[LEL17] LEL Planning

[jochta]

Excellent! Thanks. Opens and works fine in Google Sheets as well 

[Bus Shelter Bertie]

Looks very interesting and possibly quite useful, but a small error I think. The end time is a calculation of the distance (1433km) divided by the 12km/h average speed. It is a BRM event so should be 1400/12 ie. no allowance for the extra 33 km :-(

[jsabine]

GPWM.

To cover 1433km in 116hrs40mins, you'll actually need to average 12.3km/h.

I *think* that alwyn bases your personalised control closure times on this higher average to avoid people being caught out by, say, arrival at Great Easton with 23 minutes to do the last 45km. (At any rate, he did last time.)

[Divingrob]

Cool, I've also been working on my own trying to workout sleep and start times. glad I'm not alone.

[alwyn]

GPWM.

To cover 1433km in 116hrs40mins, you'll actually need to average 12.3km/h.

I *think* that alwyn bases your personalised control closure times on this higher average to avoid people being caught out by, say, arrival at Great Easton with 23 minutes to do the last 45km. (At any rate, he did last time.)

Yep, we'll do that again this time. It was actually Keeff's idea and it's an excellent one.

[frillipippi]

The LEL website page about controls is currently saying that there will be 30/50 beds available in Traquair/Innerleithen, Eskdalemuir and Great Easton controls, while the FAQ page says no beds or showers. I guess the Controls page is newer than the FAQ page and I'd consider it more reliable. If so, will these controls offer showers, too?

[alwyn]

You're quite right. Since we wrote the FAQ page, we've upgraded the controls at Innerleithen (formerly Traquair), Eskdalemuir and Great. We've now got small dormitories at all of them.

I doubt they'll have a shower that we can use.

[Nelson Longflap]

Nice work reynard 

Works fine in google sheets. I particularly like the option to slow down a bit after the first 339 km!

I find spreadsheets like this give me a good feeling for the scale of the event, and are good for panic mitigation as I lose the ability to do sums of any kind during the ride 

[reynard]

spreadsheet updated accordingly...download link the same. Should the 12.3 minimum be in the FAQ on the website...might be helpful?

GPWM.

To cover 1433km in 116hrs40mins, you'll actually need to average 12.3km/h.

I *think* that alwyn bases your personalised control closure times on this higher average to avoid people being caught out by, say, arrival at Great Easton with 23 minutes to do the last 45km. (At any rate, he did last time.)

Yep, we'll do that again this time. It was actually Keeff's idea and it's an excellent one.

[frillipippi]

Flat/lumpy legs

Using the elevation data contained in the gpx tracks of the official website, I summed up all the ascent and came to an overall total of 13,272 m, about 20% more of what the website says. I'd consider it reasonably accurate, also because I used the lumpier options both for the first leg (Loughton - St Ives, morning) and for the 8th (Brampton - Moffat, daytime).
The ascent is split in this way:

leg	distance	ascent	lumpiness
Loughton - St Ives	98	834	8.5
St Ives - Spalding	61	170	2.8
Spalding - Louth	83	507	6.1
Louth - Pocklington	97	911	9.4
Pocklington - Coxwold	53	588	11.1
Coxwold - Thirsk	13	83	6.4
Thirsk - Barnard Castle	67	611	9.1
Barnard Castle - Alston	51	769	15.1
Alston - Brampton	31	256	8.3
Brampton - Moffat	71	903	12.7
Moffat - Edinburgh	80	911	11.4
Edinburgh - Traquair	43	703	16.3
Traquair - Eskdalemuir	49	679	13.9
Eskdalemuir - Brampton	58	620	10.7
Brampton - Alston	31	494	15.9
Alston - Barnard Castle	52	621	11.9
Barnard Castle - Thirsk	67	448	6.7
Thirsk - Coxwold	14	114	8.1
Coxwold - Pocklington	53	546	10.3
Pocklington - Louth	96	913	9.5
Louth - Spalding	84	476	5.7
Spalding - St Ives	61	167	2.7
St Ives - Great Easton	72	466	6.5
Great Easton - Loughton	48	482	10

The last column is the ratio ascent(m) / distance(km) and gives a numeric idea of the lumpiness of the leg.
I use ascent data together with distance to plan. Even more important, when I have to decide whether to stop at a control for sleeping or to go on until the next one, I find this kind of info very useful. Hope others can find it interesting.

[The French Tandem]

Your "lumpiness index" doesn't always give a good idea of how difficult each leg is. For example, the Pocklington-Coxwold leg is an endless succession of short but steep hills that will surely tear your legs into pieces, especially if you ride through them at the end of a long first day like we did in 2013. On the other hand, Barnard Castle-Alston is just one long but gentle climb.

Overall, I think the toughest leg in 2013 was St Ives - Great Easton. It has a very low lumpiness according to your numbers, but probably due to our exhaustion near the end of the ride, it was like traversing the Alps!

[frillipippi]

St Ives - Great Easton has a new route, we'll pass through Cambridge, therefore the comparison with 2013 might be misleading.

