Arnold wrote:Or some other solution?
Holding it on a weekend rather than a working/school day would have been helpful.
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Arnold wrote:Or some other solution?
graeme wrote:2/ The elite course turned out to be ~11% short (84mins vs 90-100EWT)
If my maths is correct? Needing to be 40% longer, is the same as saying it was 28.6% shorter, and if the M21E was 89% of the its correct length, and the M55 was 86% of what is should have been based on that, then that is the same as 23.5% shorter (89% of 86%), so the unexplained part is much less.graeme wrote:MacMan wrote:48 mins winning time for M50 and 46 for M55 ... Why
Why did M55 need to be 40% longer? Three factors all push it in
1/ Guidelines, M55/M21E ratio is 0.53. So M55 should be 8.5km: planners chose to make it 7.3. Assuming they started by planning M21E for 95min. EWT, it means the M55 was planned for a 53-58 min winning time. That's about 16% short
2/ The elite course turned out to be ~11% short (84mins vs 90-100EWT)
Which still leaves a hefty 13% to account for.
48 mins winning time for M50 and 46 for M55 ... Why ? Not a BOC !
maprun wrote:I'm wondering, in addition to the lack of tussocks, whether the effect of extreme weather on the winning times at JK 2016 was fully taken into account?
mattp wrote:
My only gripe was the M21L course was not combined with another class, it was basically the same length as courses 3 and 4 but only 6 people entered which means no ranking points.
yted wrote:Re M65 ranking points. This has been the case for older folk
Arnold wrote:How does the system know what is "obviously dodgy" and just a really crap run?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests