Forums >Racing>Marathon elevations

12

Marathon elevations (Read 798 times)

Trent


Good Bad & The Monkey

    posted: 5/9/2008 at 7:27 PM
    Click
    cgerber


      posted: 5/9/2008 at 7:36 PM
      Ah... Pikes Peak... my first marathon. I figured anything after that would be another PR. Tongue
      Berner


        posted: 5/9/2008 at 11:02 PM
        They're missing Chicago: Start_________________________________________________________________________End

        How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2.

        Kennyd


          posted: 5/9/2008 at 11:12 PM
          Trent, So that's what happened to your calves, I thought it was Elephantiasis.
          Crabby


          Dog-Love

            posted: 5/9/2008 at 11:44 PM
            That's a great link! Thanks. Having Pike's Peak and the Monkey next to each other makes the monkey seem doable. But then...I need to think again!
            Run like you are on fire! 5K goal 24:00 or less (PR 24:34) 10K goal 50:00 or less (PR 52:45) HM goal 1:55:00 or less (PR 2:03:02) Marathon Goal...Less than my PR (PR 4:33:23)
            dallas


            Hoodoo Guru

              posted: 5/9/2008 at 11:46 PM
              Quote from Crabby on 5/9/2008 at 11:44 PM:
              . But then...I need to think again!
              Don't think...Do.

              The tangents are moot.

               

               

               

              Trent


              Good Bad & The Monkey

                posted: 5/9/2008 at 11:59 PM
                Quote from Crabby on 5/9/2008 at 11:44 PM:
                That's a great link! Thanks. Having Pike's Peak and the Monkey next to each other makes the monkey seem doable. But then...I need to think again!
                His elevations are neat, but a bit flat. Monkey's hills barely show, and his overall elevation estimate of 1900 feet of climb is about 45% low (it should be 3500 feet). These are neat, but they are a bit inaccurate. Part of the problem is that his elevation profiles don't sample data that frequently and they display them on a squashed Y axis. On others, Heartbreak hill does not show up, and neither do the big hills that beat me down at Country Music Marathon. Pikes Peak, of course, is so exaggerated, that it makes all the others look doable.
                cgerber


                  posted: 5/10/2008 at 12:10 AM
                  Quote from Trent on 5/9/2008 at 11:59 PM:
                  Pikes Peak, of course, is so exaggerated, that it makes all the others look doable.
                  Very much so, at 6.5x vertical exaggeration (as are the others), but it sure doesn't feel exaggerated when you're at the bottom of the 16 Golden Steps for the 2nd time in 24 hours, gasping for breath! Shocked
                  Trent


                  Good Bad & The Monkey

                    posted: 5/10/2008 at 12:21 AM
                    It is actually 6.5/(5280/100). Big grin The day of the ascent, sitting comfortably atop the peak enjoying my coffee and donut while watching all the finishers, I thought to myself, "gee, I should have doubled". The day of the marathon, somewhere around Barr Camp, I thought to myself, "damn, I'm glad I didn't double". Just before the golden steps:
                    cgerber


                      posted: 5/10/2008 at 12:46 AM
                      You know... it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Smile You look WAY too happy and fresh in that photo! You should definitely double next time... it was actually a lot of fun.
                      mrakers


                        posted: 5/10/2008 at 1:44 AM
                        Quote from Trent on 5/9/2008 at 11:59 PM:
                        neither do the big hills that beat me down at Country Music Marathon.
                        Yeah, they actually look very flat, when the case is actually they are mountainous beings which I conquered.
                        JakeKnight


                          posted: 5/10/2008 at 9:14 AM
                          Quote from Crabby on 5/9/2008 at 11:44 PM:
                          That's a great link! Thanks. Having Pike's Peak and the Monkey next to each other makes the monkey seem doable. But then...I need to think again!
                          That is a horrible link. Anybody who thinks that graph of the Monkey's hills even approaches reality is going to be in for some very serious pain. This is far more accurate and illustrative: http://www.harpethhillsmarathon.com/PWPmaps/Elevation.JPG And since that one is so ridiculously inaccurate, I have to wonder about the rest of them. Trent, post a link to your own elevations maps. Those are about a billion times more useful.

                          E-mail: eric.fuller.mail@gmail.com
                          -----------------------------

                          mikeymike


                            posted: 5/10/2008 at 9:35 AM
                            modified: 5/10/2008 at 9:35 AM
                            No elevation graph approaches reality. Otherwise there would be no way to fit a 26.2 mile race course on you computer screen, or to even be able to notice the hills, visually. From space the earth is as smooth as a bowling ball. But tell that to the climbers at the base of Hillary's step. You can make the picture look like whatever you want with the right scale and perspective.

                            Runners run

                            Trent


                            Good Bad & The Monkey

                              posted: 5/10/2008 at 10:26 AM
                              modified: 5/10/2008 at 10:32 AM
                              These were posted over at RW forums. The guy who is building them, he and I have had several productive discussions in the past. In this case, I disagree with him, but usually we see eye to eye. He also creates these using mapmyrun, and the elevation data there seems to be fairly coarse and inaccurate. Discussion here: http://forums.runnersworld.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/960108738/m/1181002474
                              Quote from mikeymike on 5/10/2008 at 9:35 AM:
                              No elevation graph approaches reality...You can make the picture look like whatever you want with the right scale and perspective.
                              Sure. So how should they look? You want them to bring out the hills that exist without exaggerating them (unless it is such a nasty hill, like Pikes Peak, that it almost requires an exaggerated scale).
                              Quote from JakeKnight on 5/10/2008 at 9:14 AM:
                              Trent, post a link to your own elevations maps.
                              Done: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/timrock/vpost?id=2629906
                              JakeKnight


                                posted: 5/10/2008 at 11:20 AM
                                A request: can you try and find one for the Ft. Collins/Colorado marathon? Also - you've run out there. How much did the elevation affect you? The Ft. Collins one has a serious net downhill but starts at 6,000 feet. Just wonderin'. Cheers, mate.

                                E-mail: eric.fuller.mail@gmail.com
                                -----------------------------

                                12

                                Forums >Racing>Marathon elevations

                                © 2024 RunningAHEAD, LLC. All rights reserved.
                                Terms of Service|Privacy|Feedback|Help