1. ## OT: ride difficulty ranking (code red geek alert)

Warning: major nerd warning regarding this post

DurtGurl posted in the Quad Bypass review about comparing ride difficulties, which is something I was thinking as well. Here is a formula I think works:

mileage * ((avg grade+1) * 100) * terrain ranking

1. mileage - self explanatory

2. avg grade - this is uphill only. Yes, downs are effort, but I think the terrain ranking accounts for the effort of hard technical downs. So, in the case of the quad bypass, let's assume 6900 climbing, divided by (33.3 miles * 5280 feet) = 3.9% avg grade. Add 1 to the total, multiply by 100, for a figure of 4.9. I added 1 so the formula works. Assuming a flat road had 0% avg grade, you cant multiply by 0. And giving it a value of 1 makes it the same as a 1% grade. So (n+1) * 100.

3. Terrain ranking. I came up with a scale 1-5 for terrain. Its certainly open to interpretation, but I think is a good start.

terrain 2: packed trail or jeep road
terrain 3: looser, sandier, wetter, rockier
terrain 4: like terrain 3 but more
terrain 5: more of everything, genuinely technical obstacles, deep sand, etc. National, Porcupine Rim, etc.

You could include DH runs in this as a 5 (or even 6) terrain, but it pushes the ability of the model since DH is just a different world.

The quad bypass terrain probably averaged ~3, for the sake of argument.

So to come up with the ride ranking, we do:
mileage * ((avg grade+1) * 100) * terrain ranking

33.3 * 4.9 * 3 = 489.51

For the Whiskey 50 (assumed 47 miles and 5k climbing), I came up with
47 * 3 * 2.5 = 352.5

Tour of Whites (6k climbing):
102*2.1*2=428

37*3.8*2 = 281

Soul Ride 66 (6k climbing?)
66*2.7*2.5 = 445.5

You could obviously add more variables like wind, heat\cold, night, effect of being chased by wild dogs, mp3 player failing... And having accurate mileage and elevation is key. The terrain ranking works as long as you are consistent.

Love to hear what others think, particularly those who actually know about complex math and could map this to a 1-100 scale.

PS: yes I am a geek

2. you should factor in the AZ board official "GNAR" scale in you formula. (just devide it by 2 since that is 1-10 scale.

the obvious short coming of your formula is rides that lack elevation. I've been on rides that I would call agressive XC. which accoring to your scale would be nothing b/c the average grade factor would be 1. but the physical effort needed for such a XC ride is emense because one is constantly going up and down short steep hills (30 feet max) coupled with step ups, downs, "bony" sections of roots and rock.

3. ## SDMB rating system.

Besides IMBA trail rating system: http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_...ifficulty.html that I use to rate the trail onmy maps, Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists has a decent rating system that's based on technical and aerobic difficulty: Based on this rating system, the Quad bypass would be a 4B ride.

HILL RATING
1: Slight rolling terrain
2: Rolling hills, no long climbs, low elevation
3: Hilly, longer/more climbs, possible higher elevation
4: Sustained steep climbs and/or higher elevation, advanced riders only

DIFFICULTY RATING
B: Some technical challenges but mostly nontechnical
C: Lots of technical challenges (e.g. big/loose rocks, ruts)
D: Highly technical, advanced riders only

Originally Posted by chollaball
Warning: major nerd warning regarding this post

DurtGurl posted in the Quad Bypass review about comparing ride difficulties, which is something I was thinking as well. Here is a formula I think works:

mileage * ((avg grade+1) * 100) * terrain ranking

1. mileage - self explanatory

2. avg grade - this is uphill only. Yes, downs are effort, but I think the terrain ranking accounts for the effort of hard technical downs. So, in the case of the quad bypass, let's assume 6900 climbing, divided by (33.3 miles * 5280 feet) = 3.9% avg grade. Add 1 to the total, multiply by 100, for a figure of 4.9. I added 1 so the formula works. Assuming a flat road had 0% avg grade, you cant multiply by 0. And giving it a value of 1 makes it the same as a 1% grade. So (n+1) * 100.

3. Terrain ranking. I came up with a scale 1-5 for terrain. Its certainly open to interpretation, but I think is a good start.

terrain 2: packed trail or jeep road
terrain 3: looser, sandier, wetter, rockier
terrain 4: like terrain 3 but more
terrain 5: more of everything, genuinely technical obstacles, deep sand, etc. National, Porcupine Rim, etc.

