southern champs

[Clive Coles]

Fair point Paul ~ I guess though, with the speed that technical support for events is evolving. it will not be long before this hurdle has been cracked.

[King Penguin]

For true accuracy needs the start to be a radio control ?
Distance might be a challenge in some locations.
However, which is more important - getting the run-in commentary accurate to a few seconds or getting accurate results for competitors ?

[EddieH]

At WMOC we have had timed punching start - i.e. a standard start time but with the requirement to remove the EMIT brikke on the "GO". This gave the best of both worlds, BUT required as many start units as the maximum number of competitors in any start minute.

[andy]

For true accuracy needs the start to be a radio control ?
Distance might be a challenge in some locations.

It could work as a radio but even better as an SMS control, less reliance on distance, only mobile signal, which is easier than you think to find at most locations with an array of SIM cards. I don't know how well supported this is for commentary solutions though, at the 6 days last year it didn't work in AutoDownload, it may do now though.

However, which is more important - getting the run-in commentary accurate to a few seconds or getting accurate results for competitors ?

Obviously the race itself is more important but it's bad PR to read out incorrect data ("he's won by 1sec! oh wait, no, he's just downloaded and it turns out he was quick off the mark and he's lost out by 1 sec." Doesn't really work.)
I was getting frustrated by the on-screen clock from WOC last year, it was updating as they crossed the line then reassessing their times a few secs later. By the end of it my head was doing the maths before it updated. I don't know exactly how they were doing it but it didn't look good. Close finishes are fine but when it's a matter of seconds... If they can manage to get Usain Bolt within 0.01 of a sec of his 'actual' time as he crosses the line then why can't we?

[DJM]

EddieH wrote:

At WMOC we have had timed punching start - i.e. a standard start time but with the requirement to remove the EMIT brikke on the "GO". This gave the best of both worlds, BUT required as many start units as the maximum number of competitors in any start minute.

Don't remember that one Eddie, and I've been to more WMOCs than most
Note that the current WMOC Guidelines say (mandatory bit in bold):

Modern electronic punching allows starts to be made by “punching” at the Start control unit (popularly called a “punching start”) but this must not be used for WMOC unless this system is used for competitors in the Late Start lane. Competitors must start at their given start time so a conventional timed start (using a clock synchronised with race time) should be used instead.

[madmike]

At Southern Champs the "radio controls" were actually provided using an SMS solution. Moreover, we had OE not autodownload and we also had a feed from the EMIT results team.

[EddieH]

DJM the WMOC I am referring to was Czech 1998.

[cbg]

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here, and note that, for Course 8 at least, ending the race at the end of the long leg (Control 12 of 18) would have altered only one position (3rd/4th M45) in the top 21 finishers (12 x M45 and 9 x M50). One route choice decision had an arguably disproportionate effect compared to the ease of the fine navigation in what was an excellent runnable forest with great visibility.

Hands up, I made one c**p decision and deserved to lose out in this event. But long legs rarely require the continuous concentration on detailed location required by legs matched to the terrain - they allow much more broad brush navigation. Long legs have their place, but 25% of the total course length can place too much emphasis on one decision, relegating the influence of the other thousands of decisions.

However I enjoyed winning the 'race' against Course 4 (at the same start time) side-by-side to the common first control! Had the Planner/Controller identified that?

[Arnold]

One thing that made timed starts easier in the past was the fact we had control cards. At least the bloke on the start line could check everyones card to make sure they had the right start time - quick to do and also allows runners to remember more easily.

I'm wondering whether a useful alternative today might be the mandatory use of race numbers (bibs) with start times on them? At least that way runners can always see their time and start officials can check quickly whether runners are in the right place.

Plus it would add to the atmosphere, though of course it would cost a bit of money.

[Steve]

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here, and note that, for Course 8 at least, ending the race at the end of the long leg (Control 12 of 18) would have altered only one position (3rd/4th M45) in the top 21 finishers (12 x M45 and 9 x M50). One route choice decision had an arguably disproportionate effect compared to the ease of the fine navigation in what was an excellent runnable forest with great visibility.

