Last long run before a 50K question



Dot wrote:

> Tim Downie wrote:
>
>> Doug Freese wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This completely service yourself with a crew is
>>> different animal - a little like Barkley and Badwater -
>>> neither of which I would care to run. I'm to old to play
>>> survival games.
>>
>>
>>
>> It does make it logistically tricky to take part but it
>> appeals to me a heck of a lot more than those multiple
>> lap ultras that seem popular on your side of the pond.
>> Why would anyone want to run round and round in circles
>> just to clock up some distance? At least with the WHW
>> race you're actually gettting somewhere.
>
>
> I'm with you on this, Tim! Actually, since many of our
> trails don't have ready access to roads other than
> trailheads, we don't have crews or aid stations. If I'm
> going to run trails, I don't like the idea of being tied
> to roads (up to a couple liters of water, anyway).

I also agree that running in tiny circles for hours sucks
and have not nor will ever do one. We seem to be looking at
the extremes with unsupported animal shows and oval
drudgery. I don't know about Scotland or Alaska but we have
oodles of races of all distances that are well supported
especially on trails. I'd much rather run a race with a
single water bottle and support than a 55 gallon drum of
fluid and a side of beef.

A casual look at the calendars shows an incredible selection
by geography: see http://www.ultrarunning.com/ or
http://www.ultramarathonworld.com/

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Freese <[email protected]> writes
>
>
>Dot wrote:
>
>> Tim Downie wrote:
>>
>>> Doug Freese wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This completely service yourself with a crew is
>>>> different animal - a little like Barkley and Badwater -
>>>> neither of which I would care to run. I'm to old to
>>>> play survival games.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It does make it logistically tricky to take part but it
>>> appeals to me a heck of a lot more than those multiple
>>> lap ultras that seem popular on your side of the pond.
>>> Why would anyone want to run round and round in circles
>>> just to clock up some distance? At least with the WHW
>>> race you're actually gettting somewhere.
>> I'm with you on this, Tim! Actually, since many of our
>> trails don't have ready access to roads other than
>> trailheads, we don't have crews or aid stations. If I'm
>> going to run trails, I don't like the idea of being
>> tied to roads (up to a couple liters of water, anyway).
>
>I also agree that running in tiny circles for hours sucks
>and have not nor will ever do one. We seem to be looking at
>the extremes with unsupported animal shows and oval
>drudgery. I don't know about Scotland or Alaska but we have
>oodles of races of all distances that are well supported
>especially on trails. I'd much rather run a race with a
>single water bottle and support than a 55 gallon drum of
>fluid and a side of beef.
>
>A casual look at the calendars shows an incredible
>selection by geography: see http://www.ultrarunning.com/ or
>http://www.ultramarathonworld.com/
>
>
The position as of today is that the UK doesn't have any
trail races over 50 miles except for Micky Mouse, do it
yourself events. There is a single event at 50 miles, and a
handful at 40. We did have the South Downs Way 80 mile event
but that died and has not been replaced. There is one long-
ish road race, the 54 mile London to Brighton and 2 or 3 24
hour track events. Fortunately, there are quite a few non
competitive challenge events designed for walkers but which
will allow people to run. I am under the impression that the
USA has about 20 100 miles event.

The problem isn't that there is no interest in endurance
running events. The problem is that we have no endurance
running infrastructure, such that people are unwilling to
try to organise endurance events without having a
reliable resource in terms of people willing to help run
the event on the day. Obviously, a linear event is more
difficult to organise than a circular, figure of 8, or
there and back event.

The direction that the UK appears to be going is to organise
events where the runners bring their own support teams. But
many are able or willing to do so. Why is that Tim's
wife/brother/Dad is willing to support Tim, but must be
assumed unwilling to support all runners on the event?

I'm all for having unsupported events, and I'll quite
happily carry a tank of water and a side of bacon where
others are competing on the same basis. Otherwise, why
bother running at all. Why not just do an assessment of who
has the best support team and give him or her the prize?

