New Relay Course Lengths

[guest]

Graeme writes : format too fast/short for my tastes, but that's another issue.

This year's relays were the first to be run under the new guidelines with fewer classes, and reduced winning time targets of around 30 minutes. Did this result in the closer racing that was intended ? (I think this is more a matter of individual perception rather than something that can be judged simply by looking at the results.)

[graeme]

Not on M40: the lead changed hands precisely once after the first common control on the first lap. Not on men's open where the first four out on lap three went round in the same order never overtaking. Nor the women's open where only one of the top 5 starters on last leg was passed at any stage.

Close racing is more down to the equality of teams and evenness of gaffling than race length. The full-speed-all-the-way short courses reduced the chances of tactical speeding-up to catch/drop a group, or the natural catching up as people who went off too fast fade, and therefore reduced the options for "racing" (as opposed to going fast).

And with much bigger entries on the "short" courses there's no evidence it improved the depth in the premier classes either.

[Neil M35]

And with much bigger entries on the "short" courses there's no evidence it improved the depth in the premier classes either.

With an open class this short, why bother having separate courses for short open/M18 and the M40/W21 and course. Give all these teams 5k each and you have 100+ teams on the premier course, lots of fun for everyone. Still award separate prizes for M40/W21/M18 of course and anybody who really doesn't want to do 5k there are still shorter courses.

I'm sure this sort of thing has been proposed before.

ps really enjoyed both days (except possibly the last 4k of the individual when brain and legs were suffering). Thanks to all concerned.

[guest]

With an open class this short, why bother having separate courses for short open/M18 and the M40/W21 and course. Give all these teams 5k each and you have 100+ teams on the premier course, lots of fun for everyone. Still award separate prizes for M40/W21/M18 of course and anybody who really doesn't want to do 5k there are still shorter courses.

I'm sure this sort of thing has been proposed before.

This was considered when the new guidelines were written. Although putting both Men's Open and Short Open on the same course looks atractive it wouldn't result in any closer competition. If you look at the results and then pro-rata the times by the course lengths then the top four teams on the Short Open would have beaten the last two on the Open. It would make no difference at all to the majority of teams.

[graeme]

NeilM35 With an open class this short, why bother having separate courses for short open/M18 and the M40/W21 and course. .

It would make no difference at all to the majority of teams.

Yes it would. You conveniently forget the 11 teams running at top-20 pace elsewhere in Neil's suggestion, i.e.

six teams in M40
two in W21
three in M18

would certainly have made a difference to us!

[awk]

With an open class this short, why bother having separate courses for short open/M18 and the M40/W21 and course. Give all these teams 5k each and you have 100+ teams on the premier course, lots of fun for everyone. Still award separate prizes for M40/W21/M18 of course and anybody who really doesn't want to do 5k there are still shorter courses.

Except you wouldn't have 100+ teams. The longer course might be attractive for the front end, but not for many of us in the middle or at the back. Add 15-20% on to the relay (which is what you are suggesting for me), and I probably wouldn't have run, or only volunteered for a much shorter race. I don't think I would be the only one. Quite a lot have been put off over the years, and it's going to take a while for relays to become attractive again. If we get more like Sunday, then there's hope yet! I'd certainly give these new distances and classes time to bed in before making any further drastic alterations.

[rocky]

to avoid confusion i've split the discussion about relay course lengths/classes away from the mandatory crossing point thread.

enjoy the discussion!

-m

[Dave]

Have to say 3.4km is a bit too short for an M18 really, it was well planned, but not really enough of it.

[guest]

As a 'short woman' (and an old one as well!) I appreciated the Women's Short course and class and the fact that it was the same length and started at the same time as the old women's class which I would have run in if my club had enough old women! It was as fast and furious as I could cope with and I so enjoyed it that I was running it again and again that night in my dreams ( or was it nightmares?). That's what relays should be - a race not a slog, especially after 1 (or even 2 at the JK) hard day(s) beforehand. Great atmosphere too and club spirit on a good relay day like Sunday.

[FatBoy]

Maybe I should start another thread for this - but on the note of courses starting at the same time.

Firstly an apology to the two women I ran into at the start on Sunday who were heading north while I was trying to head east. I did my best to avoid but we kind of run out of space.

I'm not sure if they were on Men's Short as well (in which case can't do much!), but please in future make sure classes are starting at the same time are compatible. I think it was JK last year where one of the younger junior relays went off the same time as the Men's Short and it was quite dangerous.

Back to the subject. For me personally the new shorter short relay was great - just under 30 mins about right after long slog on the Saturday.

[tendon]

classes are starting at the same time are compatible

bit too short for an M18 really ... not really enough of it.

Obviously (and the focus of this thread) refer back to the new BRC guidelines which state that classes running the same course start togther.
Mens Short, M18 and W40 are on same course.

RWT for M18 legs (this course) is 25 mins - I'll leave you to check whether 3.4km was too "too short" on this basis!

I suppose the question should be whether two classes running the same course with different RWTs should be starting separately (Mens short has a length ratio, not a RWT). Perhaps leave alone for a year or two to review, but I think the pack on this course on Sunday was in the spirit of the new Guidelines

[rob f]

Have to say 3.4km is a bit too short for an M18 really, it was well planned, but not really enough of it.

i thought it was brilliant
and it led to close racing after the first lap.

[Arnold]

given the short winning times, does it still make sense to have a mens and womens short?

We ran mens premier on sunday and came very near the bottom - ok so we're not brilliant, but not that bad either. Reason is that everyone else ran short.

I really think they should be combined into an M21 relay given the short winning times. Seems a bit artificial to have two classes.

[HOCOLITE]

The short open class is great as it gives captains versalility. When you are trying to make up age group teams there are always those that don't fit, and these courses mean you can run people. Our W short was 1 x W50 1 x W45 and 1 x W 21. Apart from AD Hoc they couldn't run anywhere else except open and I can assure you that they would not have wanted to run in the premier class. You could exclude 21's if you are concerned there are pot hunters doing this rather than the premier but don't remove it as it would mean many people would miss on a good run.

[mharky]

...but don't remove it (Short Open) as it would mean many people would miss on a good run.

The courses on the open relay were excellent, enjoyable by anyone capable of doing 5km.