I heard that there is some document to calculate relative distance on holes with big elevation changes. These are fairly numerous up here so I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of said document if it does exist. Thanks, Shane

I heard that there is some document to calculate relative distance on holes with big elevation changes. These are fairly numerous up here so I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of said document if it does exist. Thanks, Shane



I used to have this document...Ill research.. :o

I think I got it from Chuck Kennedy when I had questions on Course ratings at Stafford Lake. We have some major elevation changes as well /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
So you might want to check with him as well.

You don't need a document - all you need to know is the adjustment factor for effective length: 1 foot of elevation gain/drop equals 3 feet of effective length.

Therefore, a hole that is 250 feet long but with a 30-foot elevation gain will play very similarly (effectively) to a 340 foot hole on flat ground. A hole that is 500 feet long but with a 50-foot elevation drop will effectively play only 350 feet.

Thanks, more quantifiable then "aim twice as high and throw twice as hard."

I used to have this document...Ill research.. :o





See the definition and formula for effective length at the very bottom of the page. (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2004/PDGAGuides2004.pdf)

You don't need a document - all you need to know is the adjustment factor for effective length: 1 foot of elevation gain/drop equals 3 feet of effective length.

Therefore, a hole that is 250 feet long but with a 30-foot elevation gain will play very similarly (effectively) to a 340 foot hole on flat ground. A hole that is 500 feet long but with a 50-foot elevation drop will effectively play only 350 feet.



i thought i read that on here a while back!! :D

[QUOTE]
You don't need a document - all you need to know is the adjustment factor for effective length: 1 foot of elevation gain/drop equals 3 feet of effective length.

Therefore, a hole that is 250 feet long but with a 30-foot elevation gain will play very similarly (effectively) to a 340 foot hole on flat ground. A hole that is 500 feet long but with a 50-foot elevation drop will effectively play only 350 feet.




A 400' hole, with a 150' drop, and you have to turn around
and toss it 50' backwards :o


And of course a 666' hole with a 222' drop, just a tap-in.


The relationship appears to be non-linear.

The 3-to-1 factor is used by course designers as an estimating mechanism that seems to work well over the grades that are typical on disc golf courses. Usually, those grades are considered "walkable" by players in decent shape. If you have a hole that's 30 feet horizontally and 100' straight down over the cliff, the calculation comes out to a nonsensical number. But then again, unless you're rappeling down the cliff face, it would not be considered a walkable grade.

Determining whether the 3-to-1 factor is accurate or reasonable over a certain range of slopes is one of thoes projects I'd love for someone to attempt. Since gravity pulls downward, I'm leaning toward changing to a 4-to-1 factor for uphill but leaving the 3-to-1 for downhill. But it's only observation by our designers and not actual experimentation that it's based upon.

It is funny though to see out of town people play our hole #9 at George Ward Park. 90% of the time it is in the short position 310ft continuous up hill with a 20ft rise in elevation. It does not seem that far up hill, so other competitors in my division will pull out a roc, etc. and only get half way up the hill. I usually have to throw an EL, or something else understable that I normally use for the 340-370ft range and that works like a charm.

I would think that someone as smart as you Chuck would be able to run the physics equations to figure out the realitve distance. What factors do you need? Gravity, drag/lift of the disc, velocity of the disc, rise, run.... :D JK