"Eddington Number"

[rb58]

Mine is 101, and have two more 102+ mile rides to get it to 102 and 11 more 103+ mile rides to shift it to 103. Getting it to 104 is not going to be this year.

 

[fimm]

Mine is 37, from that canini.me tool:
"According to your Strava data, you've cycled 37+ miles on 37 different days.
To reach an Eddington number of 40, you need 8 more rides of 40+ miles.
To reach an Eddington number of 45, you need 18 more rides of 45+ miles.
To reach an Eddington number of 50, you need 27 more rides of 50+ miles."
An Eddington number of 40 sounds like a good target I can see a few extended commutes coming up!

 

[nickyboy]

I'd never bothered looking at my Eddington number until recently and just planned rides I liked, not with a miles target in mind.

It now seems that I have a propensity for doing rides just over 50 miles. My Eddington is 51 and I can get to 52 easily (just a couple of rides). But then I find I need about another dozen 53+ for 53 and about 30 at 60+ to get me up to 60. Trouble is these are getting to be tough days out in the Peaks....may have to do some sneaking off into Cheshire

Should be some clever algorithmic interface with feet climbed to make me feel better

 

[jefmcg]

I've always thought it was the number of miles in the day ridden as opposed to miles done in a single ride.

Absolutely. But if you are on Garmin Connect, you can only sort your rides in length order using @ianrauk suggested method, it won't consolidate a days ride - unless I misunderstood.

I guess Garmin only users could create a strava account, sync it with their Garmin Account, visit canini.me for their eddington number, then remove the Strava account at the end. Unless someone wants to reimplement Kevin Canini's (PhD and Google worker) code for Garmin Connect

 

[ianrauk]

Indeed @jefmcg It won't consolidate a days worth of rides.
But adding up a days worth of rides is no great hardship if you really want to work out your E number.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

[QUOTE 3700341, member: 9609"]In comparing rides I award 10 miles per 1000' ascent (40 mile + 2000' ascent = 30 mile + 3000'ascent)
if applying this to my E, it would rise from 43 to 63[/QUOTE]
What we really need is a sort of Naismith rule for cycling, which would be a bit like calculating the length of a piece of string, but, if you've got the elevation data, it might be interesting to work out an ascent E number. So, for example, a number of Em 300 would mean that you've climbed 300 metres 300 times. Or E' 300 would mean 300 x 300 feet.

 

[Fnaar]

calculating the length of a piece of string

6 and 3/4 inches, on average, discounting nylon string-like abominations.

 

[Fnaar]

My Strava data only goes back to late 2012, and not all my rides are on it (i.e. none of my commutes go on there, can't be arsed, when its the same journey, same distance, same time mostly) and a tour I did a couple of years back, with rides of 121 miles, 75 miles, 68 miles, etc etc).


AND my Eddington number is 49. I think I deserve a round of applause. Yay, go me!

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

My data only goes back as far as 2012.

Mine was 53 (imperial). I only needed 4 rides to get to 54 miles.
Sadly that looks a very long way away indeed right now.

My 2015 Eddington Number on the other hand is quite surprising: 15 with only 2 more rides needed to get to 16.... so that does make things look a lot better from my point of view!

 

[Jefferson Meriwether]

But if you are on Garmin Connect, you can only sort your rides in length order using @ianrauk suggested method, it won't consolidate a days ride.

If Garmin did consolidate a days rides my E number might be a smidgen higher. I personally am happy to work my E number out based on individual rides, even though it means it'll be a bit harder/longer for me to work my way up the scale.

 

[nickyboy]

What we really need is a sort of Naismith rule for cycling, which would be a bit like calculating the length of a piece of string, but, if you've got the elevation data, it might be interesting to work out an ascent E number. So, for example, a number of Em 300 would mean that you've climbed 300 metres 300 times. Or E' 300 would mean 300 x 300 feet.

Yeah, that'd sort the (Peak District) men from the (Norfolk) boys!

 

[srw]

What we really need is a sort of Naismith rule for cycling, which would be a bit like calculating the length of a piece of string, but, if you've got the elevation data, it might be interesting to work out an ascent E number. So, for example, a number of Em 300 would mean that you've climbed 300 metres 300 times. Or E' 300 would mean 300 x 300 feet.

You need a unique method of determining height climbed. Which, given the vagaries of the granularity of height databases and the imprecision in the z-axis of GPS units (whether corrected by atmospheric pressure or not) is not going to happen.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

You need a unique method of determining height climbed. Which, given the vagaries of the granularity of height databases and the imprecision in the z-axis of GPS units (whether corrected by atmospheric pressure or not) is not going to happen.

That goes without saying.

 

[nickyboy]

[QUOTE 3701601, member: 9609"]As cyclists we would need to use the Chain (66') it is a measure that would give a achievable number, this would give me an Ec of 35. (35 rides with more than 2,310' ascent or 35 chains)

1 chain of ascent per mile is nearly average for me.[/QUOTE]

Extracting all the climbing data from my Strava record is going to be a pain. I suspect my Ec is about 60 - on the basis that most rides around here are 1.5 chains climbing per mile and I've done at least 60 x 40 mile rides

Liking the Ec

 

[martint235]

Mine is 75. Assuming I get out on Sunday as planned, it will become 79.2