Instead of making preposterous claims that we do it better
than you, what we should be asking is how have you managed
to crack the problem.
--
Ken
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Downie <[email protected]> writes
>Doug Freese wrote:
>> Tim Downie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> One of my biggest assets (with regard to the Speyside
>>> Way) is my almost complete ignorance about the nature of
>>> the course. Because I don't know what I *can't* do, I'm
>>> just going to give it my best shot.
>>

You must be aware that there is (only) 900 ft climb - that
is published information.
--
Ken
 
Ken wrote:

> You must be aware that there is (only) 900 ft climb - that
> is published information.

What? Is this race really in Florida? This is a bloody speed
race; no wonder Tim is looking for sub 5 hours. ;)

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
Ken wrote:

> I am under the impression that the USA has about 20 100
> miles event.

How about 32 specific 100's - see
http://www.run100s.com/ultra.htm with another 400 28-3,100
mile events.

> I'm all for having unsupported events, and I'll quite
> happily carry a tank of water and a side of bacon
> where others are competing on the same basis.
> Otherwise, why bother running at all. Why not just do
> an assessment of who has the best support team and
> give him or her the prize?

An enjoyable macho attitude which keeps the number of race
entrants very low and likely limited to males. Let's not
start a pissing content about pacers and supported races.
What is nice, we have our share of both.

>
> Instead of making preposterous claims that we do it better
> than you, what we should be asking is how have you managed
> to crack the problem.

Isn't the real question, why can't you get any anyone to
organize(play RD) a race or get the volunteers? Something in
your water supply? ;)

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
Doug Freese wrote:
>

> I also agree that running in tiny circles for hours sucks
> and have not nor will ever do one. We seem to be looking
> at the extremes with unsupported animal shows and oval
> drudgery. I don't know about Scotland or Alaska but we
> have oodles of races of all distances that are well
> supported especially on trails. I'd much rather run a race
> with a single water bottle and support than a 55 gallon
> drum of fluid and a side of beef.
>
> A casual look at the calendars shows an incredible
> selection by geography: see http://www.ultrarunning.com/
> or http://www.ultramarathonworld.com/
>

But, Doug, you come from a road running background, and I
doubt that you ever did much hiking / backpacking away
from road. Your perception of "normalcy" is different
than mine ;)

I've noticed you like doing ultras that tend to be hot -
not because you like hot weather, but because you like the
other aspects of those races, and you train for the hot
weather, which comes with the territory. In my case,
whether I really like unsupported races or not (to be
determined, but so far I like the concept and the
training), that's what accompanies the races that I think
I'll like - and I think there's a correlation. I'll train
for carrying my fluids, the same as you train for heat -
except I can do it year round :)

FWIW, I do find I run more relaxed when I'm out with
camelbak, food, fluid, extra layer of clothes / place to put
peeled layers, map, compass, etc - because that's the
environment I'm coming from and what I enjoy most about
running now (probably not 10 yrs ago when I was doing a lot
of hard hiking in summer and welcomed the short, easy winter
road runs as something to do mid-week as a change without
having to worry about bears, etc). Even with 40 oz fluid
(<10 lbs total), my cb is lighter than a bookpack for the
office (about 15 lb). And waaay lighter than a large pack
filled with soil samples. I know I need waaay more than 40
oz of fluid, but some of my gear will get lighter as I fine
tune things.

When I was first looking at potential races, I was coming
from a r.r perspective - looking for aid stations and this,
that, and another. Then a local trailrunner / salesman at
running shoe store (posts here occasionally, thanks Mark)
clued me in on Alaska trail running, namely lack of aid
stations. This is quite well accepted up here. I've never
heard anyone complain about lack of aid stations. It's
another day at the office, so to speak. And the character of
many races would be changed negatively with aid stations.
Many races hit their limit, even if the only way out if
you're injured is to hobble 10+ miles. People take their
race preparations very seriously for these events. There's
other races where the penality for messing up isn't as bad,
and there's getting to be more of the shorter trail races in
the last couple years that didn't exist in the past. But
these other races have been around for 15 years or so and in
one case over 75 years.

