Tranter’s corrections are often quoted, but seem to be based on a strange premise of what constitutes fitness. The table below then corrects your Naismith Time depending on your level of ‘fitness’. It also goes as far as saying that this walk’s too much for you slow coach. All well and good, but my fully opinionated opinion is below. Feel free to add your comments below if you disagree!
The problem that I have with Tranter’s Correction is that it bases your fitness specifically on the speed you can cover 800m with an ascent of 300m. So basically, if you’re fast then you have more stamina. I am just unable to see what premise that’s built on. To me it’s a bit like saying that as Bolt can cover 100m faster than Farrah, ergo will beat him over 10km. Just nonsense. You may easily complete the challenge in 15 minutes, but struggle at anything after 4 or 5 hours, or someone else might take 30 mins to complete the ascent, but is one of those ‘steady eddies’ you see on the mountains. They just keep on going, steady, plodding ever onward, never stopping.
I’ve completed some trail/fell runs somewhere around the highest level, which is strictly running territory but there’s no way I could continue that pace any longer than I could walk and certainly does not bestow the stamina on me to continue on to 24 hours!
If you ignore the ‘fitness’ aspect of it, then Tranter’s Corrections offer a useful sliding scale instead. If you know you can complete a longish walk somewhere at the 20 min fitness level, and you’re going to attempt it in snow or over the Rhinogydd (or both!) then you can slide it to the next level. But then, you may as well be adding an hour or two to your Naismith Times.
I’ve never found cause to use Tranters at any point, and the fact that it isn’t even mentioned in the current handbook for the ML course speaks volumes. Do any of you actually find it useful? I’d be fascinated to see if anyone uses this rule regularly during their planning,
You must log in to post a comment