23
Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford

Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Routegadget analysis

By: Matt Radford

Page 2: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Time loss per leg

The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per leg. It provides a good overview of what controls people found hard and which was were a bit easier. It is quite interesting to see that it was the shorter controls that seemed to give people the most problems.

Page 3: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Red Long

Page 4: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Red Medium

Page 5: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Red Short

Page 6: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Route options

I have added a few of the legs where there was major differences in route choice or were difficult for people.

Route distance is calculated by taking the shortest distance between controls. Competitors actual distance may vary.

On some control the routes are drawn on by me

Page 7: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Start to 110

- Red Long #1- Red medium #1

A

-

Page 8: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Start to 110 aka “spaghetti junction”

A

- This control was very tricky to find due to the dense undergrowth. In hindsight I would have taken the orange path (only one person did). It would have been slower but much much less room for getting off course and getting sucked into the undergrowth.

Page 9: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Control 132 (clever track-tics)

Red long 7

Page 10: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Control 132 (clever track-tics)

A

CB

Length Climb

A 1253m 85m

B 1200m 75m

C 1025m 90m

I took me a lot of thinking on the day to decide which way to go and still I am unsure. C is much shorter but the climb at the end was very steep and slow going. The last 250m took me 4 minutes!!

Page 11: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Control 131 (Gully-able)

Page 12: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Most people seemed to get tricked into the wrong gully to the east. The average time lost was 4:32 for a leg that’s only 170m

Page 13: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Control 123 “start-two-ed”

- Medium red control 9

Page 14: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

A B

C

Distance Climb

A 1145m 75m

B 882m 45m

C 930m 45m

C is slightly longer but much quicker running than B. Therefore overall probably about the same

Page 15: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Control 122 “around the hill”

- Red short control 5

Page 16: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Distance Climb

A 951m 45m

B 673m 20m

AA

B

A has slightly less climb and longer but quicker running. Overall it's hard to tell which is quicker. Depends on how fast you can run through the forest vs the track.

Page 17: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Climb

- As a simple rule for every 1m of climb it equals 6m of flat running i.e. 20m climb its equal to 120m flat running. Although obvious a lot of variables will effect this e.g. running ability, terrain etc but it is a good general rule

- This data comes from the scientific journal of Orienteering 2005. Yes! There is actually an orienteering journal

http://orienteering.org/resources/publications/scientific-journal-of-orienteering/

Page 18: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Summary

Overall the map is very steep and the undergrowth is thick in places and under represented on the map. Taking the tracks was definitely key and even if the distance was much longer it was quicker than struggling through the forest.

Page 19: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Quick route

http://www.matstroeng.se/quickroute/en/

This is a interesting programme for those people with GPS devices to look at their routes.

Page 20: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Here is a snapshot of my run. The colour dipicts speed which is also shown along the bottom graph. You can also look at a lot more stuff. To get the map as a background you can either scan it, take a photo of it or I can send you a computer version of it. Split times can also be added from winsplits (under tools)

Page 21: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

You can also open your route in google earth. This doesnt really add much but looks cool.

Page 22: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Even cooler is a little known tool of google maps, which is flight simulator mode (under tools menu). This is what the Tangoio map looks like at 31000 feet in a F-16 fighter jet.

Page 23: Routegadget analysis By: Matt Radford. Time loss per leg The following graph are taken from winsplit (pro version). They show the average time loss per

Till next time

Please continue to upload your routes to route gadget http://www.routechoice.co.nz/gadget/cgi-bin/reitti.cgi). The more routes the better.

Adding comments to your route is a great idea. It adds valuable insight into your route choice

If you have any questions, feedback or anything you would like me to add, please email me on [email protected]