it off a thread on here originally...

  9. #9
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    3,516
    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.

  10. #10
    Master BillJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Calder Valley
    Posts
    1,549
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonykay View Post
    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
    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?

    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!
    "And the winds blow and the sky looks cool / So I make my home in the clouds"

Posting Permissions

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