Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: building schedules

  1. #11
    Master Hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lancaster
    Posts
    1,928
    Quote Originally Posted by BillJ View Post
    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!
    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.
    Geoff Clarke
    Lancaster Runners

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Travs View Post
    That is basically the same thing as mine! In fact i think i pinched it off a thread on here originally...
    Possibly me - I mentioned it on a thread a few years ago, back when my factor was actually 10!

  3. #13
    Master BillJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Calder Valley
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Hank View Post
    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.
    That's what Naismith's rule is, Hank.
    "And the winds blow and the sky looks cool / So I make my home in the clouds"

  4. #14
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Within sight of Leicestershire's Beacon Hill
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by BillJ View Post
    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!
    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.
    In his lifetime he suffered from unreality, as do so many Englishmen.
    Jorge Luis Borges

  5. #15
    Master BillJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Calder Valley
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonykay View Post
    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.
    Yes please Anthony that'd be interesting. my email address is watchcave at hotmail dot com
    "And the winds blow and the sky looks cool / So I make my home in the clouds"

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonykay View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Graham Breeze; 27-01-2021 at 06:47 PM.
    "...as dry as the Atacama desert".

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonykay View Post
    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.
    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. .

  8. #18
    Master Hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lancaster
    Posts
    1,928
    Quote Originally Posted by BillJ View Post
    That's what Naismith's rule is, Hank.
    He might be on to something that fella.
    Geoff Clarke
    Lancaster Runners

  9. #19
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Within sight of Leicestershire's Beacon Hill
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by BillJ View Post
    Yes please Anthony that'd be interesting. my email address is watchcave at hotmail dot com
    OK, I've sent you my article with all the analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark G View Post
    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. .
    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.
    In his lifetime he suffered from unreality, as do so many Englishmen.
    Jorge Luis Borges

  10. #20
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    3,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark G View Post
    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. .
    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.

    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

Posting Permissions

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