Badge Course Lengths

[HOCOLITE]

To keep the sub-thread on value for money going we flew our youngest to NI for BOC2002 so that he could win M10B in around 7 mins. Any advances on the most expensive sub-10 minute run?

Many years ago when we went to our first Scottish Chris Mitchell did his course in 5 mins. I think it was probably M10B. I wrote a letter to compass sport about value for money and did some statistical comparisons, after that there were a number of events that introduced family fees and some offered a free run to the youngest runner in the family.

[roadrunner]

Simon E wrote:

Appendix B of the rules (see http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/a ... ?PID=RULES) covers planning, and includes some guidance on allowing for variations in terrain.

This is true, though I also note it says:

For events at level 3 (e.g. badge events) and above, the required lengths of courses are defined in terms of competitors' times.

which of course is no longer the case. I agree that it's easier to plan courses to a length ratio than a time ratio, but I think that specifying a time ratio better indicates the intent.

NeilC wrote:

Let me play the Devil's Advocate and ask you to name such an area.

As a scientist myself, I agree with the concept of backing up claims with evidence; I had refrained from doing this previously lest the message be seen as a complaint against a particular planner, which wasn't my intention. But a recent example would be the regional event on Mynydd Llangynidr; here, the M21L course was 13.3km with 325m climb, while the M50L course was 9.5km with 185m climb, which is pretty much the correct ratio. The gold badge times were 103-06 and 89-04 respectively; had the M21L badge time been 85 mins (the middle of the guidelines), the M50L badge time would have been 73-26, which is close to the top end. So, maybe not such a large difference as my earlier post suggested.

mharky wrote:

less fair on whom???

Perhaps "fair" was the wrong word; what I meant was that some competitors would be running for longer than they would have anticipated.

[awk]

4) Junior courses were deliberately shortened. This was driven by AWK, and I'm sure he'll chip in soon.

OK then!
The main area where courses were shortened was at JM4 and upwards. The guidelines in terms of lengths for the JM/JW3 and under hardly changed, if at all. There were a multitude of reasons for the change, but perhaps the most important was the principle that at junior level, the emphasis should be on developing technique at speed and over appropriate distances for juniors, many of whom have not sufficiently developed to undertake long endurance runs. Thus, courses are kept shorter until juniors hit TD5 and are ready to progress physically. For those ready to progress, there is still the opportunity to run a long course, even if it means doing so in the Open classes, which the more advanced juniors will be ready to do at regional level.

As for the variation Lost Again has found - I'd need to see chapter and verse of the events concerned to comment.

On the senior front, I have to say that my feelings are that there aren't enough sprint and medium distance races, especially at regional level. I'd rather see a bit less quantity and a bit more quality.

[NeilC]

But a recent example would be the regional event on Mynydd Llangynidr

Roadrunner, your earlier post got me thinking about which sort of terrain would slow down the older classes more (in relative terms) than it would slow down the good M21 runners. I suspect that this reasearch has been done and possibly published in the scientific journal of orienteering or somewhere. I must admit I didn't contemplate Mynydd Llangynidr as being such a terrain.

Perhaps the problem of course length ratios becomes more of an issue when some courses enter areas of contrasting terrain. This is the situation with BOC2006 where the elites will have three terrain types of sigificantly differing speeds whilst the courses for some of the older classes will stick on one terrain type. A bit of maths in then involved in which the distance and speed in each terrain type need to be considered when deciding on appropriate course lengths to hit the expected winning times.

[mikey]

But a recent example would be the regional event on Mynydd Llangynidr

Roadrunner, your earlier post got me thinking about which sort of terrain would slow down the older classes more (in relative terms) than it would slow down the good M21 runners. I suspect that this reasearch has been done and possibly published in the scientific journal of orienteering or somewhere. I must admit I didn't contemplate Mynydd Llangynidr as being such a terrain.

Perhaps the problem of course length ratios becomes more of an issue when some courses enter areas of contrasting terrain. This is the situation with BOC2006 where the elites will have three terrain types of sigificantly differing speeds whilst the courses for some of the older classes will stick on one terrain type. A bit of maths in then involved in which the distance and speed in each terrain type need to be considered when deciding on appropriate course lengths to hit the expected winning times.

Somewhere like Charlton Forest when the British Champs were held there. Loads of deep brashing - easy meat for the 21s, more of a struggle for older classes.

[NeilC]

Somewhere like Charlton Forest when the British Champs were held there. Loads of deep brashing - easy meat for the 21s, more of a struggle for older classes.

And very nearly the venue for BOC2006 (shudders at thought). Do brashings really not slow down M21s significantly? It wouldn't surprise me if even top M21s slowed down 30% or so across heavily brashed areas.

[Supersaint]

go training with a top m21 elite and find out, i think you'll be surprised at just how fit some of them are.

[NeilC]

go training with a top m21 elite and find out, i think you'll be surprised at just how fit some of them are.

I have every respect for the fitness of the top M21 elites, but still believe they slow down significantly in tough terrain.

For example there was a previous thread about the long times taken at SHI where the tougher nature of the terrain was commented on. At the BOC2002 at Magilligan the leaders in M21E were doing around 5.6m/k, at the SHI on the same area the leaders were doing around 7.2m/k - about 30% slower. I don't believe the 'class' of the two fields was that different and so feel it is reasonable to attribute the different speeds to the reported toughness of terrain.

[gross2006]

My estimate is that you might expect around 1 min/km difference in speed as a baseline by the winner of BOC & winner of SHI.... that leaves around o.6 mins / km for other factors such as tracking etc etc

[Adventure Racer]

Do brashings really not slow down M21s significantly? It wouldn't surprise me if even top M21s slowed down 30% or so across heavily brashed areas.

Well yes they do, but not to such a great extent as they can do for other classes. Imagine for instance it getting tough enough that M50s for instance are reduced to a walk - or near enough in speed terms - whilc M21s are still running (albeit slowly). All of a sudden the difference in speeds is magnified. With a certain roughness of terrain you need to have a lot of spring in your stride to continue to make smooth progress, otherwise it all becomes a bit stuttering and given M21Es have a lot more spring than other classes on really hard terrain they could be moving twice as fast rather than the usual 30% or so.

[NeilC]

Well yes they do, but not to such a great extent as they can do for other classes. Imagine for instance it getting tough enough that M50s for instance are reduced to a walk - or near enough in speed terms - whilc M21s are still running (albeit slowly). All of a sudden the difference in speeds is magnified. With a certain roughness of terrain you need to have a lot of spring in your stride to continue to make smooth progress, otherwise it all becomes a bit stuttering and given M21Es have a lot more spring than other classes on really hard terrain they could be moving twice as fast rather than the usual 30% or so.

A perfectly reasonable hypothesis, but again I ask is there data to support it? The null hypothesis in this instance is that there is no difference in the relative amount by which each age class slow down or speed up in different terrain types. The null hypothesis has to be defeated not proved.

[distracted]

well Leith Hill had certainly slowed down quite a bit today from where it was in May for the World Cup race, mainly bracken/undergrowth impeding progress (and decreasing visibility...). When the results are up, there'll be some data there - comparing with Surrey 5-O results. and a decent spread in age classes in both.

[David May]

Neil,

I can back you up up with some facts! I have a huge amount of data regarding 7 NEs and 24 Badge Events which took place in 1991 and it's an easy task to compare running speeds for every Long/Elite class at each of these events. To do this, I took Ideal speeds (based on the then concept of an Ideal Time), corrected for height climb and found that, on average, class winners' minutes per km increased by 8% per age class starting from M21 and by 9% per age class starting at W21.

It didn't seem to matter much whether I took the data from Sutton Park, Shining Cliff, Birnham or Barns Cliff - the overall variation (measured by looking at standard deviations) in this figure was under 2% for men and under 3% for women, this variation apparently being more due to some events having small numbers of runners than any other factor.

What could well be true is that the discrepancy increases for runners at the slow end of the results but, for the leaders, I see no evidence that terrain disproportionately affects older winners' running speeds.

David

[FatBoy]

I'd agree with that David. It's not just age/sex factors which determine your speed but many others, and over enough people things average out.

I know that my average speed is down on the top guys in hilly terrain (heavy) but up in brambly/brashed terrain (tall). On average though this is evened out by people who are light and short.

I don't think it's fair to say M50's (for example) are more slowed down by rough terrain than an M21. That said planning must allow for physical capabilities of the older age groups - say 60+ (?) for this to work out.