How hilly is your run??

Do you have a conversion factor for metres and kilometres? I understand miles but can't work feet.

I have my own approx guide which you can do without any maths.

If I use your method, hilly would be 100%. Anything less is just undulating.

lardarse wrote (see)

 

Olympus marathon, 9184 feet.... 350%

 

(unless i've quite likely got the maths wrong!)

 

No, you're right!! What a stinker that must have been!!

T.mouse wrote (see)

I have my own approx guide which you can do without any maths.

If I use your method, hilly would be 100%. Anything less is just undulating.

Yes, I agree...once you get past 100%, you know you're on a hilly rumble!!

YoungPup wrote (see)

Hi,

Interesting method.

I'm planning to do a 17 miler tomorrow around Box Hill in Surrey, and would expect this to be somewhere in between 100-180% in terms of "stink" ness... My route will be loosely based in the Midsummer Munro ( a half marathon with a stink factor of 225%), but I will probably miss out two of the big climbs that are so steep you need steps....

I really like hill running....

Thanks YoungPup, seems to work for you, then

I'm sad enough to have spent some time doing the conversions. My last ten runs have stinker ratings from 140% to 250%, with an average of 193%. Well, thats confirmed that I live in a fairly hilly area!

Johnny again wrote (see)

I'm sad enough to have spent some time doing the conversions. My last ten runs have stinker ratings from 140% to 250%, with an average of 193%. Well, thats confirmed that I live in a fairly hilly area!

 

Great work!! Where do you live - clearly has plenty of stonking hills!!

Hi Ivor

how are u

the photo, i know the area well, St ives, i grew up around and nr there and ran through the waves for hours and on coastal paths for hours

the real hills though are in Cumbria were we ahve done many miles , all day walks and runs - HILLS, HILS AND HILLS

micknphil-marathonlads.com wrote (see)

Hi Ivor

how are u

the photo, i know the area well, St ives, i grew up around and nr there and ran through the waves for hours and on coastal paths for hours

the real hills though are in Cumbria were we ahve done many miles , all day walks and runs - HILLS, HILS AND HILLS

I appreciate I'm talking about hills rather than mountains!! (although in younger days I walked the Pennine Way and done many walks in the Lakes). I only came to running at 45 (I'm 55 now) and the last 4 years we've done "fourdaysrunning" for charity. Last year we did Hadrian's Wall (so at least we could see Helvellyn!!).

wishing u well with it all

55, same age as myself,

that photo bought back memories to me, though i left there 26 years ago

and the Lakes i - or we love as well -

micknphil-marathonlads.com wrote (see)

wishing u well with it all

55, same age as myself,

that photo bought back memories to me, though i left there 26 years ago

and the Lakes i - or we love as well -

Thanks!! Maybe we'll make the Lakes one day...

We do about 110K over the four days. Any suggestions for an iconic Lakes route?

I've just played about with it looking at some of my training runs; and yes, I quite like the formula.  I think it'll come in useful when working out other training runs or seeing how difficult a hilly race will be.

And a lot of my running is around the Wye Valley/Severn Estuary, so there's a fair few hills around here that I can't avoid.

Hi Ivor. I live in the South Shropshire Hills. Our village is at the foot of a 533m hill. I don't really like flat running, it feels a bit weird - just as well, really.

How do you people measure elevation? Or how do you get an accurate reading from a garmin? I always ignore the elevation part of my garmin as I don't beleive it at all. Recent run was 7 miles and according to garmin it had 599m (1965 feet) of ascent and roughly the same decent. This would give a Stinker rating of  280%. Except the run was mainly along a canal toe path and very very flat.

(Looking at the elevation graph and estimating ascent as 50 m 164 feet gives a more realistiv rating of 23%)

Race I did last week had a stinker rating of 131%. It was hard, but not completely terrible.

My usual long training run comes out at only 70%, which surprised me. Too much flat in between the hills I think. Might have to revise my route!

I quite enjoy hills generally. Much more interesting to run a hilly course than a flat one.

MattDA wrote (see)

Race I did last week had a stinker rating of 131%. It was hard, but not completely terrible.

My usual long training run comes out at only 70%, which surprised me. Too much flat in between the hills I think. Might have to revise my route!

I quite enjoy hills generally. Much more interesting to run a hilly course than a flat one.

Thanks Matt, glad to see the STINker method is working. Even influencing your training routes?!

Yorkshire Rob wrote (see)

Fell Runners use a simpler formula based on climb/mile. Although it's now metric so I can't remember it exactly.

Using your formula the Borrowdale Fell race (as an example) comes out around 410-425% depending upon the precise route taken (7000ft in 16.5miles). Most of my runs would be well over 100% and probably closer to 200% each time.

That sounds about right!! Us southerners think 100-150% is hilly but fell runners in the Lakes are up over 200%. The Borrowdale would certainly kill us all  off!!

Catalin Bond wrote (see)

How do you people measure elevation? Or how do you get an accurate reading from a garmin? I always ignore the elevation part of my garmin as I don't beleive it at all. Recent run was 7 miles and according to garmin it had 599m (1965 feet) of ascent and roughly the same decent. This would give a Stinker rating of  280%. Except the run was mainly along a canal toe path and very very flat.

(Looking at the elevation graph and estimating ascent as 50 m 164 feet gives a more realistiv rating of 23%)

Hi Catalin

The Garmin is usually pretty accurate - a few thoughts...

Make sure you are looking at "elevation gain" (simple I know but hey...)
If you finish where you start, check that "elevation gain" and "elevation loss" are the same (ish) they should be
Any odd factors - did you lose touch with the satellite under a canal bridge (toe path run??) etc
Finally, I run the same run a few times and  know which is the correct reading (eg 364, 366, 859, 366, 363 = one rogue reading)

Hope these meanderings help!!