So I plotted the vertical ascent rate vs grade.
What do you think happens when the grade gets close to 100%, and you're scrambling up?
by Ze » Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:54 pm
by graham » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:19 pm
The speed on a 100% grade (a 45 degree slope) would be highly “terrain” depended. For example, The Empire State Building Run-Up goes up 1,050 feet (at a grade approaching 100%) and the record is just under 10 minutes (ascending at ~6300ft/hour).Ze wrote:…. What do you think happens when the grade gets close to 100%, and you're scrambling up?
by Ze » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:20 am
graham wrote:Your graph shows that you are really motoring up Big Iron at ~1 ft/sec; which works out to ~3600 ft/hour. Your uphill speed is impressive considering the Mt Baldy Run To the Top record is just a little over 1 hour and gets up about 4000 ft (ascending at ~4000 ft/hour).The speed on a 100% grade (a 45 degree slope) would be highly “terrain” depended. For example, The Empire State Building Run-Up goes up 1,050 feet (at a grade approaching 100%) and the record is just under 10 minutes (ascending at ~6300ft/hour).Ze wrote:…. What do you think happens when the grade gets close to 100%, and you're scrambling up?
Obviously, speed on steeper terrain drops off, but still incredibly impressive. The current El Cap (~3000 ft) speed climbing record by Hans Florine and Yuji Hirayama is around 2 hours, 37 minutes. So this world class performance on a ~3000% grade works out to about 1150 ft/hour.
Great stuff
by Day Hiker » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:43 am
Ze wrote:graham wrote:Your graph shows that you are really motoring up Big Iron at ~1 ft/sec; which works out to ~3600 ft/hour. Your uphill speed is impressive considering the Mt Baldy Run To the Top record is just a little over 1 hour and gets up about 4000 ft (ascending at ~4000 ft/hour).The speed on a 100% grade (a 45 degree slope) would be highly “terrain” depended. For example, The Empire State Building Run-Up goes up 1,050 feet (at a grade approaching 100%) and the record is just under 10 minutes (ascending at ~6300ft/hour).Ze wrote:…. What do you think happens when the grade gets close to 100%, and you're scrambling up?
Obviously, speed on steeper terrain drops off, but still incredibly impressive. The current El Cap (~3000 ft) speed climbing record by Hans Florine and Yuji Hirayama is around 2 hours, 37 minutes. So this world class performance on a ~3000% grade works out to about 1150 ft/hour.
Great stuff
thanks. I'd prefer to have generic data, but the only stuff I got that has any "control" in it is my own. As for the baldy race, well I think that fits in well with this discussion. Sure it is 4000 ft gain, but being almost 8 miles long there is a significant distance aspect that also takes up energy and time. when I include the trailrunning in the VAR, you would still see low VAR numbers at 10% grade, which the much of the race is at, when running at constant energy output. I did that race in 90 min. Whereas if it was 4000 ft up a 30% grade, Probably could cut off 20 mins.
by The Chief » Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:34 pm
by Ze » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:51 pm
Day Hiker wrote:I have only climbed San Antonio in winter via the Baldy Bowl, so I haven't been on the entire trail, but it's my understanding that the trail is only about 4 miles, not 8. Of course the elevation gain is the same either way, at around 3900 feet.
So, assuming a constant grade for simplicity, with a hypotenuse of 4 miles and a gain of 3900 feet, the trail's average grade is about 18.8%.
How about 5 times in one day? http://www.rickkent.net/ViewerPlus/viewer.aspx?FolderID=820
Check out the impressive times, even on the 5th ascent, from mile 32 to mile 40 : http://www.rickkent.net/ViewerPlus/viewtextfile.aspx?ID=114587
To have only a 10% grade, the trail would have to be about 7.4 miles long, but it's not. Or were you just talking about the bottom mile of the trail? Or is the "Baldy Race" on an entirely different trail?
by MoapaPk » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:12 pm
by Day Hiker » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:41 pm
MoapaPk wrote:Some people define the grade of a slope as the 100%*tangent; others as the 100%*sine. From DayHiker's mention of hypotenuse, I'm guessing that he is using the latter definition. Not too much difference when the angle is small, but a lot of difference when the angle goes to pi/2. Ze's question "...when the grade gets close to 100%, and you're scrambling up?" suggests that he is using the tan approach, as 100% in the sine definition is a vertical wall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28slope%29
Day Hiker wrote:I have only climbed San Antonio in winter via the Baldy Bowl, so I haven't been on the entire trail, but it's my understanding that the trail is only about 4 miles, not 8. Of course the elevation gain is the same either way, at around 3900 feet.
So, assuming a constant grade for simplicity, with a hypotenuse of 4 miles and a gain of 3900 feet, the trail's average grade is about 18.8%.
. . .
[With 3900 feet of gain,] to have only a 10% grade, the trail would have to be about 7.4 miles long, but it's not.
. . .
by kevin trieu » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:55 pm
by MoapaPk » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:05 pm
Day Hiker wrote:MoapaPk wrote:Not too much difference when the angle is small, but a lot of difference when the angle goes to pi/2.
So, assuming a constant grade for simplicity, with a hypotenuse of 4 miles and a gain of 3900 feet, the trail's average grade is about 18.8%.
If you check those numbers, you will see that I am defining grade as the tangent of the incline angle, not the sine.
by Day Hiker » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:09 pm
MoapaPk wrote:Day Hiker wrote:MoapaPk wrote:Not too much difference when the angle is small, but a lot of difference when the angle goes to pi/2.
So, assuming a constant grade for simplicity, with a hypotenuse of 4 miles and a gain of 3900 feet, the trail's average grade is about 18.8%.
If you check those numbers, you will see that I am defining grade as the tangent of the incline angle, not the sine.
Hmmmm, 18.8 vs 18.5%. When I see a number given to 1 digit of precision (4 miles), I don't figure the accuracy of measurement warrants distinction between 18.5 and 18.8, eh?
MoapaPk wrote:Some people define the grade of a slope as the 100%*tangent; others as the 100%*sine. From DayHiker's mention of hypotenuse, I'm guessing that he is using the latter definition.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests