When is hilly?

11 watchers

First
Prev
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Next
Last

sallykate Jun 2011 11:44am, 7 Jun 2011 1,483 posts	0 sallykate I just got lots of stack overloads when I viewed the route...and no elevation data. Hmmm...
fetcheveryone Jun 2011 11:46am, 7 Jun 2011 9,882 posts	0 fetcheveryone did the browser hang?
Che dragon Jun 2011 11:47am, 7 Jun 2011 4,631 posts	0 Che dragon wish you hadn't fixed this, all my figures have gone down
sallykate Jun 2011 11:50am, 7 Jun 2011 1,484 posts	0 sallykate nope I'm using IE 7 on a PC Just checked it on my Mac too where I'm using Firefox 4 -- no stack overload messages but no elevation data either It's still there in the individual entries in my training log though.
Andrea B Jun 2011 12:04pm, 7 Jun 2011 381 posts	0 Andrea B I would definetely grade Snowdonia, Rhayader and Edinburgh in that ascending order of hillyness and effort, but the little 5.3 mile off roader i did that came up as 297 was pretty tough, tougher in hills terms than Edinburgh marathon but obviously only a fifth of the distance, so I guess that's why it's a lot less? Just checked a hilly half i did last year and that is 495 so yeah i reckon mine all equate quite well!
Always last Jun 2011 12:18pm, 7 Jun 2011 320 posts	0 Always last All looks good to me, just checked the Surrey Badger half that I did last year, and that came out with a figure of 605.28, which pretty much matches my memory of "WILL THESE F$$$ING HILLS NEVER END!!!!".
Diogenes Jun 2011 12:23pm, 7 Jun 2011 5,646 posts	0 Diogenes I would say that it emphasises the total ascent and the length of run whereas a shorter run which has a hard steep climb doesn't figure so highly in the table as I would expect in terms of it being a hard run. Therefore, a long run with lots of moderate climbs will appear to be much harder than a shorter run with a really tough hill. Interesting to note that my 22 mile long run has a hilliness quotient of 729.
Andrea B Jun 2011 12:26pm, 7 Jun 2011 383 posts	0 Andrea B That's what i was trying to say Diogenes but yours made more sense!!
fetcheveryone Jun 2011 12:48pm, 7 Jun 2011 9,883 posts	0 fetcheveryone My formula is: distance_between_points_along_route * (the sum of all increases in altitude) / (2 * the_overall_distance_of_the_route) So in other words, every time you go up in altitude, you score some points relating to the size of the altitude increase and the distance you cover at that rate of increase. That score is then factored down using the length of the route. The 2 is there because I started by chopping my route into sections, and approximating the curve into triangles on top of rectangles. So in theory, if you do a long route, it shouldn't matter, because it's "hilliness per mile" if you like. But routes with lots of sharp hills that are over quickly don't score very highly. Right or wrong - hard to say.
Andrea B Jun 2011 1:49pm, 7 Jun 2011 384 posts	0 Andrea B well whatever it is, it made my morning at work more interesting so far that, I thank you!!