Forums >Suggestions and Feature Requests>Calculate grade

Eric, it would be great if you had a calculator under tools for average grade (i.e., rise over run) and had on course maps the maximal grades for ascents and descents.

I second this. I was thinking on todays run that it would be really helpful to me during my period of recovery if I could quickly glance at a map and see total ascent/descent for a course and make judgements on which courses to run. Also, as my recovery advances and I get back to normal training - hills are going to become a lot more important to me!
Good suggestion Trent.
Claire xxx

va

Eric, it would be great if you had a calculator under tools for average grade (i.e., rise over run) and had on course maps the maximal grades for ascents and descents.I like this idea too. Taking it even further. You hear a lot of people talking about how "tough" a course is, but one runner's "tough" is another runner's "wimpy". This assessment is usually based on a runner's experience and abilities. It would be cool if we could come up with an objective measure of a course's "toughness" based on things like number of hills, the grade and length of these hills, cumulative elevation change, net elevation change, etc... Then with any course mapped on RA, you would automatically get its toughness rating. This could become a quite useful and popular way for runners to compare courses in an objective way. Race directors wanting to promote their course as challenging could say something like: "Measures a 9 on the RA Toughness Scale". Some more thoughts...A completely flat course would get a toughness rating of 0. What gets a 10? Perhaps it's not limited to 10...What about a simple measure of the area under the elevation curve? For a flat course the area would be 0. Hmmm, interesting question...lots of possibilities... Perhaps some of the more experienced runners can chime in on the subject of what makes a course "tough"...

I'm going to preemptively say that Trent will soon tell us what a "tough" course looks like...

*will* wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

va

Hmmm...
Does anyone know what this means on the RA map elevation profile:
Elevation: +699 ft / -651 ft / net 49 ft
I think the "net 49" is the start to finish elevation change. What about the others?

modified: 4/24/2007 at 3:22 PM

Hmmm... Does anyone know what this means on the RA map elevation profile: Elevation: +699 ft / -651 ft / net 49 ft I think the "net 49" is the start to finish elevation change. What about the others?+ means the number of vertical feet of uphill/ascending. - is the number of downhill/descending feet. You are correct about the net. Also note that the net is the difference between the amount of uphill and downhill feet (given a little bit of rounding/measurement error). On a true loop or out-and-back course where the start and finish are in the same location, the net will always be zero. BTW, 699 is a good amount of climbing. Uphills always take more than downhills give...

*will* wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

Hmmm... Does anyone know what this means on the RA map elevation profile: Elevation: +699 ft / -651 ft / net 49 ft I think the "net 49" is the start to finish elevation change. What about the others?The + is the total feet you have climbed during a run. The - is the total number of feet you have dropped during the run. All of the calculations on RA are based on elevation sampling at 0.10 mile intervals, so it misses a lot of small rolling hills and tends to underestimate the total + and - during a climb, but the net should be correct. I understand that RA will soon have more detailed elevation sample, which should increase the accuracy of the + and -. A toughness scale is interesting, to be sure. It would incorporate a number of factors, including number of hills, degree of grade, total + and total -, the surface and possibly the absolute elevation and local climate. Is a marathon with +3000/-3000 feet equally tough whether it is all on one slow climb or a bunch of small rolling hills with equal grade?

va

+ means the number of vertical feet of uphill/ascending. - is the number of downhill/descending feet. You are correct about the net. Also note that the net is the difference between the amount of uphill and downhill feet (given a little bit of rounding/measurement error). On a true loop or out-and-back course where the start and finish are in the same location, the net will always be zero.So an out and back course that had 2 hills: up 100 ft, down 100, up 100, down 100, would be: Elevation: +200 ft / -200 ft / net 0 ft ????

va

modified: 4/24/2007 at 3:30 PM

The + is the total feet you have climbed during a run. The - is the total number of feet you have dropped during the run.Thanks, I think I get it.

All of the calculations on RA are based on elevation sampling at 0.10 mile intervals, so it misses a lot of small rolling hills and tends to underestimate the total + and - during a climb, but the net should be correct. I understand that RA will soon have more detailed elevation sample, which should increase the accuracy of the + and -.I follow you. Btw, I tried to find the flying monkey in your courses, but didn't see it. Has anyone entered it?

A toughness scale is interesting, to be sure. It would incorporate a number of factors, including number of hills, degree of grade, total + and total -, the surface and possibly the absolute elevation and local climate. Is a marathon with +3000/-3000 feet equally tough whether it is all on one slow climb or a bunch of small rolling hills with equal grade?Yes, some more good factors to consider...

va

modified: 4/24/2007 at 3:34 PM

The wheels are spinning rapidly...
How about a search and sorting capability on toughness?
For example, show me a list of all marathons, and sort by toughness.
We could publish lists... "RA's List of Toughest Marathons", or whatever...

Btw, I tried to find the flying monkey in your courses, but didn't see it. Has anyone entered it?Oh yes, it is there. Click

va

Thanks. Yikes, +2221 feet!!!
Btw, I love that photo you posted above.

Thanks. Yikes, +2221 feet!!!See, that is what I meant about RA underestimating the elevation change. Based on other methods, I think the actual elevation for the monkey is more than + 3000 / - 3000 / net 0. It will be interesting to see how it changes when the improved elevation data is available.

Btw, I love that photo you posted above.Thanks! I shot it and all the others you see when you click on it.

va

Very nice! Although, their beauty conceals their toughness!

Forums >Suggestions and Feature Requests>Calculate grade