Guinness World Record -- 839 Rubik's Cubes in 4:56:01 During a Marathon

[PhillipEspinoza]

Ah yes, that makes much more sense (I had somehow thought it can't be too uphill or else it would have to be called "uphill" and be a record separate from the old one, rather that being done uphill).

That was my understanding of it as well.

 

[Stefan]

I'm not sure the London Marathon would have met these requirements.

Take a look at their elevation graph.

Looks like it drops about 115ft, well under 139ft.

 

[qqwref]

Just to clarify, does Phillip actually have to have 1000 separate cubes? Because that would seriously be bad news. I wouldn't be surprised though, as Guinness seems to know next to nothing about Rubik's Cubes.

Also, it'd be pretty funny if they actually do put such thin limits on elevation changes while allowing 5 hours to run the thing. This isn't a marathon WR attempt, course difficulty is almost irrelevant And it would be so incredibly silly to have a record of, say, 1000 cubes for a normal course and 200 cubes for an "uphill" course.

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

Looks like it drops about 115ft, well under 139ft.

It looks like it goes up to ~50m then drops to about sea level making that a change of more than 42.195m which would be the 1:1000 ratio.

Just to clarify, does Phillip actually have to have 1000 separate cubes? Because that would seriously be bad news. I wouldn't be surprised though, as Guinness seems to know next to nothing about Rubik's Cubes.

Also, it'd be pretty funny if they actually do put such thin limits on elevation changes while allowing 5 hours to run the thing. This isn't a marathon WR attempt, course difficulty is almost irrelevant And it would be so incredibly silly to have a record of, say, 1000 cubes for a normal course and 200 cubes for an "uphill" course.

lol seriously though. Here you could have 5 hours but make sure not to go down 140ft otherwise that's too easy. lowat.

I don't have to do 1,000 cubes that was just my goal, and I'll try to stick to it even if I have to wait for the right marathon to do it, and even if that takes a while. I wanna do it once and do it right, to the best of my ability. Go 1,337 or go home.

 

[Stefan]

It looks like it goes up to ~50m then drops to about sea level making that a change of more than 42.195m which would be the 1:1000 ratio.

Yeah but looking at it that way would be silly. Ignores the rise at start and end.

You start at 41m, you end at 6m, that's a net loss of 35m.

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

Yeah but looking at it that way would be silly. Ignores the rise at start and end.

You start at 41m, you end at 6m, that's a net loss of 35m.

I don't think that's what they mean by 1:1000 average gradient. By that logic you could have a start at 41m and and end at 41m and be a net loss of 0m regardless if they had 500m ups and 500m downs, which would not be perfectly level. And that's not what's meant by net loss either. Net loss = cumulative descension, that means the amount you descend during a race given ups and downs not just start elevation minus the begining elevation. If the race PEAKED at 41m (not simply started) and went straight down to 6m, you would be right. But that's not the way the course is designed with London or most marathons. In fact, the only marathon I've ever come across that even comes close to being like that is the one I proposed with 5,000ft+ drop straight down with only a slight back uphill or flat portion.

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's how it goes...

 

[Methuselah96]

I don't think that's what they mean by 1:1000 average gradient. By that logic you could have a start at 41m and and end at 41m and be a net loss of 0m regardless if they had 500m ups and 500m downs, which would not be perfectly level. And that's not what's meant by net loss either. Net loss = cumulative descension, that means the amount you descend during a race given ups and downs not just start elevation minus the begining elevation. If the race PEAKED at 41m (not simply started) and went straight down to 6m, you would be right. But that's not the way the course is designed with London or most marathons. In fact, the only marathon I've ever come across that even comes close to being like that is the one I proposed with 5,000ft+ drop straight down with only a slight back uphill or flat portion.

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's how it goes...

I am almost certain Stefan is correct and you are wrong. Do you have sources?

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

I am almost certain Stefan is correct and you are wrong. Do you have sources?

Not that this really has anything to do with the subject matter anymore... you can refer to this for a better explanation.

In the simplest case of a trip where hikers only travel up on their way to a single summit, the cumulative elevation gain is simply given by the difference in the summit elevation and the starting elevation. For example, if one were to start hiking at a trailhead with elevation 1,000 feet (300 m), and hike up to a summit of 5,000 feet (1,500 m), the cumulative elevation gain would just be 5000 ft - 1000 ft = 4000 ft. The loss of elevation on the descent is not relevant, because only increases in elevation are considered in this measure.

However, when climbing a mountain with some "ups-and-downs", or traversing several mountains, you must take into account every "up" along the whole route. This even means that the (usually small) uphills on the descent must be counted. For example, consider a mountain whose summit was 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in elevation, but somewhere on the way up, the trail went back down 250 feet (76 m). If starting at an elevation of 1,000 feet (300 m), one would gain 4,250 feet (1,300 m) on the way up (not 4000, because 250 is lost and has to be "regained"). The 250 feet on the way down is not counted.

 

[Methuselah96]

Not that this really has anything to do with the subject matter anymore... you can refer to this for a better explanation.

doesn't sound like "the average gradient over the entire course" to me.

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

That's what google is for dude, if you don't understand google it. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gradient+calculator.

The disagreement was what was considered net loss.

And just to drive home this point, take a look at Pike's Peak Marathon, one of the hardest marathons in the world with almost 8,000ft vertical gain. If I were to go by Stefan's logic, then this marathon would be an acceptable course for this record because it starts at 6,300 and ends at 6,345. 45ft total gain? I'M SIGNING UP!

 

[Stefan]

That's what google is for dude, if you don't understand google it. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gradient+calculator.

