From Running Ahead
A couple of things to note, the elevation +/- and the mileage
From BimActive
Route
Route Name: | Superior 50 - SM |
Location: | Finland, MN |
Distance: | 52.66 miles |
Elevation Avg: | 1325 ft |
Total Uphill: | +7103 ft |
Total Downhill: | -7257 ft |
Elevation Net: | -154 ft |
Difficulty: | 4.5 |
I was not able to import the "gpx" file into Garmin Connect or SportTracks but I was able to export it from BimActive and then import it, so here is that summary.
Garmin Connect info
Garmin Connect had the mileage at 52.69 miles
SportTracks
To me it looks like all of the elevation plots are similar but the difference in elevation and mileage are worth noting. Here it is summarized in a table.
I will let everyone draw their own conclusions but I still like the way I use SportTracks with BimActive to look at my data. Why? I love the fact that SportTracks tells me how many miles up/flat/downhill I have run and I can import the data direct to it from my Garmin and then sync it to Buckeye. I like BimActive because I think it gives me the most realistic assessment of my elevation and I think it provides the best summary of the data.
2 comments:
Nice job... But as a Mac man, sport tracks is not even a option. I tried ascent but is is not that great. Recently I also looked at Running Ahead with mixed feelings.
I always loved SportTracks, but like Londell am now on a Mac and they don't have an option. I'm thinking about running Parallels, and will definitely use ST again if I do.
I really like the BIM chart, and it seems like BIM and ST must both validate against USGS topo data since they came out similar?
Thanks for helping me analyze my race!
Post a Comment