Hands up, I made one c**p decision and deserved to lose out in this event. But long legs rarely require the continuous concentration on detailed location required by legs matched to the terrain - they allow much more broad brush navigation. Long legs have their place, but 25% of the total course length can place too much emphasis on one decision, relegating the influence of the other thousands of decisions.

However I enjoyed winning the 'race' against Course 4 (at the same start time) side-by-side to the common first control! Had the Planner/Controller identified that?

Thanks for the feedback cbg. I had about 8 first controls (excluding White, Yellow, Orange). To have as many first controls as courses is obviously impractical. I could have paid closer attention to making sure courses likely to have similar speed runners had different first controls, or we could have made sure such courses didn't start in the same minute, but to be honest I was accepting of the fact that such experiences as yours may occasionally happen. It's a learning point for the future and I'll add it to the list I am developing. I hope it wasn't a common occurrence.

Regarding the proportion of the long leg to the rest of the course - course 8 was the shortest course with a version of the long leg (not quite the full version used in courses 1,2,3,4). I was well aware that I didn't really want one leg to dominate the course, but thought it was ok on course 8. To be fair I believed the 14-15 route choice could also have a significant effect, although there is relatively little variation on routegadget for that leg - nobody was tempted by the path route to the left or stuck with the round-the-end option having started on it.

I would be interested to see your c**p decision on routegadget! On splitsbrowser it looks like the aforementioned long leg - but where did you go?

[Homer]

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here, and note that, for Course 8 at least, ending the race at the end of the long leg (Control 12 of 18) would have altered only one position (3rd/4th M45) in the top 21 finishers (12 x M45 and 9 x M50). One route choice decision had an arguably disproportionate effect compared to the ease of the fine navigation in what was an excellent runnable forest with great visibility

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.

The variation in times for the long leg on course 8 is surprisingly small. It certainly didn't have a disproportionate effect on the overall result. Looking at splitsbrowser, it appears that running speed was the main factor separating the top 20 competitors: the level of navigational challenge being insufficient to make much difference.
Still, it's very interesting to see the variation of routes and Steve must be having more fun than most. We just need Quentin to add his route...

[brooner]

One thing that made timed starts easier in the past was the fact we had control cards. At least the bloke on the start line could check everyones card to make sure they had the right start time - quick to do and also allows runners to remember more easily.

I'm wondering whether a useful alternative today might be the mandatory use of race numbers (bibs) with start times on them? At least that way runners can always see their time and start officials can check quickly whether runners are in the right place.

Plus it would add to the atmosphere, though of course it would cost a bit of money.

For once, the benefit of emit, meant that the start times were printed on the backup cards - so this really shouldn't have been an issue.

[NeilC]

Regarding the long leg what would be really interesting is the sort of analysis that Jan Kocbach does for World of O eg http://news.worldofo.com/2010/12/05/route-to-christmas-day-5-2010/

Steve, do you have the time? Or wait until the 2011 countdown to Christmas.

[Gnitworp]

For once, the benefit of emit, meant that the start times were printed on the backup cards - so this really shouldn't have been an issue.

Only on hired ones - I used a blank backup card torn off a roll. I normally don't bother with them at all - I've risked 'touch' punching 100% successfully in over a decade.

[awk]

I have to disagree with cbg, and look at it differently: only 25% of the course was used on long leg style orienteering, with 75% used on short to medium legs. Seems a fair proportion for a long distance race.

This race was never going to be about mistakes measured in minutes - it was always going to be about seconds lost on micro-route choices and in the control circle, as well as sustained speed (but you still had to get the pacing right, especially when moving into shorter legs). It may have been technically 'easy', but it still demanded concentration and technical fluidness to keep time loss to a minimum. Time gaps had to be ground out leg by leg, rather than in one fell swoop, and if you did lose time, you were going to go backwards very quickly. There were plenty of opportunities to lose time on this course.