Talk:Naismith's Rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Running Rule?

I've often tried to back out a Naismith's rule for 'running' - ie a two term expression with a term for distance and one for height of ascent. I think you have to be quite careful what class of terrain you apply it to though - my own attempts have been for rolling/hilly road runs, or easy (class C in FRA terms) fell races. The distance term is clearly your ground-adjusted flat run-rate, and I'd expect the height term would be not more than twice the walking rate, (and would tend to even less with increasing age, :-(). But clearly, many (Ben Nevis standard) runners can manage much better. Any views? (I note there are several published papers on say the Bob Graham Round and Skye ridge, but nothing really on the intermediate sort of run of say 30 minutes to 2 hours out, with mean gradients of order 30 to 100ft per mile (but locally say 1 in 8 to 1 in 3). Linuxlad 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(PS - how about (for fit but untalented V55s say) 8 minutes a mile and a minute for every 100 feet.)?

[edit] Metric?

If this was originally developed by a Scotsman, I severely doubt it was originally done in metric. If can someone can prove me wrong, that'd be cool. R'son-W 18:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed originally in Imperial measurements. It was published in the Scottish Mountaineering Club Journal I think, and should be fairly easy to source one way or another. -- Blisco 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)