An ultra with aid stations or a 5-/10-mile loop by one's car
might get some support for people wanting to get their feet
wet without the hazards of DNF'ing 25 miles from road
(helicopters are expensive). I would definitely consider
something like that. There used to be a 12-/24-hr race like
that (with about 1000ft/loop, iirc), but it's fallen out of
existence. Not enough people interested, I guess.

After I got used to the concept of carrying my own gear
(that is, finding out about local races and doing them,
rather than primary influence being r.r), I *really* like
the concept. Particularly now that my field work is
declining, and I'm not hiking as much as part of my job.
Most local trails are more fun to run than to walk.

The main consideration for me for a first ultra is would I
rather drive 3 hours to a local ultra vs driving 4-5 days 1
way (or flying, then getting rental car, etc) to do a race
that's fully supported but probably not as intiment. The
local race would probably have 20-30 people that I'll
probably know half of by that time since I've offered to
volunteer in 2005 and they have weekly training runs that I
hope to do when my mileage is up a bit. We're talking
negligible cost (say $100 if I stay in nearby motel night
before vs camping) vs something that's well over $1000,
probably closer to $2000; something known and liked vs
unknown environment. Time spent running (and cost) is one
reason why I'm considering something like a running camp,
rather a race for anything outside Alaska - get to do more
running and makes the travel time/expense more effective.
Note, it's not the $1000+ cost that's an issue, but rather
the amount of running I'd get (at any time) and
unfamiliarity for 1st ultra. That said, I have some
collaborators in Corvallis that I should visit sometime, and
I've hiked a little in McDonald Forest where a 50k and 15k
are held (1 spring but late, 1 fall at reasonable time). I
also have friends in upstate NY (really upstate) that I'd
like to go back and visit some time and would consider a
race in the NY, New England area. And there's some in
Rockies that might be interesting. Or helping mark/unmark
trail. But of all the race reports on the ultra list,
there's probably only a handful that make me want to go run
that race. There's just so much glitz with many of the ones
reported on. Maybe I'd like them, I don't know.

But none of these would be until after I do a local ultra.
My comfort zone is for familiarity rather than needing
support (or at least that's my perception).

With aid stations, I'd have to train differently - learn how
to use aid stations, etc. Water bottles don't work well for
me, so I'd be using a cb anyway. I think there's stream
crossings where I can filter water so don't need to carry 50
miles worth of fluid.

FWIW, that same group that does the summer 50 milers is
doing a 5-day event this summer (limit 12 runners) - but
basing out of 2 different camp grounds. Use one for the
first 2 or 3 runs, then move to another area and another 2
or 3 runs - all about 20-30 miles each. Camp chores, etc at
night. That's what the main clientele up here seems to like
- or at least the ones that are willing to organize events.
Many of them also do ultras outside. It's just this is what
they like up here - or at least that's my interpretation.
Oh, yea, these are the same people that suggest bringing ice
axes on some winter runs. But the summer ultra is a
relatively easy, backpacking trail.

And maybe somebody will start another ultra that has aid
stations. Who knows. There's a lot changing here in the last
couple years. I mean we even have snowshoe races now near
where I live.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
Ken wrote:
>
> I'm all for having unsupported events, and I'll quite
> happily carry a tank of water and a side of bacon where
> others are competing on the same basis. Otherwise, why
> bother running at all.

I agree.

Why not just do an
> assessment of who has the best support team and give him
> or her the prize?
>
> Instead of making preposterous claims that we do it better
> than you, what we should be asking is how have you managed
> to crack the problem.

Is it a "problem" or is it what the locals want? I don't
know in your case. See my long-winded response to Doug about
Alaska ultras. Note that I'm a long way from doing my 1st
ultra, but have done a fair amount of homework on what's
available here so I would know how to train. And I'm coming
more from a hiking / backpacking background rather than road
running - and I think many people up here are like that.
That is, YMMV.

But I'm guessing your situation may be more similar to lower
48 - where people would use supported ultras if available.
One thing some of the larger races do is require people to
volunteer at least 8 hours, sometimes more, on other ultras.
Sometimes it's working aid stations; sometimes trail
clearing or marking. If people want aid stations, then maybe
somebody needs to start a race that way. I dunno - just
tossing out some thoughts.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
Doug Freese wrote:

>
> An enjoyable macho attitude which keeps the number of race
> entrants very low and likely limited to males.

Geez, you trying to start a fight this morning ;) ;) How
come a female won the 50-miler outright, another was 2nd in
100, more females finished than male, and more males DNFd in
this unsupported race (drop bags at 50 miles, and convenient
place for 100-milers to call it quits if needed)? Oh, it was
hot - about 80+F, I think. Permits limit the number of
runners to about 20-30. I think some, ahh, structural/
physiological differences may favor males over females for
this type race in the winter though - at least the long
ones, like the 1100 mile ITI - although Susan Butcher
developed some stuff for mushers.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
"Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:R8H7c.1586

> Isn't the real question, why can't you get any anyone to
> organize(play RD) a race or get the volunteers? Something
> in your water supply? ;)

It is a good question and one I've often thought about. I
wonder how much of it is simply down to the UK being a small
crowded country? I don't think we have nearly as many
options here for long distance races as you do on your side
of the pond.

What's more, where roads are involved, policing issues come
to the fore and in many counties, the police are taking an
increasingly dim view to runners cluttering up the roads.

Tim
 
Dot wrote:

> Doug Freese wrote:
>
>>
>> An enjoyable macho attitude which keeps the number of
>> race entrants very low and likely limited to males.
>
>
> Geez, you trying to start a fight this morning ;) ;) How
> come a female won the 50-miler outright, another was 2nd
> in 100, more females finished than male, and more males
> DNFd in this unsupported race (drop bags at 50 miles, and
> convenient place for 100-milers to call it quits if
> needed)?

I haven't the faintest idea what race you are talking about
so I can't offer a retort.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
Doug Freese wrote:
>
>
> Dot wrote:
>
>> Doug Freese wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> An enjoyable macho attitude which keeps the number of
>>> race entrants very low and likely limited to males.
>>
>>
>>
>> Geez, you trying to start a fight this morning ;) ;) How
>> come a female won the 50-miler outright, another was 2nd
>> in 100, more females finished than male, and more males
>> DNFd in this unsupported race (drop bags at 50 miles, and
>> convenient place for 100-milers to call it quits if
>> needed)?
>
>
> I haven't the faintest idea what race you are talking
> about so I can't offer a retort.
>
>

Oops, sorry. 2003 Resurrection Pass 50/100 - duh, the only
Alaskan ultra I've ever talked about doing ;) I guess I
wasn't sure where you were coming from with your comment
about unsupported races having "number of race entrants very
low and likely limited to males" when we have at least as
many women successfully involved as men - maybe within
rouding error considering small number - at least for summer
races. I don't think people up here think of it as macho.
It's just the way things are done here. Females like to go
for long runs in the woods as much as males do. OTOH, since
when is anything in Alaska "normal" by anybody else's
standards ;)

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
Dot wrote:

>>
>
> Oops, sorry. 2003 Resurrection Pass 50/100 - duh, the only
> Alaskan ultra I've ever talked about doing ;) I guess I
> wasn't sure where you were coming from with your comment
> about unsupported races having "number of race entrants
> very low and likely limited to males" when we have at
> least as many women successfully involved as men - maybe
> within rouding error considering small number - at least
> for summer races.

I think you have answered the question - you don't have many
races and it's those few or none. I might go out on a limb
and say those people, males and females, that choose to live
in Alaska do it for it's extremes. I think it's part of the
Alaskan mystique to to create races that mimic the Iditarod.

Besides a race like RP that has 7 out of 11 finishers for a
100 and 9 out of 11 for 50 would be considered a fat ass
race in the lower
48. I'll go out even further on that same limb and say if
there was a race that had some aid structure your
numbers would grow significantly and the sport might
even grow but the culture would have a hard time.

