Course length ratios, what to use?

[afterthought]

Nice of you to use fast areas in your data set to make the top M21s look good, but what about Trossachs?

You're welcome.

I accept that there are areas that elites go more slowly than what we have seen for this year's major events.

If elites at 6 mins/km then blue 6.25km, green 4.35km.
If elites at 6.5 mins/km then blue 5.8km, green 4.0km.
and so on.

At Newborough in 2001
http://www.deeside-orienteering-club.org.uk/results/2001/1021Newboro/newboro.htm
Graham Gristwood and Mark Nixon headed M18A, running 52 mins for 8.2km (with 260m climb.)
6.35 mins/km.
I am thinking they tend to be quicker now.

So maybe the blue 5.2km and green 3.8km are a bit pessimistic - which is not of itself an issue, as courses do vary. It looks from the details like runners may be right into it from the off, and need to concentrate all the way.

At Loch Vaa in 2013
http://www.basoc.org.uk/documents/results/2013-08-13-loch-vaa-se.html
James Tullie ran 34.5 mins for 5.85km, 5.9 mins/km.

So, and this was where the thread started, maybe the blue 6.5km and green 4.4km are spot on the guidelines (as earlier posters have said.)

[afterthought]

A consequence of strictly applying the guidelines (as noted in other comments this is not necessarily the practice nor is it desirable) would be that, for non-elite competitors, and especially older runners - i.e. most of BOF - they would find standard "blue" or "green" courses take different times depending on the terrain.

This is because lengths are set in relation to elite running speeds, and elites are not as affected by the physical nature of the course.

So for the majority of us a "blue" or "green" should take less time in those flat sand dunes with lots of paths than in that tussocky wilderness with few paths.

Edit: And you've been orienteering how long without knowing this?

[frostbite]

At Newborough in 2001
http://www.deeside-orienteering-club.org.uk/results/2001/1021Newboro/newboro.htm
Graham Gristwood and Mark Nixon headed M18A, running 52 mins for 8.2km (with 260m climb.)
6.35 mins/km.
I am thinking they tend to be quicker now.

Why not just look at Jon Duncan's time in M21E? 5:45/km suggests the black course may be a bit short, BUT that was 12 years ago, the vegetation may have changed, it's a big area with some very fast bits and some slower bits, it all depends which bits have been used for which courses.

[DJM]

At Newborough in 2001
http://www.deeside-orienteering-club.or ... ewboro.htm
Graham Gristwood and Mark Nixon headed M18A, running 52 mins for 8.2km (with 260m climb.)
6.35 mins/km.
I am thinking they tend to be quicker now.

I make that 4.8 min/km (52/(8.2+2.6))! All the ratios in BOF Guidelines are based on running speeds when corrected for height climb.

[afterthought]

Why not just look at Jon Duncan's time in M21E?

Yes that's a good idea. I'm sorry I hadn't realised there was an M21E course. There it is, down at the bottom after Jean's time.

[afterthought]

I make that 4.8 min/km (52/(8.2+2.6))! All the ratios in BOF Guidelines are based on running speeds when corrected for height climb.

Yes I did know that and think it is well expressed - and I probably should have mentioned it -

Planners should note that course length ratios refer to
course lengths which are “corrected” for height climb (by adding 0.1 km for every 10m of climb.)

I think I read a good justification of this rule of thumb that some eminent person wrote.

The reason my numbers didn't take this into account and used the unadjusted lengths was that is what appears in the table in the guidelines, what is first seen in event details, and what is reported by results software calculating mins/km. I assumed if a blue or green course had a different proportion of height climb to the real or notional black it would be allowed for in the same way as planners allow for courses visiting differing parts of an area with differing physical characteristics.

An American singer called Crystal Gayle had a hit with "Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue". My post was just seeking to comment on the tendency to call Green Courses Blue. I guess that at least here on Nope that is well understood, and this paragraph alone might have sufficed!

[graeme]

for ... most of BOF .. standard ... courses take different times depending on the terrain.

Yes, that's why the ranking lists use a standard deviation in the calculation.
Also M45 is 50% longer at a small level B than at level C - one in the eye for people who thought level made no difference

how long?

Since colour coded times stopped being based on average time on the course.
More recently, this "fastest time is typical" / % behind mentality has crept into elite selection. It means that if you're on the fringe of squad selection, you should steer clear of any selection races on tough areas.

Back at the question, what I actually do is plan some random courses, and test run one. Then I have a reference for a person of known ability on a course which exists (sorry NeilC, but I'm a physicist not a philosopher). From that I can tweak the course I just ran to the appropriate colour and scale all the other distances from the guideline. Despite what I said earlier, its pretty good. If one of the courses doesn't meet the guideline, thats Ok, but I must justify to myself *why* it doesn't.

Since you didn't ask, that's 47mins for a blue.

