Title says it all. Thanks in advance.
Title says it all. Thanks in advance.
792 ft.
A lot
Green Eggs & Ham wrote:
792 ft.
Correct. 0.15*5280
Very close to running the Fifth Ave Mile and The Empire State Building Run Up at the same time.
B.S. Mechanical Engineer wrote:
Green Eggs & Ham wrote:792 ft.
Correct. 0.15*5280
I Dunno.
Does the 15% represent vertical distance over horizontal distance or vertical distance over hypotenuse?
B.S. Mechanical Engineer wrote:
Green Eggs & Ham wrote:792 ft.
Correct. 0.15*5280
Mechanical engineering is NOT BS!
I Dunno wrote:
B.S. Mechanical Engineer wrote:Correct. 0.15*5280
I Dunno.
Does the 15% represent vertical distance over horizontal distance or vertical distance over hypotenuse?
Indeed!!! We can't use small sine angle approximations folks!
But probably the hypo because you'd be running on the street.
Start at MSG and run on an incline to the top of the Met Life building that towers over Grand Central Terminal (which of course NYers of all ages call Grand Central Station)
What you do is you set your local treadmill at an incline of 15 percent. If you have 100 Milk Duds on your local coffee table, take fifteen of those and ram the other 85 right up your ass. Then start running until you've covered one mile, or if you prefer stop 9.33 meters short for the metric equivalent. Now you know exactly what these athletes are going through, especially the ones with about 65.4 grams of tasty chocolate conveniently stored in their poop-chutes for later consumption. As you can tell, this is quite the feat of athleticism.
LRawson wrote:
What you do is you set your local treadmill at an incline of 15 percent. If you have 100 Milk Duds on your local coffee table, take fifteen of those and ram the other 85 right up your ass. Then start running until you've covered one mile, or if you prefer stop 9.33 meters short for the metric equivalent. Now you know exactly what these athletes are going through, especially the ones with about 65.4 grams of tasty chocolate conveniently stored in their poop-chutes for later consumption. As you can tell, this is quite the feat of athleticism.
how many grams of "coco" did you consume tonight?
I Dunno wrote:Does the 15% represent vertical distance over horizontal distance or vertical distance over hypotenuse?
It doesn't make much difference until the grade gets really steep. For 1mi at a steady 15% (crazy steep for a paved road btw):
vert/terrain distance -> 792' gain
vert/horizontal -> 783' gain
People often use terrain distance instead of horizontal distance because it's easier to measure. In cases where the difference between the two methods is unacceptable, I believe rise/run is used.
^^^
This. 5280' is the hypotenuse of a 90-15-75 right angle triangle, and you're looking for the leg of the triangle opposite the 15 degree angle.
Depends on the units that the 15% is in. 15% per foot is a lot steeper than 15% per mile.
units? wrote:
Depends on the units that the 15% is in. 15% per foot is a lot steeper than 15% per mile.
I like this answer ^
Funny thing is we've seen this same language used in posts that were not troll posts on LRC. This place is great.
units? wrote:
Depends on the units that the 15% is in. 15% per foot is a lot steeper than 15% per mile.
Are you a new age math teacher?
thisser wrote:
^^^
This. 5280' is the hypotenuse of a 90-15-75 right angle triangle, and you're looking for the leg of the triangle opposite the 15 degree angle.
there is no 15 degree angle.
knox harrington wrote:
thisser wrote:^^^
This. 5280' is the hypotenuse of a 90-15-75 right angle triangle, and you're looking for the leg of the triangle opposite the 15 degree angle.
there is no 15 degree angle.
LIAR! There may be no such thing as a unicorn but I personally have witnessed MANY 15 degree angles.
I considered these both, but realistically it has to be terrain distance because how are you going to accurately know the horizontal distance? And more importantly, the horizontal distance is not really relevant. If you are running, you are measuring the terrain distance.
knox harrington wrote:
It doesn't make much difference until the grade gets really steep. For 1mi at a steady 15% (crazy steep for a paved road btw):
vert/terrain distance -> 792' gain
vert/horizontal -> 783' gain
People often use terrain distance instead of horizontal distance because it's easier to measure. In cases where the difference between the two methods is unacceptable, I believe rise/run is used.
For the reasons you mention (and because in many use cases there is no meaningful difference) rise/terrain distance is often used. However, the definition is rise/run. This makes from a surveying/mapping perspective, where the paper distance is "horizontal", not terrain.Also, note that you can express a very steep grade as rise/run even if you only know rise and terrain distance:rise/run = tan(arcsin(rise/terrain)), assuming a steady grade.If the grade isn't steady, then the hypotenuse of the triangle isn't actually linear...another reason to not use terrain distance in the definition.
Green Eggs and Ham wrote:
I considered these both, but realistically it has to be terrain distance because how are you going to accurately know the horizontal distance? And more importantly, the horizontal distance is not really relevant. If you are running, you are measuring the terrain distance.