Aravis
Putrid Donut
- Location
- Gloucester
I know things like this have been tried before, a fairly recent example being this thread:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/5000-ft-1524m-monthly-challenge.202188/
Although nothing's ever taken off, so to speak, I've always felt that the enthusiasm is there. I'll be optimistic and assume the right formula has yet to be found.
A little while ago @Dogtrousers mentioned trying to maintain a ratio of at least 1000 metres of climbing in every 100 km ridden. That equates to a mile's climbing in every 100 miles, which is quite neat. Calling it “climbing at 1%” or similar doesn't sound so impressive, but is accurate.
Around September this year I had a look through my 2017 rides and found, unsurprisingly, that many fell well short of this 1% standard. However, if I took just the hilliest ride from each month, the accumulated total wasn't too far away.
That illustrates the basis of the monthly climbing challenge I'm proposing. Raising my score to 1 in what was left of the year certainly wasn't easy, but with a bit of effort and determination I got there. This is what the monthly challenges are supposed to be about, surely?
My hardware is a Garmin Edge 520, and I normally take climbing stats from my uploads to RwGPS. This does give quite flattering results. If I were to take my stats from Strava, which takes the barometric altimeter data from the Garmin unaltered, the numbers are about 6% lower, and using that basis I didn't hit the target.
I've also mirrored each ride using RwGPS's route planner. This takes about 10 minutes per ride, including checking. Hardly an onerous task, and available to all free of charge. This method produces climbing data which is lower by a further 6% or so, although the actual differences vary quite a bit from ride to ride.
The table below shows my progress through the year.
The final number in column F implies that I met the challenge according to RwGPS's version of events, and that's OK. But as we all know, someone else doing exactly the same rides with different hardware, or even the same hardware at different times, would get different numbers.
I could be wrong, but I think one of the main reasons a climbing challenge has never become established has been the lack of an accepted standard measure of elevation gain. A while ago (see the final post in the linked thread) I mentioned the idea of using RwGPS's route planner to provide this standard. It would be nice to think that the lack of response implies universal agreement.
From column H, we see that under my proposed challenge I ended up about 10% short in 2017. Improving to that extent in 2018 certainly won't be easy, but isn't it a good thing to have a challenge that is just that?
Any thoughts? If I'm wasting my time I guess I do need to know, painful as it may be.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/5000-ft-1524m-monthly-challenge.202188/
Although nothing's ever taken off, so to speak, I've always felt that the enthusiasm is there. I'll be optimistic and assume the right formula has yet to be found.
A little while ago @Dogtrousers mentioned trying to maintain a ratio of at least 1000 metres of climbing in every 100 km ridden. That equates to a mile's climbing in every 100 miles, which is quite neat. Calling it “climbing at 1%” or similar doesn't sound so impressive, but is accurate.
Around September this year I had a look through my 2017 rides and found, unsurprisingly, that many fell well short of this 1% standard. However, if I took just the hilliest ride from each month, the accumulated total wasn't too far away.
That illustrates the basis of the monthly climbing challenge I'm proposing. Raising my score to 1 in what was left of the year certainly wasn't easy, but with a bit of effort and determination I got there. This is what the monthly challenges are supposed to be about, surely?
My hardware is a Garmin Edge 520, and I normally take climbing stats from my uploads to RwGPS. This does give quite flattering results. If I were to take my stats from Strava, which takes the barometric altimeter data from the Garmin unaltered, the numbers are about 6% lower, and using that basis I didn't hit the target.
I've also mirrored each ride using RwGPS's route planner. This takes about 10 minutes per ride, including checking. Hardly an onerous task, and available to all free of charge. This method produces climbing data which is lower by a further 6% or so, although the actual differences vary quite a bit from ride to ride.
The table below shows my progress through the year.
The final number in column F implies that I met the challenge according to RwGPS's version of events, and that's OK. But as we all know, someone else doing exactly the same rides with different hardware, or even the same hardware at different times, would get different numbers.
I could be wrong, but I think one of the main reasons a climbing challenge has never become established has been the lack of an accepted standard measure of elevation gain. A while ago (see the final post in the linked thread) I mentioned the idea of using RwGPS's route planner to provide this standard. It would be nice to think that the lack of response implies universal agreement.
From column H, we see that under my proposed challenge I ended up about 10% short in 2017. Improving to that extent in 2018 certainly won't be easy, but isn't it a good thing to have a challenge that is just that?
Any thoughts? If I'm wasting my time I guess I do need to know, painful as it may be.
[/QUOTE]
