Login

Forums  > Racing  > Marathon elevations


12

Marathon elevations (Read 330 times)
ʇuǝɹʇ
ʎǝʞuoɯ ʎʞunɟ
 posted: 5/9/2008 at 11:27 PM
Click
noʎ ɥʇıʍ ǝq ʎǝʞuoɯ ǝɥʇ ʎɐɯ
cgerber
posted: 5/9/2008 at 11:36 PM
Ah... Pikes Peak... my first marathon. I figured anything after that would be another PR. Tongue
Berner
posted: 5/10/2008 at 3:02 AM
They're missing Chicago:

Start_________________________________________________________________________End
How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2.
Kennyd
posted: 5/10/2008 at 3:12 AM
Trent,

So that's what happened to your calves, I thought it was Elephantiasis.
Crabby
AK girls on the Beach
 posted: 5/10/2008 at 3:44 AM
That's a great link! Thanks. Having Pike's Peak and the Monkey next to each other makes the monkey seem doable. But then...I need to think again!
Run like you are on fire!

5K goal 24:00 or less (PR 24:34)
10K goal 50:00 or less (PR 52:45)
HM goal 1:55:00 or less (PR 2:03:02)
Marathon Goal...Less than my PR (PR 4:33:23)
dallas
Hoodoo Guru
 posted: 5/10/2008 at 3:46 AM
Quote from Crabby on 5/10/2008 at 3:44 AM:
. But then...I need to think again!


Don't think...Do.
The tangents are moot.
ʇuǝɹʇ
ʎǝʞuoɯ ʎʞunɟ
 posted: 5/10/2008 at 3:59 AM
Quote from Crabby on 5/10/2008 at 3:44 AM:
That's a great link! Thanks. Having Pike's Peak and the Monkey next to each other makes the monkey seem doable. But then...I need to think again!


His elevations are neat, but a bit flat. Monkey's hills barely show, and his overall elevation estimate of 1900 feet of climb is about 45% low (it should be 3500 feet). These are neat, but they are a bit inaccurate. Part of the problem is that his elevation profiles don't sample data that frequently and they display them on a squashed Y axis. On others, Heartbreak hill does not show up, and neither do the big hills that beat me down at Country Music Marathon.

Pikes Peak, of course, is so exaggerated, that it makes all the others look doable.
noʎ ɥʇıʍ ǝq ʎǝʞuoɯ ǝɥʇ ʎɐɯ
cgerber
posted: 5/10/2008 at 4:10 AM
Quote from ʇuǝɹʇ on 5/10/2008 at 3:59 AM:


Pikes Peak, of course, is so exaggerated, that it makes all the others look doable.


Very much so, at 6.5x vertical exaggeration (as are the others), but it sure doesn't feel exaggerated when you're at the bottom of the 16 Golden Steps for the 2nd time in 24 hours, gasping for breath! Shocked
ʇuǝɹʇ
ʎǝʞuoɯ ʎʞunɟ
 posted: 5/10/2008 at 4:21 AM
It is actually 6.5/(5280/100).

Big grin

The day of the ascent, sitting comfortably atop the peak enjoying my coffee and donut while watching all the finishers, I thought to myself, "gee, I should have doubled".

The day of the marathon, somewhere around Barr Camp, I thought to myself, "damn, I'm glad I didn't double".

Just before the golden steps:
noʎ ɥʇıʍ ǝq ʎǝʞuoɯ ǝɥʇ ʎɐɯ
cgerber
posted: 5/10/2008 at 4:46 AM
You know... it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Smile

You look WAY too happy and fresh in that photo! You should definitely double next time... it was actually a lot of fun.
makers
Runnin 4 Haiti
 posted: 5/10/2008 at 5:44 AM
Quote from ʇuǝɹʇ on 5/10/2008 at 3:59 AM:
neither do the big hills that beat me down at Country Music Marathon.



Yeah, they actually look very flat, when the case is actually they are mountainous beings which I conquered.
Goals for 2009:
1.) Sub 3:30 in CMM 09
2.) Run 2000 miles
3.) Sub 1:40 half
4.) Sub 19 5k
My blog on faith
I Run 4 Haiti
JakeKnight
posted: 5/10/2008 at 1:14 PM
Quote from Crabby on 5/10/2008 at 3:44 AM:
That's a great link! Thanks. Having Pike's Peak and the Monkey next to each other makes the monkey seem doable. But then...I need to think again!


That is a horrible link.

Anybody who thinks that graph of the Monkey's hills even approaches reality is going to be in for some very serious pain. This is far more accurate and illustrative:

http://www.harpethhillsmarathon.com/PWPmaps/Elevation.JPG

And since that one is so ridiculously inaccurate, I have to wonder about the rest of them.

Trent, post a link to your own elevations maps. Those are about a billion times more useful.
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------
mikeymike
posted: 5/10/2008 at 1:35 PM
modified: 5/10/2008 at 1:35 PM
No elevation graph approaches reality. Otherwise there would be no way to fit a 26.2 mile race course on you computer screen, or to even be able to notice the hills, visually.

From space the earth is as smooth as a bowling ball.

But tell that to the climbers at the base of Hillary's step. You can make the picture look like whatever you want with the right scale and perspective.
ʇuǝɹʇ
ʎǝʞuoɯ ʎʞunɟ
 posted: 5/10/2008 at 2:26 PM
modified: 5/10/2008 at 2:32 PM
These were posted over at RW forums. The guy who is building them, he and I have had several productive discussions in the past. In this case, I disagree with him, but usually we see eye to eye.

He also creates these using mapmyrun, and the elevation data there seems to be fairly coarse and inaccurate.

Discussion here:
http://forums.runnersworld.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/960108738/m/1181002474

Quote from mikeymike on 5/10/2008 at 1:35 PM:
No elevation graph approaches reality...You can make the picture look like whatever you want with the right scale and perspective.


Sure. So how should they look? You want them to bring out the hills that exist without exaggerating them (unless it is such a nasty hill, like Pikes Peak, that it almost requires an exaggerated scale).

Quote from JakeKnight on 5/10/2008 at 1:14 PM:
Trent, post a link to your own elevations maps.


Done:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/timrock/vpost?id=2629906
noʎ ɥʇıʍ ǝq ʎǝʞuoɯ ǝɥʇ ʎɐɯ
JakeKnight
posted: 5/10/2008 at 3:20 PM
A request: can you try and find one for the Ft. Collins/Colorado marathon?

Also - you've run out there. How much did the elevation affect you? The Ft. Collins one has a serious net downhill but starts at 6,000 feet.

Just wonderin'. Cheers, mate.
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------
12


Forums  > Racing  > Marathon elevations

Feedback  |  Help
© 2005 – 2009 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved.