This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Heard about this concept recently in relation to Steve Abraham
It is defined as the maximum number E such that the cyclist has cycled E miles on E days
Thanks to last nights glorious ride up the Snake Pass I've now done 42 rides of 42 miles or more - my score being exactly half that of Arthur Eddington himself. But hey, all but 2 of my qualifying rides have been in the last 4 years and half on mountain bikes. Now I've got a road bike I break 50 in a year or two
As to Abraham, I think he had a score of 100 for this year alone before that muppet on a moped took him out.
Anyway , it's Friday afternoon, start working out your score !
It is defined as the maximum number E such that the cyclist has cycled E miles on E days
Thanks to last nights glorious ride up the Snake Pass I've now done 42 rides of 42 miles or more - my score being exactly half that of Arthur Eddington himself. But hey, all but 2 of my qualifying rides have been in the last 4 years and half on mountain bikes. Now I've got a road bike I break 50 in a year or two
As to Abraham, I think he had a score of 100 for this year alone before that muppet on a moped took him out.
Anyway , it's Friday afternoon, start working out your score !
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Presumably the days may be non-contiguous? Is there a time limit over which you can count days? Is it a one year rolling window for instance?
As a starting point mine is 26- that being the distance I commute each day (13 miles each way).
Presumably the days may be non-contiguous? Is there a time limit over which you can count days? Is it a one year rolling window for instance?
As a starting point mine is 26- that being the distance I commute each day (13 miles each way).
In reply to Chris the Tall:
If you are on Strava, this does it for you:
https://swinny.net/Cycling/-4687-Calculate-your-Eddington-Number
I'm at 19, all on an MTB. Which I'm more than happy with. Anymore more and people might think I'm a roadie, lol.
If you are on Strava, this does it for you:
https://swinny.net/Cycling/-4687-Calculate-your-Eddington-Number
I'm at 19, all on an MTB. Which I'm more than happy with. Anymore more and people might think I'm a roadie, lol.
Post edited at 12:43
2
In reply to Bob:
Steve is now cycling a trike recumbent after his accident and looks as if he's going to break the record
Steve is now cycling a trike recumbent after his accident and looks as if he's going to break the record
In reply to ChrisJD:
And my number is ....
56
Which is a lot higher than I thought it would be TBH.
Only 96 more centuries to get it to 100
And my number is ....
56
Which is a lot higher than I thought it would be TBH.
Only 96 more centuries to get it to 100
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I have no idea what it all means ... but the link gave me this ...
You have recorded 379 Rides on Strava, covering 6916 miles in 647 hours on 285 different days.
Your Eddington number is 39!
Oh, and only one more ride of 40 miles to get to 40 apparently. Is that a good thing?
I have no idea what it all means ... but the link gave me this ...
You have recorded 379 Rides on Strava, covering 6916 miles in 647 hours on 285 different days.
Your Eddington number is 39!
Oh, and only one more ride of 40 miles to get to 40 apparently. Is that a good thing?
Post edited at 13:25
In reply to ChrisJD:
35, but planning to make it 36 tommorrow !
> What's your EN-MTB?
> Roadie miles don't count
35, but planning to make it 36 tommorrow !
1
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
Of course it's a good thing. Basically you've ridden 39 miles in one ride on 39 seperate occasions.
Any rides you've ever done under 39 miles count for zilch.
If you rode 35 miles every day for the next year your eddington number wouldn't change as 39 is the highest number that matches both your greatest distance figure and number of times that distance has been ridden.
Hope that makes some sense.
Of course it's a good thing. Basically you've ridden 39 miles in one ride on 39 seperate occasions.
Any rides you've ever done under 39 miles count for zilch.
If you rode 35 miles every day for the next year your eddington number wouldn't change as 39 is the highest number that matches both your greatest distance figure and number of times that distance has been ridden.
Hope that makes some sense.
In reply to ChrisJD:
How do you filter it (the tool) to only show MTB rides? Since all mine are on the one bike it should be relatively simple to do.
How do you filter it (the tool) to only show MTB rides? Since all mine are on the one bike it should be relatively simple to do.
In reply to Bob:
No idea about Strava, but just discovered it's really easy to do it in Garmin Connect (classic version of course)
Under Analyse...Activities put a value in distance and it will filter out all shorter rides
Turns out I'm already on 36 - but need another 5 to go up to 37 - it's a cruel notion this isn't it !
No idea about Strava, but just discovered it's really easy to do it in Garmin Connect (classic version of course)
Under Analyse...Activities put a value in distance and it will filter out all shorter rides
Turns out I'm already on 36 - but need another 5 to go up to 37 - it's a cruel notion this isn't it !
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
There was discussion of Eddington Numbers - and similar versions that could be applied to hill-climbing - years ago in The Angry Corrie. I can't find the discussion just at the minute (am a bit tied down with a work deadline), but the gist was that it could be applied both to distances (as per the original) or cumulative ascents.
To take Munros, for instance, my own Eddington-style number appears to be 17 at present, ie I've been up 17 Munros 17 times or more. To nudge it up to 18 will take a bit of effort - I'd need to get all the existing tallies up to at least 18 (and two of them are exactly 17 as things stand), plus one of the sub-17 totals would also need to reach 18. I've currently been on Beinn Dubhchraig (the next highest total) 15 times, so if I climbed that three more times plus the two 17ers once each then the overall number would reach 18.
Anyway, it's applicable in lots of situations and - once you get your head round the double-variable thing - is good fun.
There was discussion of Eddington Numbers - and similar versions that could be applied to hill-climbing - years ago in The Angry Corrie. I can't find the discussion just at the minute (am a bit tied down with a work deadline), but the gist was that it could be applied both to distances (as per the original) or cumulative ascents.
To take Munros, for instance, my own Eddington-style number appears to be 17 at present, ie I've been up 17 Munros 17 times or more. To nudge it up to 18 will take a bit of effort - I'd need to get all the existing tallies up to at least 18 (and two of them are exactly 17 as things stand), plus one of the sub-17 totals would also need to reach 18. I've currently been on Beinn Dubhchraig (the next highest total) 15 times, so if I climbed that three more times plus the two 17ers once each then the overall number would reach 18.
Anyway, it's applicable in lots of situations and - once you get your head round the double-variable thing - is good fun.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
At work so it will have to wait.
A figure giving metres climbed per Km ridden would be more interesting - did a ride with 1100 metres of ascent (and descent) in 24Km the other night which is an average uphill gradient of 9% (assuming half the ride was uphill and half downhill) but there was approximately 8Km of flat road so it's closer to 14% or 1 in 7. No wonder my legs felt tired!
At work so it will have to wait.
A figure giving metres climbed per Km ridden would be more interesting - did a ride with 1100 metres of ascent (and descent) in 24Km the other night which is an average uphill gradient of 9% (assuming half the ride was uphill and half downhill) but there was approximately 8Km of flat road so it's closer to 14% or 1 in 7. No wonder my legs felt tired!
In reply to Tricky Dicky:
Crazy that Steve has managed to come back at all following the accident! I think he might be back on his normal bike now following a few weeks on the trike. He's still around 4000 miles down on the record, and the deficit is increasing (although much less slowly). He has a lot of catching up to do, I really hope he can do it.
But I cant see him beating Kurt Searvogel , who is 3800 miles ahead of the record (nearly 8000 ahead of Steve), despite having started 10 days or so later. But he's doing it in sunny flat Florida, so it doesn't count
All the stats here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xz2QyYN6S5ve5X5lvNNwLDb4J8sEek1EOuE...
> Steve is now cycling a trike recumbent after his accident and looks as if he's going to break the record
Crazy that Steve has managed to come back at all following the accident! I think he might be back on his normal bike now following a few weeks on the trike. He's still around 4000 miles down on the record, and the deficit is increasing (although much less slowly). He has a lot of catching up to do, I really hope he can do it.
But I cant see him beating Kurt Searvogel , who is 3800 miles ahead of the record (nearly 8000 ahead of Steve), despite having started 10 days or so later. But he's doing it in sunny flat Florida, so it doesn't count
All the stats here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xz2QyYN6S5ve5X5lvNNwLDb4J8sEek1EOuE...
Post edited at 14:25
1
In reply to Dave Hewitt:
In which case my Munroes number is ....... 2 (3 of them twice - 2 on Aoneach Eagach and Buichaille Etive Mor), but I've only done about 10 in total
In which case my Munroes number is ....... 2 (3 of them twice - 2 on Aoneach Eagach and Buichaille Etive Mor), but I've only done about 10 in total
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
My head is a weird place. It's thinking it should be possible to get the number to be the same as my age by next year ...
My head is a weird place. It's thinking it should be possible to get the number to be the same as my age by next year ...
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
If your profile age is right you need to work out how many days you've ridden 46 miles or more.
Your Eddington number is the amount of miles ridden in a day. So a round trip commute of 23 miles each way would work.
Do this once a week for a year and you've got your age in Eddington.
If your profile age is right you need to work out how many days you've ridden 46 miles or more.
Your Eddington number is the amount of miles ridden in a day. So a round trip commute of 23 miles each way would work.
Do this once a week for a year and you've got your age in Eddington.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Steve is indeed back on his Raleigh bike has been for 4 weeks now. His current Eddington number is 150 based on Strava
Steve is indeed back on his Raleigh bike has been for 4 weeks now. His current Eddington number is 150 based on Strava
In reply to Chris the Tall:
a mere 17. but all mtb miles in very hilly mid wales!
a mere 17. but all mtb miles in very hilly mid wales!
