If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Try here, Peter:
http://www.fis-ski.com/pdf/2006/CC/2...06CC2845RL.pdf "Peter H." wrote: That 1380m of climbing just kind of bothered me, so I took a look at the course profile and tried to remember from about 20 years ago when I skied it. I do realize the profile won't show climbs of 10 or 15 meters. The horizontal lines are 100, 200, etc. meters. It sure looks a lot closer to 380 m. total than 1380. The Eurosport website is the only place I've seen the figure, and I suppose web sites rank below newspapers (and those somewhat below some sports scientists) for credibility. So it would be interesting to know whether that 1380 figure is given somewhere more believable. If it's anywhere close to that much climb, then I was a lot better skier in those days than I recall. As my friend John B. has said: "The older I get, the better I used to be!" Best, Peter |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks very much, Gene. I cannot really argue
with the official FIS number for elevation gain. Still, it's hard to believe that I shuffled down that (not quite) 90km. in 8 hours with a bad cold, very poor technique then, no idea about proper training and nutrition, but still didn't feel all that wasted, if it really was that much total climbing (20 years ago in the Oppet Spar). We did have a small tailwind, and the snow was plenty fast enough, so maybe that's why, but I'd done the Finlandia 70km just 4 days before. The FIS gives 90,000 meters as the distance, so apparently they tolerate some error, since the distance was listed as 89km for several years some time ago. But maybe the course has changed just enough to be the full 90, which sounds more impressive. And they put in a height difference, which usually implies that larger is harder, but here it's the opposite with the finish lower than the start. However, my (now lessened) skepticism about the elevation gain had to do with a much bigger possible error than referred to above. Looking carefully at all the little and bigger bumps on a course profile, then adding 20 or 30%, seems to give a pretty good estimate for most courses, in my experience, in terms of what is stated as the official height gain. But here (Vasa), that method certainly gives under 1000m. elevation gain. With his experience in orienteering, Terje M. probably knows at least as much as anyone here about the accuracy of GPS's and altimeters, so here's a question for him (and anybody else). How do they typically get these numbers for elevation gain? Whatever else is true, it would be a lot less work for a typical WC, even 50km., than for the Vasaloppet; i.e. surveying a 16.7km loop, as opposed to a 90km point-to-point. I notice that the expensive GPS's often have a separate altimeter, though in principle, the GPS gives your position in the universe, not just 2-dimensional position on the face of the earth. Not-so-fancy GPS's like the Timex system will accumulate erroneous total distance pretty quickly when you turn it on and just stay in the same place, presumably 1 meter at a time due to slight observational errors accumulating. So the GPS positioning system itself perhaps wouldn't do the job very well. Even if a really high-end one got to be accurate to a few centimeters (but it's about 100 times less accurate, I understand), just jiggling around on the skier's body would give all sorts of little errors which could accumulate significantly. For example, you could get 4500ft. of spurious elevation gain over 90km. by just adding 1 foot per 20 meters of the skier's upper arm moving up and down, if that's where the unit was worn. This parameter (elevation gain) really does make a huge difference in course difficulty, so it's very interesting to me to learn how it's measured. Joseph might be interested to hear that we figured about 3300ft. for the Birken a few years ago. It's an easier estimate, with very few small undulations, just really three very long climbs. Still very hard to believe that Vasaloppet is more, despite the extra distance. Best, Peter |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Peter H. wrote:
Thanks very much, Gene. I cannot really argue with the official FIS number for elevation gain. Still, it's hard to believe that I shuffled down that (not quite) 90km. in 8 hours with a bad cold, very poor technique then, no idea about proper training and nutrition, but still didn't feel all that wasted, if it really was that much total climbing (20 years ago in the Oppet Spar). We did have a small tailwind, and the snow was plenty fast enough, so maybe that's why, but I'd done the Finlandia 70km just 4 days before. The FIS gives 90,000 meters as the distance, so apparently they tolerate some error, since the distance was listed as 89km for several years some time ago. But maybe the course has changed just enough to be the full 90, which sounds more impressive. And they put in a height difference, which usually implies that larger is harder, but here it's the opposite with the finish lower than the start. However, my (now lessened) skepticism about the elevation gain had to do with a much bigger possible error than referred to above. Looking carefully at all the little and bigger bumps on a course profile, then adding 20 or 30%, seems to give a pretty good estimate for most courses, in my experience, in terms of what is stated as the official height gain. But here (Vasa), that method certainly gives under 1000m. elevation gain. With his experience in orienteering, Terje M. probably knows at least as much as anyone here about the accuracy of GPS's and altimeters, so here's a question for him (and anybody else). How do they typically get these numbers for elevation gain? Whatever else is true, it would be a lot less work for a typical WC, even 50km., than for the Vasaloppet; i.e. surveying a 16.7km loop, as opposed to a 90km point-to-point. OK, here goes! GPS is getting incredibly accurate these days, as long as you are in an area with good visibility and WAAS/EGNOS/ESTB coverage. Last summer I did a lot of testing over a 2-week period, using custom sw I wrote to download binary data from my Garmin GPSmap 76S: Combining all the thousands of position fixes, and assuming that the average location is/was correct, I got 67% (i.e. approximately 1 sigma) within 1.1 m, 90% within 2.0 m, 95% within 2.65 m. Over the entire test period, I found a single bad period, lasting less than 30 seconds, in which the position moved out about 30 m, stayed there for a few seconds, then quickly returned. Excepting this one anomalous measurement, all the remaining samples were within 3.0 m! This takes care of X/Y (lat/long) coordinates, elevation is a very different problem! First is sat geometry: All the satellites are above you! This means that average vertical precision is twice as bad as the horizontal one, which means that over an hour or so you can get a _lot_ of elevation ripples, giving false total elevation numbers. For measuring the length of a ski trail, in open terrain, simply carrying a GPS in the top pocket of a backpack will give you a result that's probably accurate at the 10-30 m level over 10+ K. The less twists and turns, the more accurate. A trail that moves into tree cover, particularly wet/snowy trees, reduces accuracy a _lot_, I have tried many times to carry a GPS in a night-O battery carrier with little luck: The resulting track log is never very close to my actual route choice. Elevation profiles By far the best way to get a good 3D track log is by combining two devices: A GPS for horizontal position and a barometer for vertical changes. With the default setup of my Garmin, the barometer is continuously delivering altitude measurements, while at the same time the GPS is used with a long (3 hour) time constant to calibrate the barometer. The result is dependable altitude measurements, with particularly good altitude changes which is the most important part. Terje -- - "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Terje Mathisen wrote:
OK, here goes! GPS is getting incredibly accurate these days, as long as you are in an area with good visibility and WAAS/EGNOS/ESTB coverage. Last summer I did a lot of testing over a 2-week period, using custom sw I wrote to download binary data from my Garmin GPSmap 76S: Combining all the thousands of position fixes, and assuming that the average location is/was correct, I got 67% (i.e. approximately 1 sigma) within 1.1 m, 90% within 2.0 m, 95% within 2.65 m. Over the entire test period, I found a single bad period, lasting less than 30 seconds, in which the position moved out about 30 m, stayed there for a few seconds, then quickly returned. Excepting this one anomalous measurement, all the remaining samples were within 3.0 m! This takes care of X/Y (lat/long) coordinates, elevation is a very different problem! First is sat geometry: All the satellites are above you! This means that average vertical precision is twice as bad as the horizontal one, which means that over an hour or so you can get a _lot_ of elevation ripples, giving false total elevation numbers. For measuring the length of a ski trail, in open terrain, simply carrying a GPS in the top pocket of a backpack will give you a result that's probably accurate at the 10-30 m level over 10+ K. The less twists and turns, the more accurate. A trail that moves into tree cover, particularly wet/snowy trees, reduces accuracy a _lot_, I have tried many times to carry a GPS in a night-O battery carrier with little luck: The resulting track log is never very close to my actual route choice. How about power lines and their influence on distance and height? I use a Forerunner 301, and it seems that where it is power lines, the measurements are not accurate.. -- Terje Henriksen Kirkenes |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vasaloppet (Sweden) USA team results | [email protected] | Nordic Skiing | 9 | March 8th 06 05:28 PM |
Mpeg Races: Vasaloppet | Janne G | Nordic Skiing | 0 | March 12th 04 06:47 AM |
!Vasaloppet! | Gary Jacobson | Nordic Skiing | 19 | March 11th 04 06:10 PM |
Norway takes 1st and 3rd in Swedish Vasaloppet! | Greg Fangel | Nordic Skiing | 6 | March 8th 04 09:05 AM |