Acting like that is a rather bad idea if you're the one who's wrong. Especially if the results of your lmgtfy don't cover the issue or disagree with you.

Not that this really has anything to do with the subject matter anymore... you can refer to this for a better explanation.

Funny how even just the string "net" doesn't even appear on that page at all.

 

[Bunyanderman]

That's what google is for dude, if you don't understand google it. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gradient+calculator.

The disagreement was what was considered net loss.

And just to drive home this point, take a look at Pike's Peak Marathon, one of the hardest marathons in the world with almost 8,000ft vertical gain. If I were to go by Stefan's logic, then this marathon would be an acceptable course for this record because it starts at 6,300 and ends at 6,345. 45ft total gain? I'M SIGNING UP!

Any course that starts and ends in the same place has an average gradient of 0%. If you have a turn around point in a marathon, that is mainly downhill there and uphill back you can find the gradient of the highest point and lowest point, but that is not average gradient. Which is what I believe the rules specify for the coarse. Gradient = net elevation gain or loss / total distance traveled, They have this rule in place for marathons that do not start and end in the same place, that is what i read the ruling as but this is a vague ruling over the course.

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

Acting like that is a rather bad idea if you're the one who's wrong. Especially if the results of your lmgtfy don't cover the issue or disagree with you.

Hey you know what, you're right, acting like that is a bad idea, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. What a shame you still act like that in 99% of your posts, I can imagine how unpleasant of a person that makes you out to be.

I apologize for the condescension on a matter that really doesn't matter, it seems I fell victim to Stefan's usual and unnecessary troll-like nitpicking. Enabling trollish behavior, by accusing me of being wrong without explaining why of offering a clearer explanation, and instead argumentatively questioning my sources, is certainly not the way to be conducive to a thread so please stop posting.

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

The guidance I got was that the record had to be performed on a certified marathon course, which usually requires a flat course, or at least a course that finishes the final mile on an uphill grade.

Thanks I'm gonna go with this interpretation.

 

[tseitsei]

This is what net gradient actually means. So stefan is right. Please don't argue anymore because this really is what NET GRADIENT means.

Also Stefan is hardly ever trolling in any thread. Merely correcting facts that people usually get wrong...

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

Ok so after all this, and though Stefan may be right, Guinness has approved the Canyon City Marathon:

Dear Phillip Espinoza,

The Canyon City Marathon will be acceptable for this record attempt. Please note that this record is for a full marathon and not a half marathon.

The gradient will need to be included in a surveyor's report (or a report by the organizers), submitted with the claim.

Thank you for your enquiry.


Yours sincerely,
Lisa Hoffman
Guinness World Records

Is Guinness as stupid as I am, or do they realize the course doesn't necessarily meet their general requirements for "fastest marathon"? Maybe because they are general and because of what qq said, it wouldn't make much of a difference speed wise as I'm not going for the speed record. But as I understand Stefan and the policy now, the course should be generally flat and start and end almost at the same elevation. 8 guess Guinness doesn't mind though. Should I just go with their approval or go with this flatter course I've been looking at under the idea that they just don't know their own regulations?

 

[qqwref]

If you have time, I'd recommend replying with a mention of your concerns along with the elevation info you have, and asking if they could please double-check that the course is OK. Better safe than sorry.

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

If you have time, I'd recommend replying with a mention of your concerns along with the elevation info you have, and asking if they could please double-check that the course is OK. Better safe than sorry.

Right, I agree, which is why I made sure in my inquiry to specifically mention the regulation in question. Here is my original inquiry:

---------- Previous Message ----------
Hello,

The marathon I was looking at for my initial attempt date on October 12, 2014, got back to me and declined approval for me the attempt the record at their event.

EDIT: I will make sure by asking them again, with actual numbers, but the nature of their emails are no-reply emails and you have to send in another inquiry which could take 2-4 weeks for them to respond. I feel like since they gave me approval after I showed them the course though, they would be at fault if after the fact they decided it was no good.

I am looking at this marathon, have received approval from organizers, and just need approval from Guinness for this course. Please take a look and let me know if this marathon would fit the guidelines for this record attempt (Canyon City Marathon): http://brooksee-events.appspot.com/rcc

"This person should also confirm that the average gradient over the entire course is no GREATER than 1:1000. If the
gradient is steeper than this, the record attempt must be made “uphill”."

I sent them that link which has the course elevation on there, and sited the regulation that might affect the approval of the course. I thought this was clear enough, but maybe I should be more explicit?

EDIT: I will make sure by asking them again, with actual numbers, but the nature of their emails are no-reply so I can't just shoot back an email. I'd have to fill out another inquiry and wait 2-4 weeks for a response. But I feel like since I showed them the course, and since they approved it, they would be in the wrong for deciding the course wasn't legit after the fact.

 

[Stefan]

I know you requested I stop posting, but I'd like to offer my thoughts anyway.

To me, their long response time sounds like they're overloaded. Possibly they're flooded by requests and don't have time to check everything properly. And they might spend more time to check actually executed record-breaking attempts, as there might be far fewer of those and it's more serious for them to publish a record than to say "yeah go ahead" in a private email. So I'd not just link to the marathon website but also clearly say that it's downhill (and by how much).

On the other hand, maybe I'm just paranoid and Guinness doesn't actually mind it being downhill (though then their rule is a complete mystery), the cube solving being the more important aspect. Also, in general I get the feeling that Guinness is getting more and more obsolete, thanks to other organizations and the internet as a whole (like records being at Wikipedia, or at WCA for cubing). So they ought to take every record they can still get

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDH5jAbf_Ko

16 days away. Made this cool little video. Check it out!