You could include DH runs in this as a 5 (or even 6) terrain, but it pushes the ability of the model since DH is just a different world.

The quad bypass terrain probably averaged ~3, for the sake of argument.

So to come up with the ride ranking, we do:
mileage * ((avg grade+1) * 100) * terrain ranking

33.3 * 4.9 * 3 = 489.51

For the Whiskey 50 (assumed 47 miles and 5k climbing), I came up with
47 * 3 * 2.5 = 352.5

Tour of Whites (6k climbing):
102*2.1*2=428

37*3.8*2 = 281

Soul Ride 66 (6k climbing?)
66*2.7*2.5 = 445.5

You could obviously add more variables like wind, heat\cold, night, effect of being chased by wild dogs, mp3 player failing... And having accurate mileage and elevation is key. The terrain ranking works as long as you are consistent.

Love to hear what others think, particularly those who actually know about complex math and could map this to a 1-100 scale.

PS: yes I am a geek

4. Scott Morris came up a system that I'm rather fond of even though it means I'm the subject of ridicule from my wife.

Difficulty Index and Effort Index

5. Originally Posted by SoloRider
Scott Morris came up a system that I'm rather fond of even though it means I'm the subject of ridicule from my wife.

Difficulty Index and Effort Index
Interesting...so what does the Quad compute to under that system?

6. Originally Posted by waltaz
Interesting...so what does the Quad compute to under that system?
Quad comes out as difficulty of 41.421

to compare

AZT South to North is 606.876(info stolen from Scott Morris)

ToWM 42 mile is 18.955

Goat Camp XC is 14.013

BCT LPL is 8.297

Kathleen's to the Helipad and back is 7.391

24HOP is 6.335

Pemberton is 4.597

and the short preserves loop I do with my wife is 1.007

7. I like the simpler systems, such as the one Epicrider uses. Chollaball's system gave me a headache. Sorry dude.

8. Originally Posted by Epicrider
Besides IMBA trail rating system: http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_...ifficulty.html that I use to rate the trail onmy maps, Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists has a decent rating system that's based on technical and aerobic difficulty: Based on this rating system, the Quad bypass would be a 4B ride.

HILL RATING
1: Slight rolling terrain
2: Rolling hills, no long climbs, low elevation
3: Hilly, longer/more climbs, possible higher elevation
4: Sustained steep climbs and/or higher elevation, advanced riders only

DIFFICULTY RATING
B: Some technical challenges but mostly nontechnical
C: Lots of technical challenges (e.g. big/loose rocks, ruts)
D: Highly technical, advanced riders only

Yeah, I'm used to the SDMB scale, which always screws me up during Spring Fling. Because during Spring Fling, the HARD ride is the "A" ride, and the easy one is the "C" ride. Imagine my disapointment when we headed down DC, instead of up National. hehehe

9. nm....

10. Originally Posted by chollaball
Warning: major nerd warning regarding this post [a bunch of damn numbers] PS: yes I am a geek
This is one of the things I always hated about climbing. Difficulty ratings are pointless. Adjectival description, less so. What's the worse that'll happen? Die and get lost?

11. ## interesting to see the other systems

Thanks Epicrider and Solorider for info on the other systems, and to the other posters for comments, likes\dislikes etc.

GEEK ALERT II - DONT SAY YOU WERENT WARNED

I think the SDMB system has a lot going for it: simple, intuitive and gives someone a very easy and mostly accurate overview of a ride. It falls short as a comparative system, which is not a criticism its clearly not intended to be comparative. Ex: How do you look at a 2C vs a 3B ride and know which is harder? Or, does a 50 mile ride with 2 big climbs get the same rating as a 10 mile ride with 3 big climbs? But, if you go with the ranking and a 30 word description, its very useful and effective to let you know what you are riding.

Epicrider suggested the Quad Bypass was a 4B, but I noticed SDMB ranked Fantasy Island a B and Chiva a C. Its been a few years for me on either, but I think the Quad Bypass was closer to Chiva terrain than FI.

The system I suggested is kinda a cross between the 2. Its not real different than the SDMB system, but is comparative rather than simply descriptive. The place it is really weak is in accounting for climbing - I tried to get all mathy with % grade, but I think spreading it over the whole ride can miss the mark in either direction. 1 monster climb is a lot harder than a gradual grade, but would have the same effect on the total. Rolling hills are a lot easier than isolated hills, but would also have the same effect on the total. You could have further modifiers within the elevation category to account for types of hills during portions of the ride, but now you are getting into a level of granularity that you need all the GPS\Scott Morris data to use correctly.

I'm going to try for a while using the SDMB rankings, but instead of letters for terrain use numbers, and multiply both terrain and hills by mileage. [terrain * hill type * mileage]. This will provide the comparative basis the SDMB lacks, but keep it simple enough.

12. ## Hey good idea.

Originally Posted by chollaball

So to come up with the ride ranking, we do:
mileage * ((avg grade+1) * 100) * terrain ranking

33.3 * 4.9 * 3 = 489.51

For the Whiskey 50 (assumed 47 miles and 5k climbing), I came up with
47 * 3 * 2.5 = 352.5

Tour of Whites (6k climbing):
102*2.1*2=428

37*3.8*2 = 281

Soul Ride 66 (6k climbing?)
66*2.7*2.5 = 445.5
Wow. The one ride/race I have accurate numbers for scores a 884.4!! Yes it was tough. Was it almost twice as tough as the Quadruple Bypass? I doubt it. I'll have to try the quad and let you know.

13. Awesome geekage! You could also include a handicapping system for individual riders. Your technical multiplier could change according to your skill level, and your climb multiplier could certainly change according to your weight/fitness.

p.

14. Originally Posted by chollaball
The "Scott Morris" system seems really good for comparing rides, and the number of rides, data, and personal massaging he put into it I'll bet makes it really effective.
Hi chollaball, Scott Morris here. Feel free to drop me an email (smorris AT topofusion.com) if you want to go into more detail, but here's a few answers.

Did the model come first, or was the model adjusted to fit the data?
Both. I came up with the basis for the model without looking at any data, and then adjusted it to fit the data I had. As for pushing the data towards a conclusion, there may be some of that here, yes.

Couple other questions about Scott's system: he seems to have a very strict correlation between grade and technical difficulty, which may be too rigid?
Yes, it is too rigid. This is a flaw in the system. But I wanted a system that did not rely on subjective rankings. First, because they are subjective and vary between people. Second, I didn't want to require any additional input -- only the GPS data.

So you might have a REALLY steep road ride that gets too high of a ranking. Similarly, relatively flat technical rides might not be getting enough credit, as you noted.

You can imagine being able to select a portion of your track and rating it moderate technical or sandy, or whatever. Or better yet, getting that info from a large scale trail network where people have already rated each trail segment. Would be pretty cool.

Finally, what type of rides and the rider-style were used as the data? Is the data all based on "big climbs, moderate tech." Does it include "flat rides, very tech" like BrianC suggests? Are the personal opinions of the ride all based on one rider's strengths and styles?
I loaded up 40 of my tracks, trying to cover as many types of rides as possible. I think I saved the list of what those rides were, but I know I had quite a few ridiculous ones in there (hike-a-bikes). I know I had some road rides, as well as a few half road / half trail rides. I definitely had some sandy ones in there.

Only one rider style -- mine. Not sure what that style is. I like long rides and technical rides, if that helps. But, sad as it may be, I can't always do long/techy rides. So I end up doing a lot easier riding, just because I love getting out.

The type of riding BrianC is suggesting is covered by the difficulty index. Even though the hills are short, if they are steep (and show up on the GPS), they'll be rated high. I can't think of many trails that are truly flat and "very tech." I've ridden across some lava rock sections that would qualify, but generally you need a good grade to expose large rocks.

In the end, it is a perceptual model. Since it's only based on what I think, it's highly sensitive to things like how I was feeling the day I did a particular ride. It would be interesting to do a study and collect a sample of other people's rankings so it's not just based on me. I'm sure it would tweak things somewhat.

But I have had a fair amount of feedback on it over the last couple years. No one has yet to say they think the rating is completely wacked or even wrong. Experienced mountain bikers, newbies, roadies and even hikers have chimed in to say they love the rating. Most recent guy I remember was an old hiker who has set a limit on the total difficulty rating he can do per week. He says it's been keeping him from over-doing it. Pretty cool.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughts. If you have any suggestions for improving it, or other ideas, I'm all ears.

15. I think a great way to rate the difficulty of trails is via a DB of averaged HRM statistics
mashed up with GPS data, ride time, rider's age-group and self-assessed riding level.

The more data, the more accurate the mash-up, the better the trail rating.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•