Guinness World Record - Blatent Self Boast

P

pinkboy

On Saturday, I achieved setting a new Guinness World Record in Most Metres Ascended in 12hrs on a Bicycle. This basically required me to ride a course repeatedly to gain vertical elevation in metres. I specifically chose a small but steep hill to ride the repeats on. The course was less than 500m long, which had a vertical gain of 60.6m per lap (approx 13% gradient).

With Thursday and Friday before the atempt being miserable drizzly rain (you know the rain that only just comes down, not bucketing or even showering, just annoying), high hopes were needed for a good day Saturday. The heavens delivered with stars shining when I woke up, on a clear and nice temperature Winter Solstice. Quick setting up, some official housekeeping, then a quick spin to warm up, some last minute photos and I was away!

With the record set at 5000m, I needed to achieve at least 83 laps. The first few hours I was going well. Right on my target of around 900m per hour (15 laps/hr. Having done the required limit in training twice, (but not under GWR Guidelines), I knew it was going to be around the 6hr mark where I could celebrate. At 5hrs:40min I achieved the 83rd lap. I celebrated with a vegemite sandwich, some pepsi and a couple of jellybeans. After around a 10min break, I was back in the saddle grinding it out once again....now to make the mark as unsurmountable as I could.

This is the stuff I love. 'When the going gets tough, the tough get going'. I was soldiering every lap. I got to 100 laps after another hour and a bit and started to do some sums in my head. With the initial goal of 10,000m slipping due to fatigue, I knew I had to start breaking the day into smaller chunks. I hoped off at the 110 lap mark for a quick breather and a goal reasses. The new targets were 10 laps and a small break. So off again to grind out 10 reps.

120, 130, 140 laps complete. At this stage the legs were cramping badly.....but there was a huge milestone coming up: The equivelent height of Mt. Everest from sea level to summit is 8848m, or for me, at the 146 lap mark. By this stage I was breaking it down to 2 laps in my mind. At the 11hrs:10min mark, I achieved that 146th lap! What a feeling! The crowd now at its peak were all now staying to the finish.

I managed just 7 more laps in that last ~45min. Those 7 laps I had tears welling up, my legs screaming, and my breathing laboured for oxygen. On the 153rd lap, at 11hrs:58mins, knowing I couldnt possibly make it back for another......I called it the end of the day.

Wow, what a buzz! The crowd, my family, my friends....all came out of the woodwork. Many were there for the days duration, and many came out several times to watch. The emotions of the day were sinking in....and so was a little pain. I managed a quick bite to eat, a small rub down and got to go out into the crowd of people. Amazingly I felt so much better in this small intimate crowd of mostly friends and family, than in the larger crowds at Ironman.

To quote Rolf on my wifes Facebook 'Behind every great athlete there is also a great woman' - He is so right. Actually I had two great women that day, with both my wife Liz and Miss. 9 daughter Kona handing me my nutrition every single lap of the day. I dedicated the day to them, as family is the most important thing in all our lives.

The numbers: 153 laps at 60.6m ascended gave me a total of 9271.8m ascended.

GWS.jpg

pinkboy.....thanks for listening! :cool:
 
pinkboy said:
On Saturday, I achieved setting a new Guinness World Record in Most Metres Ascended in 12hrs on a Bicycle.
The numbers: 153 laps at 60.6m ascended gave me a total of 9271.8m ascended.
Click to expand...

This is one "blatent self boast" [sic] that I am very pleased to be able to read on SS.

Coz I tell you there is a bloody lot of them that I don't give a fig for.

Well done Adrian.
 
Fantastic result - so pleased you managed to pull it off.

From the quick research I did (by no means exhaustive), I've found a couple of Everesting achievements slightly faster than you managed ... so perhaps this could be your next challenge (after you've done your 10,000m in 12 hours, or perhaps while doing it?) ... set the fastest "Everest" climb ... 10:02 hours I think is the benchmark.

