BR Altitude Map

GPLama said:

http://tinyurl.com/96lh5

Always a sucker for new toys... above link is the altitude map from BR60 a
few weeks ago.. It actually blew me away the amount of climbing that shows
up.. don't let this be a deterrent for those who have never done a BR
before, it really isn't as bad as it looks! 🙂

before I go off and do it myself from the raw data, have you
had a chance to play with the data and draw your own graphs/profiles
rather than grab screenshots from the Polar s/w?

I had the format for it somewhere .. I think it's just plain text ..

"GPLama" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/96lh5

Always a sucker for new toys... above link is the altitude map from BR60 a
few weeks ago.. It actually blew me away the amount of climbing that shows
up.. don't let this be a deterrent for those who have never done a BR
before, it really isn't as bad as it looks! 🙂

The extreme appearance of the climbs is all due to a thing called vertical
exageration. Going by your scale it looks like 5kms on the horizontal scale
is about equal to 50m of altitude. This gives a vertical exageration of
5000/50 = 100 VE. Generally to get a meaningful diagram of a landscape a VE
of 5 to 10 would be sufficient. On roads, where the grades are gentler and
rises and falls may be a matter of only 20-100m, you may need to use a VE of
20. Try redrawing it with a redueced vertical scale and see if it looks more
realistic.

Using this scale, imagine drawing the climb up Dead Horse Gap to Thredbo -
over 1000 vertical metres in only 20kms. The vertical scale would take the
profile off the page and down the street ;-)

Cheers
Peter

On 2005-08-30, Peter Signorini (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

"GPLama" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/96lh5

Always a sucker for new toys... above link is the altitude map from BR60 a
few weeks ago.. It actually blew me away the amount of climbing that shows
up.. don't let this be a deterrent for those who have never done a BR
before, it really isn't as bad as it looks! 🙂

The extreme appearance of the climbs is all due to a thing called vertical
exageration.

Thanks Joke Explainerer!

Watch out, or I'll call you Matt McIrvine 🙂

Oooh, some "heavy metal" (heh) band is doing a cover of Pink Floyd's
Astronomy Domine on JJJ, and isn't completely ruining it.

--
TimC
New!: Sysadmin Barbie! Complete with tiny pager, Leatherman, selection of
LARTs, and makeup kit for that haven't-slept-in-3-days look. --unknown

Peter Signorini said:

"GPLama" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The extreme appearance of the climbs is all due to a thing called vertical
exageration. Going by your scale it looks like 5kms on the horizontal scale
is about equal to 50m of altitude.

Which isn't *quite* right. The height intervals are done
by time, not distance. Polar HRMs either sample every 5,30 or
60 seconds (from memory, mine's set for 5s). So, the slopes
are skewed by the fact that you climb slower than you descend,
as the X axis is not distance, it's time. Clever manipulation of
the raw data wuold mean you could correct for this though, as
the data stores the average HR over the 5s, and the average speed, so
you can calculate the distance and then plot that vs alt, but by
default, that's not what happens.

Quoted message said:

This gives a vertical exageration of
5000/50 = 100 VE. Generally to get a meaningful diagram of a landscape a VE
of 5 to 10 would be sufficient. On roads, where the grades are gentler and
rises and falls may be a matter of only 20-100m, you may need to use a VE of
20. Try redrawing it with a redueced vertical scale and see if it looks more
realistic.

Using this scale, imagine drawing the climb up Dead Horse Gap to Thredbo -
over 1000 vertical metres in only 20kms. The vertical scale would take the
profile off the page and down the street ;-)

Polar Precision Performance (v4, I don't know about v3) does
auto-scaling of the VE. You can probably tweak it though. You can
also get the raw data for
each recorded session very easily - it's in program files/polar/
somewhere, as a .hrm file.

Quoted message said:

Cheers
Peter

"Bleve" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Which isn't *quite* right. The height intervals are done
by time, not distance. Polar HRMs either sample every 5,30 or
60 seconds (from memory, mine's set for 5s). So, the slopes
are skewed by the fact that you climb slower than you descend,
as the X axis is not distance, it's time. Clever manipulation of
the raw data wuold mean you could correct for this though, as
the data stores the average HR over the 5s, and the average speed, so
you can calculate the distance and then plot that vs alt, but by
default, that's not what happens.

v4 has a toggle for the X axis, you can have it either time or distance..

cheers,
GPL

"Bleve" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

before I go off and do it myself from the raw data, have you
had a chance to play with the data and draw your own graphs/profiles
rather than grab screenshots from the Polar s/w?

I had the format for it somewhere .. I think it's just plain text ..

I've only loaded up the software and gone ooooo and arrhhhh so far.. and
calculated some gradients by adding in timing points.. once I get bored with
that I'll start playing more 🙂

cheers,
GPL

GPLama said:

"Bleve" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Which isn't *quite* right. The height intervals are done
by time, not distance. Polar HRMs either sample every 5,30 or
60 seconds (from memory, mine's set for 5s). So, the slopes
are skewed by the fact that you climb slower than you descend,
as the X axis is not distance, it's time. Clever manipulation of
the raw data wuold mean you could correct for this though, as
the data stores the average HR over the 5s, and the average speed, so
you can calculate the distance and then plot that vs alt, but by
default, that's not what happens.

v4 has a toggle for the X axis, you can have it either time or distance..

Interesting, it stores the data vs time, there's 3 columns (or
more, if you have cadence or power) :

HR, Speed (or maybe distance since last sample? in metres?
I was going 210m in 5s? does that pass a sanity check? 151.2km/h? nope
....) Alt

here's a sample from a file on mine :

[HRData]
89 0 0
89 0 147
89 0 147
89 0 147
89 0 147
89 0 147
92 0 147
98 0 146
98 69 146
100 10 146
111 210 146
116 211 148
121 226 149
122 229 149

There's no time as such in the raw data, but it does say
in an earlier field what the time interval is, and the start
time, so you can calculate it.

GPLama said:

Breakdown:

10km - Start at Doncaster Shopping Town
17km - 'Wake up Jeff' hill near the Donvale High School(?)
22-27km - Kangaroo Ground climb
30km peak - Comms tower/water tower climb.
38-40km - Clintons Rd
45-58km - TTT (or was that now ITT?) into Diamond Creek
......
75-76kms - The mother!.. Burgundy St..
88kms - The mothers mother - Yarra St!

You forgot:

27km - Blah's Blaaaaaahhhhhh
31km - 100kph headwind
39km - 'stoopid cows'
43km - coffee+muffins
61km - spokesnapper
67km - ode to Ryan Bailey at KFC
68km - marvel at chainsaw art 🙁
74km - softies' exit stage left
77km - recumbant hurdling
82-89 - boulevard of broken dreams
90km - try and figure out how Lama can start at 61m altitude and finish at 85m??? (Wonder if Von knows he's going elsewhere after? 😄 )

I have been using the 725 since I rode the first BR 🙂 I have many curves and find that mapping to distance gives a more realistic view of the climbs.

What I really hate is when you go close to a tram line and suddenly I am doing 100 k+ and have a HR of 225. Grr. The worst part is that it destroys you max speed and max HR, not fun, you wanna know how fast you went downhill without having to search the graph for it, dito for the HR.

Claes said:

I have been using the 725 since I rode the first BR 🙂 I have many
curves and find that mapping to distance gives a more realistic view of
the climbs.

What I really hate is when you go close to a tram line and suddenly I
am doing 100 k+ and have a HR of 225.

Next time, let go of the tram

On 31/08/05 at 23:33:43 Bleve somehow managed to type:

Quoted message said:

Claes said:

I have been using the 725 since I rode the first BR 🙂 I have many
curves and find that mapping to distance gives a more realistic
view of the climbs.

What I really hate is when you go close to a tram line and suddenly
I am doing 100 k+ and have a HR of 225.

Next time, let go of the tram

It's the thought of letting go of the tram that gives him the HR of 225.

--
Humbug

GPLama said:

45-58km - TTT (or was that now ITT?) into Diamond Creek

Free for all flat out racing😄 Well to Hurstbridge. I think we may see
some start & finish lines appear in the coming weeks...

"Jay Woo" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

GPLama said:

45-58km - TTT (or was that now ITT?) into Diamond Creek

Free for all flat out racing😄 Well to Hurstbridge. I think we may see
some start & finish lines appear in the coming weeks...

NiiiIiiIiiice!!!.... Kew crits this Sunday.. but I'm up for some speedy
action on the following BR..

cheers,
GPL

"HUMBUG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 31/08/05 at 23:33:43 Bleve somehow managed to type:

Quoted message said:

Claes said:

I have been using the 725 since I rode the first BR 🙂 I have many
curves and find that mapping to distance gives a more realistic
view of the climbs.

What I really hate is when you go close to a tram line and suddenly
I am doing 100 k+ and have a HR of 225.

Next time, let go of the tram

It's the thought of letting go of the tram that gives him the HR of 225.

--
Humbug

I just want to see a tram doing 100kph. That'd give the Landcruisers pause
for thought.

"flyingdutch" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

90km - try and figure out how Lama can start at 61m altitude and finish
at 85m??? (Wonder if Von knows he's going elsewhere after? 😄 )

shhhhH!!!!.. though the titty bar (which is no longer a titty bar) at Kew
junction is about 10m lower from where I start from.. so thankfully that is
ruled out 😉

cheers,
GPL
:never been there myself, just an altitude estimate: