Northern California - American River BT Elevation profile?

I finally rode the ARBT from Discovery Park to Folsom and back. It wasn't a hard ride, mainly just lots of pedestrian traffic. Thing is, I forgot to charge my Garmin so I don't have any elevation information. Does anyone have the elevation information for the ARBT?

Did you go all the way up to Bealls Point at Folsom Lake? If so, my Garmin gave my 1423 feet when I rode that last July. If you didn't go to Bealls, subtract about 500 feet. It's pretty flat but for that.

Yeah I went all the way. Thanks for the info.

Did you go all the way up to Bealls Point at Folsom Lake? If so, my Garmin gave my 1423 feet when I rode that last July. If you didn't go to Bealls, subtract about 500 feet. It's pretty flat but for that.

1400+ sounds like too much total gain. I get 700-750 feet on the round trip between beals and discovery park with my Polar (barometric).

I apologize for the hijack but I have a diff question regarding the ARBT. I've only ridden it from Beal's to Hazel Ave. How far from Beal's to the other end?

It's ~32 miles from Beals to Discovery Park, then roughly another mile to Old Sac.

http://www.saccycle.com/bikewaymaps/AR_Biketrail.pdf

The route and elevation profile of the trail is shown here:

http://www.everytrail.com/view_trip.php?trip_id=204

Note that the site allows you to download the tracklog as either a .gpx or .kml file so you can transfer it to your Garmin or other GPS that can load tracklogs.

thanks guys.

Did you go all the way up to Bealls Point at Folsom Lake? If so, my Garmin gave my 1423 feet when I rode that last July. If you didn't go to Bealls, subtract about 500 feet. It's pretty flat but for that.

900 sounds more correct, but well over half is from Hazel east to Beals Pt. - naturally the part that I always do starting in Roseville lol. Even if you stop in downtown Folsom you miss most the climbing.

I recently bought the Garmin and ride mainly on the bike trail. Here is a link to my rides. I have not done the whole trail to Beals, but did Discovery and around lake Natoma. I do start out of Sunrise access. I am still new so don't laugh at the data.

Edit: Looks like link to rides not working here is Discovery and around Lake Natoma
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/11716930

Rick

I think that Garmin I had then recorded a little high. I'm going to ride the trail again at some point this fall and will report back.

I think that Garmin I had then recorded a little high. I'm going to ride the trail again at some point this fall and will report back.

Was that a forerunner model? I have the forerunner 305 for tri training , and noticed that since it runs off GPS altitude instead of Barometric altitude, the ascent measurement is way high, especially in areas with more flat terrain. Haven't found software that can smooth it well to get true stats.

I'm curious to see how close my polar 720i is to true gain. Based on my deathride stats and from what I've read, the ascent stats may be a little low, especially at higher elevations.

I'm curious to see how close my polar 720i is to true gain. Based on my deathride stats and from what I've read, the ascent stats may be a little low, especially at higher elevations.

So what are you going to use to determine "true cumulative gain?" It's easy to get good numbers on a course like the 'Death Ride' where the terrain consists of long sections that are monotonically rising or falling. Much harder to get agreed upon values on something like the American River Trail where much of the terrain is essentially flat with little ups and downs of a few feet. In the latter case the values can vary widely depending on exactly what type of smoothing algorithm is used.

So what are you going to use to determine "true cumulative gain?" It's easy to get good numbers on a course like the 'Death Ride' where the terrain consists of long sections that are monotonically rising or falling. Much harder to get agreed upon values on something like the American River Trail where much of the terrain is essentially flat with little ups and downs of a few feet. In the latter case the values can vary widely depending on exactly what type of smoothing algorithm is used.

I was going off my polar stats with the barometric altimeter from multiple rides. The polar software provides a total ascent for the ride (and each individual lap) by capturing the altitude at each interval. The watch is normally set to 5sec intervals, but I need to use 15sec for the deathride. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure the Polar software does not smooth altitude, so it's based on the actual barometric measurements at the 5 second intervals.

For the bike path gain, I went back and looked at rides for the past several years, all were in the 700-750 range for Beals to Discovery Park/Old Sac. I always hit my lap counter right at the intersection of the road and the bike path at Beals, so it excludes the extra 400 feet I get going to/from the bike path from my house in granite bay.

I do notice that my garmin actually does better at a true reading for a steady climb as you suggestion. Going up the Iowa Hill grade and up Old Foresthill Road, the variance between by Polar and the Garmin Forerunner is about 15%. But if I look at my garmin w/o barometric for a flat route (ie bike path to old sac), it reads 4000 ft gain, even with different smoothing algorithms. I've read the polar can be low sometimes by as much as 10%, especially on longer climbs at high altitude due to barometric drift.

The lack of barometric altimeter in the forerunner series is probably what's going to stop me from upgrading to the new 310xt for triathlon training.