tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6342856829001765305.post6289940155249763770..comments2024-03-21T23:31:28.521-04:00Comments on Irregular Velo Adventures: Bahama Beach -- Some 'Free-Route' Variantsskiffrunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17627376178648891371noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6342856829001765305.post-33601453281736133702020-08-11T09:16:16.070-04:002020-08-11T09:16:16.070-04:00Today, August 11, 2020, I stumbled across this pos...Today, August 11, 2020, I stumbled across this post and the above comment from 2017. I decided to check what RWGPS indicates for climbing on the standard "BB" route (and then decided to check on some of the variants). I may round to the nearest ten in the figures reported below. <br /> <br />Standard route -- 2920 ft of gross climbing -- same as three years ago. <br />Wave at Bernie -- 3080 ft. <br />Hall Road -- 2920 ft. <br />Hampton Road -- 2980. <br />3 Hayes - 2990. <br /> <br />I don't use a GPS device of any sort, so I cannot personally check what Garmin or Strava or whatever come up with. <br /> <br />I still think that when RWGPS changed their algorithm they shorted the climbing on rolling hills types of routes. I recall that friends have indicated that the algorithm change impacted the estimates of actual mountain rides very little. <br /> <br />Perhaps people in charge at RWGPS think repeated climbing of rollers where the incline percentage changes every few yards is not the equal of climbing true mountains. It's not -- they are very different. I recall comments from some Californians (used to stable incline percentages riding up western mountains) inquiring after completing the 2014 Taste of Carolina 1200 or 1000, "how do you ride these rollers?" The almost continuous change in the incline percentage had worn them out. <br /> <br />I reckon that it might not be the amount of climbing nor the type of climbing that is important, but what one is used to is important.skiffrunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627376178648891371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6342856829001765305.post-69476818822745535452017-03-06T12:44:17.965-05:002017-03-06T12:44:17.965-05:00Today, March 6th, 2017, reference to the standard ...Today, March 6th, 2017, reference to the standard route RWGPS map indicates that RWGPS now recognized ~ 2920 feet of climbing instead of the 3587 shown in the body of the above post. <br /> <br />What happened to the other ~ 660 feet of climbing? The only thing that makes sense to me is that RWGPS changed their algorithm to estimate climbing. <br /> <br />Interestingly, reports from friends equipped with Garmin or other GPS devices are typically in the 3300 to 3900 range for estimated climbing.skiffrunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627376178648891371noreply@blogger.com