Tour Divide 2013

[BobM]

I should be good to go this year. Had our second child last July so didn't want to cut it too close. Really excited. In VA if any one  wants to do some training trips. I'm a ss guy so might be slow on the uphills!

Single speeders always say they're slow as they power past you on the climbs.

[sthig]

I should be good to go this year. Had our second child last July so didn't want to cut it too close. Really excited. In VA if any one  wants to do some training trips. I'm a ss guy so might be slow on the uphills!

Same here. Alabama here.

I'm actually in Va right now. Sadly only passing through.

[pablito]

Just made a reservation at the Banff Y. There are a few rooms left. Awesome and supportive wife driving me from Utah to Spokane where my uncle will take me the rest of the way to Banff (also awesome and supportive). Planning on arriving on the 13th.

Now the training and gear refinement continues!!

[Georg66]

Hi all,
I just found some ressource, which might be interesting:

eatsleepridegreatdivide.com (map, profile, you can slide the distance etc.)

developed by dave gieger.

[chainagent]

Hi all,
I just found some ressource, which might be interesting:

eatsleepridegreatdivide.com (map, profile, you can slide the distance etc.)

developed by dave gieger.

...Yes, but the vertical culmination of the climbs is not correct, unfortunately. For example: Banff to Sparwood ==> ascent of 20.600 feet??? That's not correct obviously. From that point of view totally useless.
I guess he used not the real tracked data but some srtm data that are not always as accurate as expected.

The best way would be to feed the tool with the original tracked data from a GPS device. With this change that tool is the first choice for planning the trip. If Dave is reading this post perhaps he can tell us what's wrong with the tool?

     Michael

[BobM]

...Yes, but the vertical culmination of the climbs is not correct, unfortunately. For example: Banff to Sparwood ==> ascent of 20.600 feet??? That's not correct obviously. From that point of view totally useless.
I guess he used not the real tracked data but some srtm data that are not always as accurate as expected.

The best way would be to feed the tool with the original tracked data from a GPS device. With this change that tool is the first choice for planning the trip. If Dave is reading this post perhaps he can tell us what's wrong with the tool?

     Michael

Hi Michael,

How is it obviously not correct?  The ascent figure will include every little bump and hill in the total.

Bob

[hikernks]

Couldn't we just say there's a metric sh!t-tonne of climbing on the TD?

[bmike-vt]

...Yes, but the vertical culmination of the climbs is not correct, unfortunately. For example: Banff to Sparwood ==> ascent of 20.600 feet??? That's not correct obviously. From that point of view totally useless.
I guess he used not the real tracked data but some srtm data that are not always as accurate as expected.

The best way would be to feed the tool with the original tracked data from a GPS device. With this change that tool is the first choice for planning the trip. If Dave is reading this post perhaps he can tell us what's wrong with the tool?

     Michael

GPS isn't the best tool for getting elevation data, unless you have calibrated altimeter on board, or a survey grade instrument.

Good article here:(lots more out there...)
http://gpsrunner.blogspot.com/2009/06/gps-elevation-data-error-and-correction.html

[mikepro]

There is something wonky and not correct with the ESRGD website tool.  It's been around for a few years, but I never really looked at it closely, as it never gave me the impression that it's more useful than the actual maps, or GPS tracks.  After playing around with it this morning, putting marker A at Banff and marker B on Elk Pass, the total net elevation gain on the profile at the bottom of the screen is showing approximately ~1,800ft net gain (Banff at el. 4,600, Elk Pass at el. 6,400), yet the table is showing net gain of 3,474ft in this first 65mile segment (about double).  And there's no way that every little bump in the road adds up to over 12,000ft of climbing and over 9,000ft of descending in that same 65miles.  In fact, putting marker A at one end of the route, and marker B at the other, the table is showing total climbing/descending to be over 400,000ft, when it's really actually somewhere just above 200,000ft (see adventure cycling's main website).  Again, the website tool is reporting close to double.  And, the total net for the entire route is showing 29ft on the tool, when it's really more like 120ft (yes, Antelope Wells in the South sits at higher elevation than Banff).

All that being said, the web tool seems to work well when used for the Elevation Profile graph at the bottom of the screen, between 2 points, and ignoring the values in the table at top left.  Being able to customize the profile between two points seems handy (to some degree), but the incorrect values in the table at top left are distracting.

[chainagent]

Hi Michael,

How is it obviously not correct?  The ascent figure will include every little bump and hill in the total.

Bob

Hi Bob,

of course, you're right. But that is not the real elevation gain you're feeling in your legs at the end of the day, if you know what I mean. In my experience little bumps (just a few feets) have no part on your daily fatigue, because often you are rolling up without pedaling and roll down again. You need not more or less power for it like riding on flat terrain. But, just stated, it's my personal experience. And if I wanna know how much gain is it from A to B and you have got to decide to make it in one day or not there is a big difference of climbing 10.000 feet or 20.000. In this point you can't trust the tool.