Post edited at 22:00
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Courtesy of the closure of the Snake Pass, now made it to 40 ... feeling somewhat smug. Giggled the whole way up and down the road. Amazing to do it traffic free.
Courtesy of the closure of the Snake Pass, now made it to 40 ... feeling somewhat smug. Giggled the whole way up and down the road. Amazing to do it traffic free.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Thanks for the link for the calculation based on Strava. Been using Strava for a couple of years and get 58, but earlier in the year I estimated mine to be around the 70-80 mark. It's an interesting concept because, as you push it higher, it keeps getting harder and harder to push it up, at an almost exponential rate.
Thanks for the link for the calculation based on Strava. Been using Strava for a couple of years and get 58, but earlier in the year I estimated mine to be around the 70-80 mark. It's an interesting concept because, as you push it higher, it keeps getting harder and harder to push it up, at an almost exponential rate.
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
Mimicking the very act of increasing your speed itself, itself.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I've been keeping an eye on my running Eddington number for years, and it's still only 17 after 6000 miles of running. Only 3 more needed to get it to 18, but 12 more to get to 20. It's a fun thing to keep in your head to motivate you to do just one more mile at the end of a long run (although 2 would be better!)
I've been keeping an eye on my running Eddington number for years, and it's still only 17 after 6000 miles of running. Only 3 more needed to get it to 18, but 12 more to get to 20. It's a fun thing to keep in your head to motivate you to do just one more mile at the end of a long run (although 2 would be better!)
In reply to Bob:
Or is that 13? (for individual rides)
I only ask because my commute is 15 miles each way (I often do weekend rides of 26 miles so I could be 30 or 26 depending on how you count it)
> Presumably the days may be non-contiguous? Is there a time limit over which you can count days? Is it a one year rolling window for instance?
> As a starting point mine is 26- that being the distance I commute each day (13 miles each way).
Or is that 13? (for individual rides)
I only ask because my commute is 15 miles each way (I often do weekend rides of 26 miles so I could be 30 or 26 depending on how you count it)
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
As Eddington defined it, it would be 26, if Wikipedia* is right.
An Eddington number E is the maximum number such that you have cycled at least E miles on E days.
I have always thought of it in terms of miles per run, rather than per day. However, since I am very unlikely to run 15+ miles twice in one day, the difference is academic.
*Eddington's own number was 84. I bet he didn't have a a fancy road bike.
As Eddington defined it, it would be 26, if Wikipedia* is right.
An Eddington number E is the maximum number such that you have cycled at least E miles on E days.
I have always thought of it in terms of miles per run, rather than per day. However, since I am very unlikely to run 15+ miles twice in one day, the difference is academic.
*Eddington's own number was 84. I bet he didn't have a a fancy road bike.
Post edited at 08:51
In reply to Chris the Tall:
22 - which is my round trip commute to work.
Seems that since I started using Strava, I only do either that or very erratic distance longer rides.
22 - which is my round trip commute to work.
Seems that since I started using Strava, I only do either that or very erratic distance longer rides.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
So is there an agreed unit of length to get a worthwhile EN for ascent on bike?
So is there an agreed unit of length to get a worthwhile EN for ascent on bike?
In reply to Bob:
Researched it a bit. So far as I can tell it seems to be daily amounts. So 26 is logical for you.
It seems 30 is my minimum but it could be 35 or 40. Haven't got adequate records to go on.
Researched it a bit. So far as I can tell it seems to be daily amounts. So 26 is logical for you.
It seems 30 is my minimum but it could be 35 or 40. Haven't got adequate records to go on.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Use meters - you get a nice big score ! Mine is 300 - 302 rides with of 300 m of ascent - in the 4 years since I've been using the Garmin.
Use meters - you get a nice big score ! Mine is 300 - 302 rides with of 300 m of ascent - in the 4 years since I've been using the Garmin.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
You gave the head of this obsessive too much material to work with. Eddington No now up to 41 ...
You gave the head of this obsessive too much material to work with. Eddington No now up to 41 ...
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
Haha - have you set up a spreadsheet yet ? It really is an evil concept isn't it.
I'm hoping to push mine up to 43 with a couple of rides over the weekend, and I like your target of getting to 50 by the time I'm 50, but I've got so many rides in the mid 40s that it will be tough.
Haha - have you set up a spreadsheet yet ? It really is an evil concept isn't it.
I'm hoping to push mine up to 43 with a couple of rides over the weekend, and I like your target of getting to 50 by the time I'm 50, but I've got so many rides in the mid 40s that it will be tough.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...