> I don't think people up here think of it as macho. It's
> just the way things are done here. Females like to go for
> long runs in the woods as much as males do. OTOH, since
> when is anything in Alaska "normal" by anybody else's
> standards ;)

I think the last statement is more than a cliché. While
macho has a slightly derogatory notion you sure a hell
wouldn't get a bunch of pansy ass female wall flowers moving
the alaska to work on their tan nor would get a bunch of
male surfers. people that live there like rugged and expect
rugged and this included races.

The tougher the race whether via support or trail
difficulty, the fewer the females. Not a macho statement but
fact. For example, the 2003 Massanutten Mt. Trails 100 Miler
- 6 females of 71 finished and it's supported. Wasatch Front
100 2003 - 218 start 134 finish 14 women finished also
supported.

Look at the Arkansas Traveller 100 20 of 71 were female
finishers. AT is an easy 100. VT100 - 52 females of 216
finishers - another easier race.

This is the way it works in the lower 48 - I guess all the
real woman moved to Alaska. ;)

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
Dot wrote:

> But, Doug, you come from a road running background, and I
> doubt that you ever did much hiking / backpacking away
> from road. Your perception of "normalcy" is different
> than mine ;)

Yes we differ. Look where you live!! :)
>
> I've noticed you like doing ultras that tend to be hot -
> not because you like hot weather, but because you like the
> other aspects of those races, and you train for the hot
> weather, which comes with the territory.

Well kinda. I would be very pleased if the Vermont folks
held the 50 in July and the 100 in October but the RD must
be an ex-Alaskan looking to make it a harder go and has them
reversed. OTOH, I do like the people and the organization it
supports which at times comes with some heat.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email protected]
 
Doug Freese wrote:
>
>
> Dot wrote:
>
>
>> But, Doug, you come from a road running background, and I
>> doubt that you ever did much hiking / backpacking away
>> from road. Your perception of "normalcy" is different
>> than mine ;)
>
>
> Yes we differ. Look where you live!! :)

You really like using that argument, don't you? :) I wonder
if that has something to do with why the Yukon and Nunavut
races intrigue me, but most lower 48 ones just don't get me
excited enough to want to travel to them - and that was
before I realized where the northern races were.

>
>>
>> I've noticed you like doing ultras that tend to be hot -
>> not because you like hot weather, but because you like
>> the other aspects of those races, and you train for the
>> hot weather, which comes with the territory.
>
>
>
> Well kinda. I would be very pleased if the Vermont folks
> held the 50 in July and the 100 in October but the RD must
> be an ex-Alaskan looking to make it a harder go and has
> them reversed.

But you've got more elevation/mile in the 50. If they had it
the other way round, you'd probably complain about that too
;) Isn't there a rumor about the Badwater RD being an ex-
Alaskan trying to thaw out :)

Actually, somebody needs to put a New England ultra at peak
fall color, and I could get very interested in doing an
ultra in lower 48.

> OTOH, I do like the people and the organization it
> supports which at times comes with some heat.
>

And I think that's the bottom line for why we select races.
It needs to meet a certain amount of interest - whether it's
remoteness or mountains or tigers or aid stations or group
it benefits or whatever - and we deal with whatever else
comes with it - whether it's heat or hauling fluid.

If the truth be known, I'd actually be afraid of a race with
aid stations (remember this is outside "normal" for me).
From my perception it requires a lot more training - need to
know how body responds to whatever food/fluid is being
offered under warmer temperatures than I normally train,
etc. OTOH, if they had water, I could take all my own
goodies and just add water to my cb at stations. I'm not
talented enough to use bottles while running and can't stand
belts so I'd have cb anyway ;) As it is, I just race the way
I train and know what works for me. Very simple. My race
doesn't depend on anyone getting appropriate supplies
somewhere and getting them mixed properly - and that's a
relaxing thought to me. Yea, I know I'm weird, but this is
*my* normal world, and if it weren't for the internet I
wouldn't know any different.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
Doug Freese wrote:
>
>
> Dot wrote:
>
>I think it's part of the Alaskan mystique to to create
>races that mimic the Iditarod.

