|
Apr 2016
4:47pm, 29 Apr 2016
7,692 posts
|
rf_fozzy
PtB - the fellrunning/MM rule of thumb that I've always used (and heard of being used) is that 100m climb is approx the same effort as running 1km on the flat.
Of course, that depends on the specific terrain and gradient to some extent.
But, a 35km race with 1700m climb is the approximately 53km of *effort* according to that rule.
Which, means the 3P fell race (billed as the marathon with mountains), which measures out at about 37.5km, but has 1600m climb, is actually the same effort as 53km flat running....
|
|
Apr 2016
5:03pm, 29 Apr 2016
12,768 posts
|
TRO Saracen
Oddly that seems to work Fozzy.
I'm a 40 minute 10k runner; the Knacker Cracker (up and down Box Hill) was 10.5k with 545m climbing, my time for 15.95k was very close to 40min 10k pace...
|
|
Apr 2016
5:22pm, 29 Apr 2016
11,696 posts
|
Dvorak
Just been looking at my local hill race (which quite a few Fetchies will know, Dumyat (next on 11th May)). Shown on Scottish Hill Racing as 7.8 km with 440m ascent descent. So a reasonable local record time for that distance on the flat would be 23 minutes. The adjusted equivalent distance would be 11.3km. The course record is 32:23.
Does that hold true for courses that might just be a bit bumpy, rather that hill courses? If so, I'm off to adjust some times: starting with my local parkrun :-). (I suspect not, though. That would make Falkirk parkrun 5.65km equiv and I could subtract 3:30. In reality, I reckon the penalty over a flat course for me is around 1:20.)
|
|
Apr 2016
6:43pm, 29 Apr 2016
782 posts
|
Fragile Do Not Bend
Ah, that's interesting about the altitude calculations. Explains why Garmin says my run at Folkestone parkrun was 15m elevation gain but Fetch and strava say it was 75m - it's at the top of a cliff.
|
|
Apr 2016
7:35pm, 29 Apr 2016
2,457 posts
|
Icelandic Trigirl
Lol, Paul, I'm not convinced about your maths or that fell rule. It was also all road so no fell-type terrain which obviously makes it a lot easier. I'm also not sure the "average" of my run but garmin reckoned there was over 1k of ascent and over 1k of descent. BUT it ignored the airport hill that I ran around twice (and is a good 300m (at least) up and then down again each time) which is why I estimated a total of 3.5k of going up OR down. Nuuk really is exceptionally hilly in that there are almost no non-hilly bits (maybe 400m out at Qinngorput).
Garmin's elevations are off; my maths is off; the fell-rule is bananas at least applied to road running.
If I do go sub3 at Edinburgh, I'll give the Icelandic Olympic committee a call  I fear I'm too late for Rio.
|
|
Apr 2016
9:32pm, 29 Apr 2016
5,559 posts
|
paul the builder
My maths are *always* right. The rule of thumb may be harsh, generous, or otherwise; -)
Fact is - a very hilly 35k at 4h pace. You should be good for well sub-4.
|
|
Apr 2016
10:55am, 30 Apr 2016
2,462 posts
|
Icelandic Trigirl
I just found Fetch' elevation for the run; it was just shy of 1km up (and down). That might be more realistic.
as for time, yes, I ran in 3.17 but there were 4 loo stops, lots of water stops, lots of photos and other faffing about so it took me 3.51 from start to finish. Obviously, I won't be doddling at Edinburgh but those rests all count. I'm not trying to give anyone the impression that I am a great runner.
|
|
Apr 2016
12:12pm, 30 Apr 2016
5,560 posts
|
paul the builder
Just come back with a PB, and you'll be a bit greater than you were when you left
|
|
Apr 2016
10:30pm, 30 Apr 2016
2,463 posts
|
Icelandic Trigirl
Sure enough, Paul. I had better after all this! Btw I now see source on much confusion:1k long with 100m up is a gradient of 4.5% not 10%! That makes more sense and would not be an outrageous average.
|
