Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Wrench-O-Phile
Joined
·
262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, I upped my personal ante in regards to the Quad Bypass and added Tom's Thumb into the mix. The ride was monstrous... but a blast.

The Route:

Tom's - Bell - Paradise - Lost Dog - Sunrise - Sonoran - Dixie - Prospector - Windgate

The Stats:

33 miles - 6773 feet of climbing - 6.5 hours

The writeup:

http://www.thestickichronicles.com/2009/12/gnardruple-bypass.html

The result:

I am tired... but feeling very rewarded. :D

For those who aren't aware or haven't tried it yet there is a "new" trail called Sonoran which links the Sunrise area to Dixie mine. You miss the entire problematic neighborhood below and the new section has some amazing flow. Not very tech, but a true carvers delight.

A must do for sure.

I have a GPS file of the loop for those who are interested. Just PM me your E-Mail and I can send it out.
 

·
I am Walt
Joined
·
6,393 Posts
Nice job on the first documented "first ascent"...:thumbsup:

This is going to be the new "Quad" route...increased pain factor!

And yep, that Sonoran Trail rocks...
 

·
Got a suspension fork
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
Elvota said:
The Stats:

33 miles - 6773 feet of climbing - 6.5 hours
For those that may be interested, my Elevation Corrected data on Steve's ride shows that it comes in at 4,933 feet not 6,773. Agree or disagree with Garmin's raw GPS data and Elevation Corrected data it is what it is.
 

·
Ahhh the pain....
Joined
·
2,566 Posts
Seems like the topic of "actual" climbing elevation is a bit of a philosophical discussion. There's really two problems with the raw GPS data. First, an actual data point collected (at a latitude, longitude, and elevation) has error in it. Seems like a good thing to correct this error out of the data by comparing to more accurate databases. The next part of the correction is in how the unit tallies up the accent. As I understand, the garmin units simply look at whether a data point is higher than the last and if so, it get's added as accent. Problem is, there's noise (somewhat random) in the data so if you pedaled along a flat road, the unit might toggle between the smallest digit (which is 0.1 meters) for the garmin units. It would continually tally that 0.1 every time it toggled from low to high. That's where the smoothing or averaging algorithms help...they smooth out that noise which limits the amount of false accent (or decent). What I'm not sure about is just how much they smooth things out...You'd like it to not smooth out climbs that produce you to expend energy.
Anyway...bottom line is most of us use the accent data as a metric for how much work we did. I think if you always just use the raw data and only compare these, then fine. If you prefer the corrected data (or let's call it modified...corrected implies the raw data is incorrect), then just always measure yourself with those numbers.
We could probably get a good "accurate #" for the Gnarduple if we pulled elevation data out of a database for the start point, top of TT, bottom of East end, top of Bell, end of Paradise, etc...and simply subtract the highs from the lows...
But heck, that's a hell of ride no matter how you add it up...
 

·
Got a suspension fork
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
Raybum said:
Seems like the topic of "actual" climbing elevation is a bit of a philosophical discussion. There's really two problems with the raw GPS data. First, an actual data point collected (at a latitude, longitude, and elevation) has error in it. Seems like a good thing to correct this error out of the data by comparing to more accurate databases. The next part of the correction is in how the unit tallies up the accent. As I understand, the garmin units simply look at whether a data point is higher than the last and if so, it get's added as accent. Problem is, there's noise (somewhat random) in the data so if you pedaled along a flat road, the unit might toggle between the smallest digit (which is 0.1 meters) for the garmin units. It would continually tally that 0.1 every time it toggled from low to high. That's where the smoothing or averaging algorithms help...they smooth out that noise which limits the amount of false accent (or decent). What I'm not sure about is just how much they smooth things out...You'd like it to not smooth out climbs that produce you to expend energy.
Anyway...bottom line is most of us use the accent data as a metric for how much work we did. I think if you always just use the raw data and only compare these, then fine. If you prefer the corrected data (or let's call it modified...corrected implies the raw data is incorrect), then just always measure yourself with those numbers.
We could probably get a good "accurate #" for the Gnarduple if we pulled elevation data out of a database for the start point, top of TT, bottom of East end, top of Bell, end of Paradise, etc...and simply subtract the highs from the lows...
But heck, that's a hell of ride no matter how you add it up...
I agree on all accounts, the GPS activity application I use automatically gives me the elevation correction figure (which I take as far more accurate than raw GPS collected data) so I just thought I'd throw it out there for the heck of it. Any way you look at it, whatever the actual feet of ascent it, it's a h*ll of a ride. And I am excited to see if I can make it in one piece.

EDIT: one small thing, I converted the original gdb GPS file directly to GPX instead of KMZ them GPX and this time and show 5,200 feet of Ascent.
 

·
Wrench-O-Phile
Joined
·
262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
JackRabitt said:
Where did you start?
I did a gnarduple not too long ago and I got 37 miles and 7400 ft climbing!
I started from Thompson Peak and Bell
I started at the 104th street and Bell Parking area. On the Garmin when I got back to the car it read 35, but downloaded at home it was 32... so I just split the difference. Maybe you didn't take the Sonoran trail on the backside? Or maybe it's just another example of variance in recording equipment.

randyharris said:
Any way you look at it, whatever the actual feet of ascent it, it's a h*ll of a ride. And I am excited to see if I can make it in one piece.

EDIT: one small thing, I converted the original gdb GPS file directly to GPX instead of KMZ them GPX and this time and show 5,200 feet of Ascent.
Well... I don't get very tech at all with the GPS. Just turn it on and report what it says at the end. Seems like mileage and elevation will vary depending on software, but what ya gonna do.

Regardless, I think those that give this route a shot will appreciate the extra challenge Tom's gives for the Quadruple.

Both up and down. :thumbsup:
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top