Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Why do different tools/sites/etc report significantly different elevation gain values.
Quote | Reply
This single question breaks down into even more questions:

1. Why do different sites report different elevation gains when you plot out the same course? Why different values when you use the same GPX file across sites?
2. Why do different tools(watches, bike computers, etc) RECORD different elevation gains over the same course.

For the purposes of this post, I’m more interested in question 1. I’ve used the following sites in my attempt to find the best tool to get a idea of a courses elevation profile(and overall elevation gain).

-MapMyRide
-RideWithGPS
-Garmin Courses
-pjammcycling

I suspect the differences between the tools is largely related to how many “points” the tool uses to keep adding up elevation gain, but one thing that really makes me scratch my head, is how 2 different sites, using the same exact GPX file can report big differences in elevation gain!

Here is the root of my question.

I’m considering doing Ironman Finland, but I’ll never be able to fly out there to try out the course, so I need to have a good idea of the elevation profile to train properly. According to the Ironman site for that race, the elevation gain is only about 3,600 feet(although it is amusing the value that shows up in the race description is different then the value that shows up on the actual course map). I know IM race descriptions aren’t always accurate, having done Ironman Wisconsin, I know there is more elevation gain than is reported on the IM Wisconsin site. One interesting thing is that the Ironman Finland race site actually has a .gpx file download. But when I upload that file into different tools, yet again different elevation profiles. Some examples

Garmin Measurement(based on GPX file): 3,575 Feet.
RideWithGPS site(based on GPX file): 4,718 feet.

Why the difference - its the same file???

Also, I’ve seen others have created the Ironman Finland course on RideWithGPS and those courses report total elevation gain of up to 7,500 feet. And yet another site, pjammcycling, shows a whopping 9200 feet.

So my question to the community - what is the best way to try to figure out elevation gain for a course you might not get to tackle until race day? And more importantly, does anyone know the actual elevation gain of the Ironman Finland bike course :) ??

Thanks all for reading my long winded post and weighing in with your thoughts/knowledge on the topic.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do different tools/sites/etc report significantly different elevation gain values. [IronMark_81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know about the differences but:

IM 70.3 Finland (Lahti) bike course is not anywhere close to >3000 ft of elevation. There is 3 "climbs" on the course. The real total elevation is probably aounr 600 m (1800 ft).
It's the same (almost at least) as in 2018: https://www.strava.com/activities/1672476263
Quote Reply
Re: Why do different tools/sites/etc report significantly different elevation gain values. [IronMark_81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have the same question #2.
Across 4 different garmin devices, all with barometric measurement, the same ride on the same day can be 1000's of feet different.
(Same make but differing models - 910, 920, 800 and 1030+.). It's not like I'm trying to compare different brands or ones without a barometer. I assume they are all sampling at different rates , or or s/w has differences in calculating it. But why from the same make ?
Quote Reply
Re: Why do different tools/sites/etc report significantly different elevation gain values. [BobAjobb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Strava, trainingpeaks, and sport tracks all allow you to elevation correct your data where they use DOD data and other outside data to correct your data tracks. I use strava to do this for elevation and distance correction.

Your garmin devices altimeter will always be somewhat inaccurate.
Quote Reply
Re: Why do different tools/sites/etc report significantly different elevation gain values. [IronMark_81] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IronMark_81 wrote:

1. Why do different sites report different elevation gains when you plot out the same course? Why different values when you use the same GPX file across sites?

I suspect the differences between the tools is largely related to how many “points” the tool uses to keep adding up elevation gain, but one thing that really makes me scratch my head, is how 2 different sites, using the same exact GPX file can report big differences in elevation gain!

I’m considering doing Ironman Finland, . . . According to the Ironman site for that race, the elevation gain is only about 3,600 feet (although it is amusing the value that shows up in the race description is different then the value that shows up on the actual course map). I know IM race descriptions aren’t always accurate,
Ironman Finland race site actually has a .gpx file download. But when I upload that file into different tools, yet again different elevation profiles. Some examples:
Garmin Measurement (based on GPX file): 3,575 Feet.
RideWithGPS site(based on GPX file): 4,718 feet.
Why the difference - its the same file???

Also, I’ve seen others have created the Ironman Finland course on RideWithGPS and those courses report total elevation gain of up to 7,500 feet. And yet another site, pjammcycling, shows a whopping 9200 feet.
I have reached out to Chad at RwGPS who might come along to add understanding.
https://www.ironman.com/im-finland-course
Map says "1231m" (>4000ft)
Ignore other people's course creations: waste of time.
Loading the .gpx (from IM site) gives:
https://ridewithgps.com/trips/94506233
showing 1438m (4718ft as you said)
https://www.openrunner.com/route-details/15022284
shows 1259m
"does anyone know the actual elevation gain of the Ironman Finland bike course?" That'll be a 'no' but just go for 4718ft. From experience this will come out at 5200ft on Garmin. How will a climb of either 4000ft or 6000ft affect your training for such a course, or whether you choose to enter? The roads are great (my daughter tells me).
HTH
Quote Reply