UKC

Does something similar to Naismith's Rule (i.e. 1km map distance = 120m height gain) still work for running? Or is the ratio a bit different? Obviously it's a bit user-dependent, but I'd be interested hear folk's experience....

In reply to Mark Bull:
I've heard the equivalent of 1km for every 100m, e.g 10km with 200m ascent takes the same time as 12km on the flat.

Mind you I'm so slow that uphill and downhill are about thr same

In reply to Mark Bull:

broadly the same rules apply, with a few caveats. 1) if downhills are gentle you can gain a lot of time back. 2) If downhills are especially rough they can be slower than on the flat. 3) doesn't work if you're really lazy uphill!

In reply to Mark Bull:
I've heard the same as Ridge.

Doing some research on the BG a while back, I came across a very interesting and very carefully argued academic paper on this question in relation to the BG. Can't remember where it was, but I *think* it came out of Sheffield University, and there's always Google.

In reply to Mark Bull:

there was an article in Trail runner (or similar title) with reference to this in the context of the OMM. Written by Nick Bullock IIRC. Anyway, it's available via the omm website - www.theomm.com

In reply to Solaris:

Was it this one? http://www.jstor.org/stable/2583947
Very interesting indeed, thank you (and thanks to the other posters too).

In reply to nniff:

Thanks! (It's called Mountain Marathon Route Choice and is listed under Documents, in case anyone else is looking for it).

In reply to Mark Bull:

Yes, that's the one.

In reply to Mark Bull: I think (and I can't be bothered to check but it'll be somewhere in the BOF website) that in planning orienteering courses, 100m = 1km to work out overall expected time.

In reply to Mark Bull:

I have been trying to get my head around this and had the opportunity to test it today, obviously hills can slow you down a lot, but I think the numbers mentioned are way too generous.

Firstly you need to look at like for like surfaces, so road with road, trail with trail and comparable fell terrain. It definately doesn't work for the road, I have done loads of 10ks with 200m+ of ascent, adds no more than the time it would take to run 500m, not 2k.

I guess this is really aimed at off-road terrain. I ran the Hebden today, about 36k and 1300m of ascent, mainly on very muddy tracks with descents that required care in the conditions. According to the numbers mentioned in the thread this is equivalent to 49k on the flat. For various reasons such as not feeling great at the start of the race and a few navigation delays, I probably ran 20 minutes slower than I could have, but even with the time I did record, I could never run 49k in that time on similar, but flat trail / fell terrain.

In reply to The New NickB:

The paper by Davey, Hayes and Norman linked above would seem to support you on this: if I have done the imperial to metric conversion right, it suggests values of between (roughly) 1km = 200m for steep slopes and 1km = 400m for moderate slopes.

In reply to Mark Bull:

It seems intuitively right that the values should be different for different slopes, but on the other hand, the OMM etc. rule of thumb has been tried and tested by quite a few people for whom getting the calculation right makes the difference between winning and losing.

Anyone else?

In reply to Mark Bull:

Of course the bob graham round isn't really running for most completers. Naismiths rule never works universally for walking any way - but it's a useful appoximation that stops you not factoring the time taken for a 500m climb into account.

I think it certainly performs better on routes with a high climb: distance ratio. Off the top of my head, my times for a round of glencoe and bgr leg 1 are both reasonably well predicted by 1km = 100m