Anyway I fully agree that it's just a number, it doesn't say everything about the climb you're going to face. No surprise hearing that a tandem prefers a long climb with relatively constant steepness such as Yad Moss rather than the rollercoaster of Howardian Hills.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Tandems on rollercoaster hills can go well if they are able to hold sufficient momentum over the tops. The Howardian Hills sap a bit too much though.

[The French Tandem]

St Ives - Great Easton has a new route, we'll pass through Cambridge, therefore the comparison with 2013 might be misleading.

Lucky chap you are

Tandems on rollercoaster hills can go well if they are able to hold sufficient momentum over the tops. The Howardian Hills sap a bit too much though.

I remember a few sharp turns at the bottom of the hills that reduced our momentum to nearly zero. On the southbound leg, we met  a German velomobile rider who was even not able to push his machine up a hill, he had to ask for help from other riders.

[Somnolent]

Using the elevation data contained in the gpx tracks of the official .....

The gpx files I downloaded recently have elevation data for the controls (waypoints) but none for the tracks themselves.
Running them though various different websites gives different results as to mtrs of ascent.

Bikehike (for example) gives:
Loughton   St-Ives   680m
St-Ives   Spalding   93 m
Spalding   Louth   321 m
Louth   Pocklington   741m
etc
for a total of just over 10 000 mtrs

[Greenbank]

Different websites use different elevation models (the base data) and/or different algorithms for determining climbing, so there are many different interpretations.

Even GPX files from multiple GPSes riding the same event can give wildly different climbing figures. I remember 3 of us riding one of the Henham 200km Audaxes and getting total elevation figures of 1400m, 1800m and 2200m despite all riding exactly the same route.

Coming up with one true answer for the amount of climbing on a ride is tricky.

[frillipippi]

@Somnolent:
In the LEL website, the zip file in the "Overview" hasn't the elevation data, but if you download one gpx at a time from each section, you'll find the elevation is still present. I say still because I assume that these are the original ones, and that the zipped versions come from them reducing the bytes as much as possible, leaving out the elevation for this reason.



I fully agree that ascent is always a guess: that's why I consider 20% an acceptable error margin.

Where lumpy roads have tunnels and bridges, many websites overestimate the ascent because they ignore them and think that your route climbs the mountain instead of passing through it with a tunnel, and goes down to the bottom of the valley instead of crossing it on a bridge.

[The French Tandem]

In countries where lumpy roads have tunnels and bridges, many website overestimate the ascent because they ignore them and think that your route climbs the mountain instead of passing through it with a tunnel, and goes down to the bottom of the valley instead of crossing it on a bridge.

A  sort of MTB version of LEL, interesting idea! Having said that, I think the best advice for the moment is: go out, ride your bike, and don't worry too much about exactly how much climb you will endure next summer.

[frillipippi]

In countries where lumpy roads have tunnels and bridges, many website overestimate the ascent because they ignore them and think that your route climbs the mountain instead of passing through it with a tunnel, and goes down to the bottom of the valley instead of crossing it on a bridge.

A  sort of MTB version of LEL, interesting idea! Having said that, I think the best advice for the moment is: go out, ride your bike, and don't worry too much about exactly how much climb you will endure next summer.

 

[Phil W]

If the wind in the Fens is blowing the wrong way you'll be praying for some hills.  In the Fens no one cares if you scream.

[Fidgetbuzz]

Having said that, I think the best advice for the moment is: go out, ride your bike, and don't worry too much about exactly how much climb you will endure next summer.

Agree 100% .. it is what it is .. .. and you will either complete in time or not. No amount of trying to decide whether it is 10500 metres of climb or 11,500 is going to make the slightest difference .. it is what it is .. FULL STOP.

[Ivo]

St Ives - Great Easton has a new route, we'll pass through Cambridge, therefore the comparison with 2013 might be misleading.

Lucky chap you are

Tandems on rollercoaster hills can go well if they are able to hold sufficient momentum over the tops. The Howardian Hills sap a bit too much though.

The same one who had to backup because he overshot a hairpin on a descent?



I remember a few sharp turns at the bottom of the hills that reduced our momentum to nearly zero. On the southbound leg, we met  a German velomobile rider who was even not able to push his machine up a hill, he had to ask for help from other riders.

[Delph Cyclist]

...  Overall, I think the toughest leg in 2013 was St Ives - Great Easton ...

For me it was Kirton to St Ives.  On paper it should be the easiest leg but in 2013 it was

a) hot - which depends on time of day and weather of course, as well as your own metabolism, but I had to stop at a riding stables to beg some water for my bidons and to pour over my head 

b) an annoyingly persistent head wind with nowhere to hide

c) long and straight - you can see ahead for 10 km or more - so it really plays with your mind

d) I suppose it's possible I might have been getting a bit tired by then

[wilkyboy]

If the wind in the Fens is blowing the wrong way you'll be praying for some hills.  In the Fens no one cares if you scream.

Absolutely this!  In 2013 I thought I was pushing on thru that headwind on my own, but turned around to see a string of riders hiding in my wind-shadow!  That was the hardest day I have ever had on a bike — too hot, too tired (sleepy), no energy to push on, I very nearly packed, but managed to keep going until the sun went down and I reached the gentle folds in the land south of Ramsey Heights (there's an oxymoron!) and my speed picked right back up again.