cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
Dont the pros base work loadon some new fangled figure based on distance, elevation and power output for the day ?
It's not the miles, but the elevation
- Thread starter amandasmile
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
I was reading that Kristof of TCR fame went Everesting in September. 555km in 12 hours. 2 Everests.
I think for Kristof it is both the miles and the elevation.
I think for Kristof it is both the miles and the elevation.
Aravis
Putrid Donut
- Location
- Gloucester
Could be useful, but I'm not completely in love with it. Having seemingly removed everything else man-made, it's a bit odd that they've left the canal system, which means you can't see the rivers in the English Midlands properly. I wouldn't mind being able to zoom in a bit closer, and points marking major towns would help you to see where you are.
One thing I do like is the perspective it gives to the upper Thames. I've always thought it a bit odd that the source is traditionally taken to be not at the furthest distance from the mouth, but now it makes more sense; the accepted source is the head of the stream that starts furthest west, and the major tributaries coming down from the north do look as though they're joining the main river, even though some of them are longer.
I'm not sure if that could've been more OT. Sorry!
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
46.25 km/hr or 28.7 miles/hr for 12 hours and a huge amount of climbing ... I don't think so!
Last edited:
Mr Celine
Discordian
- Location
- Waxing my moustache
For me it's either distance or time, but as I always cycle at an average of 15 mph +/- 5% it's a simple calculation. Any ride round here is going to involve some climbing but I never used to keep track of altitude gained.
I joined Strava in January which does track elevation. Unfortunately it won't log distance in miles and elevation in metres, which is how I think.
Apparently I've climbed 172575 feet in 2703 miles. I've no idea if that's hilly or not.
I joined Strava in January which does track elevation. Unfortunately it won't log distance in miles and elevation in metres, which is how I think.
Apparently I've climbed 172575 feet in 2703 miles. I've no idea if that's hilly or not.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
I will double check. I could be wrong.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
I was of course totally wrong.
27 hours and 40 minutes.
I can't even keep awake that long.
Aravis
Putrid Donut
- Location
- Gloucester
Having related @Dogtrousers "1000 metres in every 100 kilometres" target to my own efforts, it does look like a reasonable thing to aspire to. I've met it on two rides out of 30 this year, which doesn't sound terribly good, but fortunately there are less discouraging ways I can spin it.
The target can be expressed as a mile of climbing for every 100 miles ridden, which is quite neat. A climbing index of 1, if you like. Your figures give an index of just over 1.2, higher than I've achieved on any single ride since I've been using GPS. Others may have a different perspective, but I think that's hilly.
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
A now plausibly amazing feat!
presta
Legendary Member
I've just spent a while putting the stats for my last tour through Excel.
I did 82,870' of ascent in 1,400.2 miles, which works out at 59.1' per mile, or 1,119m/100km. That was Essex > Peak district > Dales > Lakes > Kielder > Dales > Peak > Essex, so a mixture of hilly & flat.
Average time spent moving works out at 5m26s per mile plus 26m06s per 1000' of ascent.
Total time including rest is 6m26s per mile, and 43m01s per 1000' ascent.
I did 82,870' of ascent in 1,400.2 miles, which works out at 59.1' per mile, or 1,119m/100km. That was Essex > Peak district > Dales > Lakes > Kielder > Dales > Peak > Essex, so a mixture of hilly & flat.
Average time spent moving works out at 5m26s per mile plus 26m06s per 1000' of ascent.
Total time including rest is 6m26s per mile, and 43m01s per 1000' ascent.
400bhp
Guru
No, time and power.
cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
400bhp
Guru
No they don’t. VAM is not a measure of workload.
cyberknight
As long as I breathe, I attack.
- Location
- Land of confusion
calculated the following way:
VAM = (metres ascended x 60) / Minutes it took to ascend
A standard unit term with the same meaning is Vm/h, vertical metres per hour; the two are used interchangeably.
The relationship between VAM and relative power output is expressed as follows:
Relative power (Watts/kg) = VAM (metres/hour) / (Gradient factor x 100)
This gradient factor ranges between 2.6 for a gradient of 6% and 3.1 for a gradient of 11%. To work out the gradient factor take 2 + (% grade/10)
1800+ Vm/h: Lance Armstrong.
1650-1800 Vm/h: Top 10 / Tour de France GC or mountain stage winner.
1450-1650 Vm/h: Top 20 / Tour de France GC; top 20 on tough mountain stage.
1300-1450 Vm/h: Finishing Tour de France mountain stages in peloton
1100-1300 Vm/h: The Autobus Crew
