National Event winning times

[awk]

As discussed in previous threads, the guidelines for National Event course distances say that the M21L should be planned for a winning time for a top elite runner of 75 mins. All other courses are then specified in terms of a ratio compared with the M21L distance.

It's been interesting to read the various debates on NE course distances over the past few weeks, but I'm not totally clear what winning times people actually want or expect from a National event. (I know what I expect!).

So what do you want/expect?

(This isn't simply a theoretical question: I have an interest as a member of the planning team for the Aire National Event in September. I'm particularly interested to see whether expected winning times actually coincide with the sorts of distances/winning times that the ratios give us.)

[NeilC]

So what do you want/expect?

That the M21L should be planned for a winning time for a top elite runner of 75 mins. All other courses are then specified in terms of the defined ratio compared with the M21L distance

[awk]

So what do you want/expect?

That the M21L should be planned for a winning time for a top elite runner of 75 mins. All other courses are then specified in terms of the defined ratio compared with the M21L distance

Yes, yes, I know that. But I also know that if that's done on some areas, the vets classes produces shorter winning times than a lot of people appear to expect and want, which is why I'm asking.

[wonderboy]

There was a National Event on Attermire about 3 years ago wasn't there?

So you'll have info on the lengths and times...

Adjust the lengths to get the times you think the various classes should be won in at a National Event! Simple!

I agree that on a fast open area with numerous crossing points that the vets will be quicker than the ratios suggest for distances, so if you play it by the book, you'll get shortish winning times, as you suspect.

Whether you'll get complaints about it is another matter!

With all those walls, Attermire could do with a good planner like you AWK!

Some pre-ordered mist might help!

Will there be an Elite course?

[Gnitworp]

So what do you want?

In anticipation of outraged responses, this is a strictly personal answer to a personal question:

75 min winning time for M60L.

[graeme]

Jim's request is easily satisfied by writing M60E on the M50L course.

Me, I'd like something similar at M45 (i.e. the M21 course on an old-git friendly larger scale map). But I'd settle for a clear and accurate statement before I enter of how long the courses are likely to be, so I can choose which to do.

Although the guidelines now say 75mins M21L and scale from there, I don't think there was any intention to change the distances from when they were specified as winning times per age. Taking M21 as benchmark isn't very clever bacause:

a) top M21s dont take NEs seriously nowadays. You should expect M21L to actually be won in 90mins...

b) M21 is most likely to be shortened if the area isn't quite big enough, which is OK, but its a bit silly to shorten all the other courses if M21 doesn't fit.

So I'd go back to the 1997 (ish) guidelines to see what the age class winning times are meant to be, and aim for that.



Graeme

[awk]

Thanks Graeme and Gnitworp - it's the personal view I'm after (I think you might have to run up Gnitworp if you come!). The point is, wonderboy, I don't have any expectations about what time the vets classes should be won in, other than the 'usual' 55-65 mins. I know how to go about getting the course distances by the guidelines, and have already done the maths from the last National event (2003) where Ed Nash won in 85 mins. I also know what winning times these are likely to give. The question that interests me is whether these match up to expectations, which is why I asked the question.

You're point about actual winning time is already on board Graeme: we've noted that it emphasises 75 mins for a top elite, not 75 minute winning time. The area should comfortably take a full distance course (it's 6km x 4km big, and all runnable).

You mention the 1997 guidelines Graeme. I don't have a copy - wasn't it pretty much around an hour EWT for vets?

[NeilC]

The question that interests me is whether these match up to expectations, which is why I asked the question.

The question that interests me is what you plan to do if they don't? The guidelines may need looking at but surely individual events shouldn't be deciding their own EWTs for non-M21L courses.

I fully endorse Graeme's suggestion of publishing EWTs in advance so that individual competitors can decide whether to run up or down. Though of course for a given class these should be pretty constant for all National Events with small variations due to terrain type.

P.S. I'd like a M45L winning time of around 55-60 mins

[Ed]

have already done the maths from the last National event (2003) where Ed Nash won in 85 mins.

don't take that as meaning the course was too long though! I'd not run for two weeks beforehand with a dodgy knee and set out intending only to run half the course. I think Duncan was 2nd and asked what had taken me so long as he'd expected it to go at least 5 minutes quicker!

[graeme]

You mention the 1997 guidelines Graeme. I don't have a copy - wasn't it pretty much around an hour EWT for vets?

Yes. I dont have the details but you can reconstruct them from the length ratios and speed ratios on which they're based. The latter are still lurking at

http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/~gja/Competition/SICC.htm

So, e.g. M50 is 75min * 0.69 / 0.79 = 65

(They don't come out as round numbers in the 2007 revision of course combinations)

[EddieH]

Interesting that you are asking presumably with an intention of modifying it.
I am plannin SOL4 and my controller baulked at the course lengths (too long he thought) (M21 is 11.2km) but they are planned strictly by the rules so no-one has a leg to stand on complaining.
What we both agree on is that in an area like Rogie the real differential betwen the Elite and older competitors will be far greater than in a southern beechwood, and maybe the rules don't take account of this. But I'll stick with them, a) because it makes my life easy, and b) because I want people to see what these events are SUPPOSED to be, not what they usually are.
In a similar vein I consider the IOF rules regarding controls close together to be far more appropriate than BOFs - but BOF says that no 2 controls should be within 25m, so I have to abide by that. Whereas in the intenserock detail I can see no reason for not allowing 2 controls out of sight of each other on clearly different features however close. Similarly I thnk it absurd to use 2 similar features 100m apart in a flat featureless area, or ...

And for those that are interested IOF rule states (or did when I last looked at them) no controls should be placed within 100m where a runner at competition speed could reasonably confuse them.

[NeilC]

IOF rule 19.4
Controls shall not be sited within 30 m of each other

BOF rule 6.2.3
Controls should not be sited within 30 metres of each other.

[awk]

Interesting that you are asking presumably with an intention of modifying it.

The question that interests me is what you plan to do if they don't? The guidelines may need looking at but surely individual events shouldn't be deciding their own EWTs for non-M21L courses.

No, I'm not intending modifying it for exactly the reasons you say Neil - it's not up to an individual event to go its own way. However, as discussed, it can inform the planning and help us inform competitors, just as Graeme says; that's the practical bit. I'm also interested in seeing whether, even when planning to guidelines, are we matching competitors' expectations/wants? That's the theoretical bit.

Thanks for your comments Ed; saves me an email, as I was going to ask you your thoughts: it's hard to tell just from results, and given that the M21L distance/time is so critical for the decision making...

[Oldman]

I'm also interested in seeing whether, even when planning to guidelines, are we matching competitors' expectations/wants? That's the theoretical bit.

IMHO the winning time on any long course (at least up M70, anyway) should be at least 60 minutes.

[EddieH]

Apologies for introducing a red herring - I have reread the rules, and guideline B is very interesting in clarifying "SHOULD". The IOF rules appear to have changed since I planned WOC.