[mikey]

At Newborough Welsh Championships(!) M65, is per BOF guidelines for small Level B events, on green together with M85 and W50 to W70. But the course is only 3.8k, compared with the Scottish 6 Days duned areas at 5.1 to 6.1 k for M65. The course combination is not right. M65s are really going to think twice about incurring travel and accomodation costs to run 3.8k at a Level B Championship event. M65 should have been on blue. M65 on Rishworth Moor last weekend (a much more physical area than Newborough) was green at 5k. It's this inconsistency in courses that is an issue. For a Level B championship on dunes M65 3.8k is just wrong.

It will be interesting to see the M50/55 winning times with the course @5.2k. The jump between brown and blue seems large and I am surprised there is no short brown.

To be fair to the planner, I must say that Blue was an excellent course.

As always, Newborough was a brilliant test - no time to relax, loads of contours and, yes, not too short for me - in my view, the most testing sand dune area in the UK.

[ianandmonika]

I switched to blue from green, then made a +11 minute error so 71 mins. Green M65 leaders took 37-42 mins for 3.8k, so a bit short. But area was tougher than I expected, slower than 6-day dunes. Blue was a good technical/physical test and enjoyable.

[sketchweppers]

This thread makes very interesting reading to a regular orienteer, but it just seems to highlight to me how difficult it must be for beginners to work out the most appropriate course to run. Since level C events are now included for ranking purposes there does need to be far more consistency - when a relative newcomer manages to complete a course at an event - they then go to their next event and decide to do the same colour coded event and discover they are out for twice as long - it might put them off.

Recently I have found colour coded courses getting tougher - in the last month or so I have been to events in different parts of the country and have done green, short blue and blue courses:

Event 1- Level C: Green 4.6 km 140 m climb - winning time 66 mins - my time 94 mins
Event 2 - Level B: Short Blue 4.7 km 180 m climb - winning time (by elite~) 45 mins - my time 79 mins.
Event 3 - Level C: Blue 6.9 km 65 m climb - winning time 54 mins - my time 116 mins

I feel that my performance was pretty equal in all three of these events so I consider that the first event the course length was too long for the terrain. It is not just climb which should effect the course length - the amount of vegetation and runability probably makes far more difference. I think there is now more inconsistency across colour coded events than there was when I was a beginner about 5 years ago.

There also appears to be little understanding of the difference between level B and level C events - I must admit I can't really tell the difference these days.

[AndyC]

I'll tell you a difference between level B & C. I'm not licensed to plan or organise the former (although I have organised at that level when no-one else was available) but I can the latter and have done enough times that I should be able to do both.

[afterthought]

(Large) Level B vs level C:
The recc course for W21 and W45 is shorter, and for W50 longer. Similar changes on Men's.

and discover they are out for twice as long - it might put them off

I think that is the way our thinking normally goes, but one might also ask if they discover they are out only half as long, was it worth the effort to attend? Might as well do Park Run or go back to mountain biking, a 10mile cross country or Tough Mudder etc?

In the example sketchweppers compares a green of 4.6/140 with a short blue of 4.7/180 and finds the latter a better match for their expectations. It would not be surprising to me if these expectations were common.

Is my short blue course being called green, or my green course being called short blue?

To ask that another way, did the green course not match the guidelines, or is there is a difference between common expectations and the guidelines?

To find out we consider the notional black courses associated with the above green and short blue. These are quite close - they differ by 6.5% (with height adjusted course lengths around 15km.) So the answer to which is closer to the guidelines depends more on how fast elites would run in the areas. I estimate the midpoint as a Cold Ash type area - so the short blue assumes terrain slightly more physical than that (e.g. Coulmony & Belivat), and the green slightly less physical (but not as fast as Winterfold.)

By the way, and sorry to use this weekend's Welsh Champs as an example again - it was by all accounts a wonderful and well-planned event - well done to Daniel Stansfield of Forth Valley who ran the blue (5.2/140) in just under 36 minutes.

According to the guidelines our top elite would take 37 and a half. Daniel is M16 (0.84 of elite speed) and seems from the splits to have dropped a couple of minutes.

[JK]

Probably not the right thread to put these, but since people who weren't there have been considering the course lengths, here are the courses from Sunday.
Courses 1-2 http://www.dee.routegadget.co.uk/dee/reitti.cgi...
Courses 3-9 http://www.dee.routegadget.co.uk/dee/reitti.cgi...

Have a look at the results on the ERYRI website for the leading M16 Blue (course 3) performances - very impressive!

Excellent courses - well done Bill + Controller.

Cheers

JK

[DJM]

Try

http://www.dee.routegadget.co.uk/dee/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=150&kieli=
http://www.dee.routegadget.co.uk/dee/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=149&kieli=

Instead!

[JK]

Sorry - I thought they didn't looks quite right.