          Michael

[BobM]

Hi Bob,

of course, you're right. But that is not the real elevation gain you're feeling in your legs at the end of the day, if you know what I mean. In my experience little bumps (just a few feets) have no part on your daily fatigue, because often you are rolling up without pedaling and roll down again. You need not more or less power for it like riding on flat terrain. But, just stated, it's my personal experience. And if I wanna know how much gain is it from A to B and you have got to decide to make it in one day or not there is a big difference of climbing 10.000 feet or 20.000. In this point you can't trust the tool.

          Michael

I agree!  But as Mikepro has mentioned, the profiles between individual points are really useful and are much more detailed.  Elk Pass to Elkford, for instance, looks from the AC map profile like you could coast on in, but that is definitely not the case.  I also find that discreet elevation figures (like bottom of Elk Pass to top) are pretty accurate.

[tezza]

Hi everybody ! Fascinated reading of all your experience and enthusiasm of cycling generally, and the Tour Divide especially - so first of all, sincere thanks for that ! I'm very much in awe, and I should confess straight off that I'm not even sure that what I'm tapping out here is even gonna make it to the right page / forum etc. etc., but never mind, here we go ! I'm 66 years old right now and I would like to think I can get things together enough to go for the 2014 Tour Divide. The thing is that as I've got older I have veered toward to doing as much as possible the simplest way possible. And with my limited means that also means as cheaply as possible. Hence, I'd like to have a crack on my folding bike, a Dahon Vitesse 7, no GPS just paper maps, and just head the thing South. The only constant and perhaps the most identifiable alike to all riders would be my reponsibility to not endanger  or impact on others, and to be fit enough to have a good chance of finishing.Old (or older), simple and costing peanuts are the themes. I think, like I kind of detect is a thread here, that I wanted to post, to "join in" in with you all, because the more I talk about it then the more chance I have of getting off my bum and doing this. And I get the most amazing thrill when thinking of it and equally enjoying your excitement in the forum. I have many more thoughts of course, but for now any views / ideas anyone has, positive or whatever would be seriously welcomed. I perhaps would also like to get a small group of like-minded ( and like-aged) Brits across with me to the incredible USA ! And maybe my first question is, if nursed, I guess I can get my ageing Dahon through it, no problem ? Cheers all, Tezza

[BobM]

Hi Tezza,

Best of luck in your planning!  Kent Peterson (Kentsbike (at) Gmail (dot) com) is a Dahon owner and has been down the GDMBR a couple of times so you might want to drop him a line to get his opinion.

Cheap is actually hard in this race - out-of-the-way stores tend to be expensive and riding all day long requires lots of calories.  Still, if you are willing to camp in all weathers lodging should not add up to much.

Bob

[tezza]

Many thanks Bob, great to hear from you, now feel like I can start doing a bit of planning ! Great Birchcreek site ! And yep, I'll mail Kent, thank you, sounds like a really good lead. And for sure even though costs are of course always a serious consideration then still I have to be realistic, knowing that the 'ole pension will take a hammering ! But what better to spend it on ? Hope to bump into you and many others more as we go along, thanks again. All the best, Tezza

[Pa Lew]

I'm hoping to start an ITT northbound on June 3rd at Antelope Wells or Columbus.   Any advice from GDMBR vets on riding north?  Concerns with headwinds?   

[pickupel]

Hi everybody,

 I'd just like to say "hello" and let you know that I'll be lining up alongside you on June 14th, ready to take on the Divide. Preparation is underway and with a room at the Banff Y Mountain Lodge booked and a small fortune's worth of gear ordered, I feel that the point of no return has been reached — I'm ready to officially declare myself in! I plan on flying into Calgary on the 11th or early on the 12th and I'm keen to take Craig (Stappy) up on his offer of a group ride to Banff, it'll be good to check over the gear and shake the legs out after flying in from the UK. All that remains now is the small matter of getting some serious training done.

 I'll see you in Banff — happy riding,

Ed

[Yukon]

I am trying to get to Banff with my bike ... I might fly to Calgary, but how about getting the bike on the aircraft?  For the VA. AML Oct 5 I just put it in the bed of the pick up and drove to Vir. Tech from IL.  Any suggestion or past experience.  For the 2013 TD.

[pickupel]

Hey Yukon,

From past experience of flying with bikes (although not into Calgary) most airlines will allow you to book a bike on to the aircraft when you book a ticket, or shortly after. Most airlines have a section on their website where you can view the set cost for overweight and oversized luggage, including sports equipment. In my experience (both in the US and Europe) I've found that the cost can vary from £20 ($32) to about £112 ($180). The $180 fee was on a flight from Portland, OR to Washington DC. If in doubt, give the airline a call before you book the flights just to check what their policy is.

Hope that helps,

Ed

[stappy]

Great to hear from all of the new riders. You can feel the enthusiasm. There's some good momentum for the group ride out, so far four riders, myself not included, have shown interest.
Craig.

[Mauro_N]

Cool to see another UK rider racing next year! Where about are you Ed? Im also good for a ride out to the race Stappy, thats if you willing to riding with a single speed.

Mauro