Either way - you should be very proud of what you've achieved - not just the hard work of doing the ride (which was obviously the most difficult bit of the whole event), but also for having the foresight and fortitude to arrange to get it recorded legitimately for the record books.

Was there any media coverage of the event?
 
Awesome stuff!

You also got to ride down a 9271.8 m high hill! (in sections)

I was interested in the numbers / choice of hill though. I can't help but think about the physics of it and to try and think of ways to make the process more efficient! It's the same number crunching I love with property!

I am not trying to talk down your achievement at all because I would struggle to do that driving, yet alone riding!

I also don't know the rules on how you have to attempt the record. What I am thinking probably doesn't exactly fit the spirit.


Your hill requires you to expend the energy to raise you and your bike by 60.6 metres, plus energy losses to friction.

On the trip back down, you then had to turn that energy to heat through your brakes (I presume) - meaning it is lost.

So overall you had to expend the energy + friction to actually raise yourself the equivalent to 9271.8 M - like if you rode one giant hill.


So I was thinking with a different setup, you could do it much more efficiently and not lose that energy coming down the hill.


Imagine you had a track that was a big circle with a bunch of small (20cm?) hills on it, spaced one after the other. You expend energy to ride to the top of the first 20cm hill. But then you coast down the other side, without using your brakes, picking up a small amount of speed. The energy you expended is not lost - it's turned to kinetic energy. You then can coast most of the way up the next hill before dropping to your original speed.

If you had a 100% frictionless setup, you could keep coasting over the hills forever - you would slow slightly on each rise, but speed up by the same amount on each descent.

Of course it's not actually a frictionless setup in real life. But with a track and hills setup, your friction losses should be only slightly more than riding on a flat track. So your only energy lost is due to friction - you don't actually have to expend the energy needed to raise you and your bike by 9271.8 meters.


I would think there would be an optimum speed compared to small hill grade to length, depending on what your sustained energy output from pedalling is. I imagine at high speeds or grades that are too steep or shallow it would not be very efficient.


For example, if you had 20cm hills set 2m apart, you could have a 100m climb per kilometre.

I don't know what a sustained pace on flat would be - but I presume 20km/h would not be unreasonable. That gives a climb rate of 2000m an hour, with not too much more energy used than riding on flat ground.

The key being you are only expending energy to overcome friction and don't lose your potential energy from each climb by having to use your brakes.

I have no idea how easy it would be to ride in real life and it's probably against the spirit of the record in some ways.


But you know, crunching numbers is interesting!
 
Sim said:
Fantastic result - so pleased you managed to pull it off.

From the quick research I did (by no means exhaustive), I've found a couple of Everesting achievements slightly faster than you managed ... so perhaps this could be your next challenge (after you've done your 10,000m in 12 hours, or perhaps while doing it?) ... set the fastest "Everest" climb ... 10:02 hours I think is the benchmark.

Either way - you should be very proud of what you've achieved - not just the hard work of doing the ride (which was obviously the most difficult bit of the whole event), but also for having the foresight and fortitude to arrange to get it recorded legitimately for the record books.

Was there any media coverage of the event?
Click to expand...

Thanks all.

Sim, regarding your research. I did see this. Taking nothing away from Brendan, Im failing to see how he 'Everested'? The largest metres ascended segment is 231m, and for a total of 36 climbs only equals 8316m. :confused: It is a Strava File only.

You also have to note that the altimeters in the Garmin devices are somewhat...not quite accurate. My attempt had the height measured by (2x) Altimeters, GPS, and Surveyed. This achieved the 60.6m within .1m (well the survey gets you within 10mm over that distance). So careful consideration needs to be adhered to for accuracy of these 'Everest' guys.

It can also be argued that Everest, even perfectly surveyed can be either 1.5m either up or down from its measured 8848m. This is the mostly widely accepted measurement.

It appears George Mallory @ 11hrs:08min would be slightly faster, but keeping in mind he was setting out to achieve Everest, not 12hrs. Also most of these guys all have friends pacing them etc - I was alone on the road all day, with no other cyclists allowed on the course. Im hoping that's the edge I have over the competition. :cool:

pinkboy
 
handmer said:
I have no idea how easy it would be to ride in real life and it's probably against the spirit of the record in some ways.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you had already answered your own question:

handmer said:
So overall you had to expend the energy + friction to actually raise yourself the equivalent to 9271.8 M - like if you rode one giant hill.
Click to expand...

... that is exactly the point - the equivalent of riding up one giant hill the height of Everest.

But my question is ... how long until we start "mooning" (keep your pants on - you know that's not what I meant :p )
 
handmer said:
Awesome stuff!

You also got to ride down a 9271.8 m high hill! (in sections)

I was interested in the numbers / choice of hill though. I can't help but think about the physics of it and to try and think of ways to make the process more efficient! It's the same number crunching I love with property!

I am not trying to talk down your achievement at all because I would struggle to do that driving, yet alone riding!

I also don't know the rules on how you have to attempt the record. What I am thinking probably doesn't exactly fit the spirit.


Your hill requires you to expend the energy to raise you and your bike by 60.6 metres, plus energy losses to friction.

On the trip back down, you then had to turn that energy to heat through your brakes (I presume) - meaning it is lost.

So overall you had to expend the energy + friction to actually raise yourself the equivalent to 9271.8 M - like if you rode one giant hill.


So I was thinking with a different setup, you could do it much more efficiently and not lose that energy coming down the hill.


Imagine you had a track that was a big circle with a bunch of small (20cm?) hills on it, spaced one after the other. You expend energy to ride to the top of the first 20cm hill. But then you coast down the other side, without using your brakes, picking up a small amount of speed. The energy you expended is not lost - it's turned to kinetic energy. You then can coast most of the way up the next hill before dropping to your original speed.

If you had a 100% frictionless setup, you could keep coasting over the hills forever - you would slow slightly on each rise, but speed up by the same amount on each descent.

Of course it's not actually a frictionless setup in real life. But with a track and hills setup, your friction losses should be only slightly more than riding on a flat track. So your only energy lost is due to friction - you don't actually have to expend the energy needed to raise you and your bike by 9271.8 meters.


I would think there would be an optimum speed compared to small hill grade to length, depending on what your sustained energy output from pedalling is. I imagine at high speeds or grades that are too steep or shallow it would not be very efficient.


For example, if you had 20cm hills set 2m apart, you could have a 100m climb per kilometre.

I don't know what a sustained pace on flat would be - but I presume 20km/h would not be unreasonable. That gives a climb rate of 2000m an hour, with not too much more energy used than riding on flat ground.

The key being you are only expending energy to overcome friction and don't lose your potential energy from each climb by having to use your brakes.

I have no idea how easy it would be to ride in real life and it's probably against the spirit of the record in some ways.


But you know, crunching numbers is interesting!
Click to expand...

Whilst I admire your thinking, your thinking will be quickly debunked upon reading the guidelines of the record attempt unfortunately. The hill must definitively progress above the horizontal at all times, otherwise it would be classed as a second hill, which is outside of the rules. I enquired specifically if I could use 2x hills that represented a half-pipe of sorts to accumulate metres - rejected. Also no loops - the hill must be progressed upwards and a single turn around point at either end. ;)

Don't worry - we exhausted all options for the most efficient way to do it - there is no easy way, just haulin' @$$ uphill!


pinkboy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
The timing of my tenant!
Replies
0
Views
854
sandyfeet
S
K
20 US properties in 4 1/2 years
2 3
Replies
57
Views
14K
MTR
MTR
The Y-man
The Investor2009 Interview
Replies
1
Views
12K
The Y-man
The Y-man
The Y-man
The Propertunity Interview
Replies
1
Views
185K
The Y-man
The Y-man
K
POSTS about Select American Homes
Replies
11
Views
5K
geoffw
geoffw
Back
Top