Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Working out a pace card for 1:40k Harveys Mps

  1. #1
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    74


    I average 54 paces over 100 metres, which is 4mm on a 1:25k grid.

    So to work out say, my paces over 700 metres I can multiply 54, by 7.00 = 378 paces.

    So its easy enough to double this, to write a pace card, for a 1:50k grid, then double that again, for a 1:100k Grid.

    But Ive just bought a harvey map, which has a 1:40k grid.

    So, I know that 5mm, is 200 Metres on a 1:40k grid, and I know my pacing will be 108 paces.

    So to work out my average pace over 6mm, 240 metres, on a 1:40k grid, do I simply multiply 108 by 2.40 = 259.2 divided by 2 = 129.6 paces?

    And so on....

    7mm, or 280metres. 108x2.80/2= 151.2 paces.

    I know to round down paces, and understand naismiths rule, but dont want to get into diferent methods, I just ant to know if that sum is correct?

    [I carry a little write in the rain notebook with my pace cards in to glance at if needed.]

  2. #2
    Ultra King Matt C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    21,694


    "So to work out my average pace over 6mm, 240 metres, on a 1:40k grid, do I simply multiply 108 by 2.40 = 259.2 divided by 2 = 129.6 paces?"

    Yes, in a nutshell. That calculation is correct.

    Or looking at it another way, each 1mm on a 1:40k map represents 40m on the ground, which for you takes 54 x 40 / 100 paces = 21.6 paces. And then you can multiply up from there...

    Hope that helps

    Matt (B.A. Hons Mathematics, Oxon, M.Sc.... by way of maths genius credentials )

  3. #3
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    74


    Nice one Matt, cheers.

  4. #4
    ‹bermensch
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,517


    H D

    I assume that you mean double paces i.e. counting the number of times your right foot (or left if you are on the dark side!) strikes the ground. Also, I suspect that you must be tall because this geriatric dwarf has to count 65 double paces to cover 100 metres,

    Hugh

    For a preview of the 5th edition of my bookThe Walker's Handbook; Everything you Need to Know about Walking in the British Isles[/i]clickhere.Then click on‚??Reviews ofThe Walker's Handboo[/i]k' in the Navigation panel to the right of the illustration of the cover.

  5. #5
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    74


    Thanks Hugh. Not that tall. 6 foot. The book looks very good, thanks for the link.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Metric Kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    42,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Westacott View Post

    H D

    I assume that you mean double paces i.e. counting the number of times your right foot (or left if you are on the dark side!) strikes the ground.
    Well, it depends how you want to define 'pace'. 'Pace' comes from the Latin passus meaning 'pace', but that was the distance from where your heel left the ground to where that same heel strikes the ground again (ie: two steps). The OED includes both a single step, but in the context of distance, defines a pace as two steps.

  7. #7
    ‹bermensch
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,061


    Why, for instance, do you want to work out your pace over 700 metres. Counting up to 378 you will at some point miscount. It is much easier to count up to 54 7 times. Use coins, pebbles , toggles etc for counting the number of sets of 7. Think of cricket umpires, they never have to count above 1 to count when an over is complete.


  8. #8
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    74


    Well, youre correct, I should only measure paces up to 500m. But I like to fill the page.

    Roman soldiers marching, measured the mile, mille passus, as a thousand paces.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Metric Kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    42,520




    Exactly! I had a vivid memory of my lecturer demonstrating it by getting on the long bench at the front of the lecture theatre and pacing along it. Probably one of the reasons I became a Roman military historian

  10. #10
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    74


    Oh.....

  11. #11
    Ultra King Parky Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,005


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walkers-Han...=Hugh+westacot



    A review of Hugh's excellent book

  12. #12
    Ultra King Parky Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,005


    Why not also use time as a measure. On average it will take you x long to walk 100m.

  13. #13
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    74


    You do use time as a measure. Thats naismiths rule. But you have to know your pacing as well.

  14. #14
    Goon Zippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    487


    Does anyone use a pedometer to do the counting for you?

  15. #15
    Super Moderator captain paranoia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,962


    But you have to know your pacing as well.

    'Have to' for what? Estimating distance by timing or pacing are comparable methods. Both use your baseline rate of progress across ground, be it a speed, or a number of paces. I find pace counting to be pretty tedious, so generally use time.

    Both methods have their limitations, and are only approximate.

    Naismith is more to do with adapting time for gained elevation, not really for simple distance travelled. The use of time to measure distance is simple dead reckoning, based on an assumed speed (and doesn't really merit being given an eponymous name...).

    For our DofE groups.we suggest 3km/hr, which works out at 2 minutes per 100m 'tick' on a compass ruler or romer. That's pretty accurate for those groups, who will never manage the 5km/h assumption of Naismith.

    One good reason for doing 7*100m counts is that you can use a tally system to help keep track of large numbers. You can also set and count the tallies down, which means you don't have to remember the number you're aiming for. This reduces the mental concentration otherwise needed; helpful is difficult circumstances. You can also change the pace count to suit varying terrain you might encounter.

  16. #16
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    720
    as an ML you learn to use both methods - soften in parallel as a check on each other.

    I would never try to pace more than 100m at a time (65 paces) and wouldnt pace a total of more than 500m without some form of physical tickpoint to reference against (unless I really really have to) as a resonable error factor, in my experience, is between 10% and 25% depending on conditions above and below foot.

  17. #17
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    74


    If I want to work out my time, as an approximation, I'd have to take into account the following.

    4km per hour is the average walking pace, on level ground.

    Grade 2 scrambles, reduce by 2km per hour.

    Walking into a headwind reduce by 1km per hour, wind behind increase by 1km per hour.

    In the dark halve your normal speed.

    If carrying a heavy load, say 20kg, halve your normal speed.

    Add one minute for every ten metre contour line. [harveys 12m]

    Going downhill subtract 20 seconds for every 10 metre contour line and so on and etc.

    So obviously the same amount of paces over different terrain takes different times.

    Yeh, I have a pedometer. I dont count in my head, and I dont use it that often.



    I did say in my OP

    I know to round down paces, and understand naismiths rule, but dont want to get into different methods, I just want to know if that sum is correct?

  18. #18
    Super Moderator Metric Kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    42,520


    To me this seems a little over-complicated, Hill Dweller.

    Normal walking pace yep - Naismith is 5kph but I'm usually somewhere between 4 and 5, adjust according to variables (path / off-path, terrain, load, fitness, how I'm feeling. But I just make mental adjustments, sort of 'ooh, I'm walking a bit slowly here I'll add on a bit of time; I don't do it mechanically / mathematically.

    Yes, 1 minutes for every 10m contour line, though if they're gentle contour lines it'll make no difference to my pace.

    Going downhill - I don't bother to make any mathematical adjustment. If it's steep downhill, it might take me as long as steep uphill.

    This is practical nav rather than ML nav where I did a belts and braces timings and pacings (the latter with my counting beads so I never have to count more than 64)


  19. #19
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    74


    Me too. I just wanted to know if my sum was correct.

  20. #20
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    720
    The sum is fine...pointless but fine.

    I am reminded that the Americans spent millions developing a pen to take into space..and the Russians took a pencil

Similar Threads

  1. Wanted Garmin Discoverer Snowdonia 1-25 Card & SWCP Card
    By Climbing Hamster in forum Classifieds Section
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2011, 06:47 PM
  2. Pace Counter
    By Mark Dixon in forum Walking and Climbing
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 15-10-2008, 02:08 PM
  3. Harveys/BMC Map - Snowdonia
    By Matt C in forum Gear
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23-10-2006, 04:09 PM

Posting Permissions

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