Hmmm, you might have a point there.

>
> Besides a race like RP that has 7 out of 11 finishers for
> a 100 and 9 out of 11 for 50 would be considered a fat ass
> race in the lower 48.

There's permit limitations for 30, I think, but in past were
20. I don't know why the others didn't start unless the
permit went back down to 20, which is what it had been in
past. Many of those that didn't start were ones that have
done the 50 in the past (RD, a past winner, etc), so they
may have been giving others a chance, although 100 was new.

> I'll go out even further on that same limb and say if
> there was a race that had some aid structure your numbers
> would grow significantly and the sport might even grow but
> the culture would have a hard time.

Perhaps, but they might be a different type runner. It's
always good to increase number of people in the sport, but
when you get ill prepared people on trails, it can become a
safety issue. Most of the newer trail runs are in the local
parks - like where I run - good access, very little
likelihood of bears, etc.

I think the present races would continue, or more informal
ones like their epic this summer. Keep in mind also, that up
here, other than the Iditarod, the big, media catching
events are the mountain runs. Also, for the long trail runs
like RP, there are no road intersections, and only one trail
intersection that I know of (equally far from road). That
is, aid stations would be a logistics issue unless somebody
mt biked or packed in (not sure if horses are allowed on
trail or not, but bikes are). While it could be done with a
lot of work, I think runners would just as leave not
inconvenience others by expecting aid 25 miles from a trail
head. Mtn bikers help with sweeping.

What I'm curious about is why the loop ultra disappeared a
couple years ago. It was convenient to Anchorage and easy to
get resupplied. If there was a demand for these races,
people would've been flocking to it. I think it was mt
bikers originally, then added runners. It might have have
involved politics, but not sure.
>
>
>
>
>> I don't think people up here think of it as macho. It's
>> just the way things are done here. Females like to go for
>> long runs in the woods as much as males do. OTOH, since
>> when is anything in Alaska "normal" by anybody else's
>> standards ;)
>
>
> I think the last statement is more than a cliché. While
> macho has a slightly derogatory notion you sure a hell
> wouldn't get a bunch of pansy ass female wall flowers
> moving the alaska to work on their tan nor would get a
> bunch of male surfers. people that live there like rugged
> and expect rugged and this included races.

I guess I have to plead no contest to that one :) but we do
have scuba divers.

OTOH, I discovered that Tim Hewitt, the lone runner on the
ITI, is RD at Laurel Highlands. Soooo, it looks like ITI
runners are coming from east coast ;) Your turn ;)

Actually, no Alaskans were signed up for the Nome race, only
the McGrath (350 mi version). And the race starters came
about equally from Alaska, rest of US, GB, a few less from
Italy, and a couple other countries. Maybe this is where the
UK runners come for their long-distance fix ;) Actually,
getting time off from work for the 3+ wks for the Nome race
would be an issue for many, whereas the 350 miles would be
about 1 wk, usually.

>
> The tougher the race whether via support or trail
> difficulty, the fewer the females. Not a macho statement
> but fact. For example, the 2003 Massanutten Mt. Trails 100
> Miler - 6 females of 71 finished and it's supported.
> Wasatch Front 100 2003 - 218 start 134 finish 14 women
> finished also supported.
>
> Look at the Arkansas Traveller 100 20 of 71 were female
> finishers. AT is an easy 100. VT100 - 52 females of 216
> finishers - another easier race.

Actually, I was surprised to see these numbers. The
participation in the RW ultra/trail forum is about half and
half and most have spouses (or whole families) that run or
mt bike, I think. While some of the guys may do more races
(race-a-weekend group), the women do many races, including
some of the tougher. On a recent "would you risk" question,
it seemed an even distribution from tough to easy among male
and female, although maybe a few more male at tough end and
less confident females at easy end.

>
> This is the way it works in the lower 48 - I guess all the
> real woman moved to Alaska. ;)
>

Gosh, what can I say ;) I didn't even buy a t-shirt that
said "Alaska - where men are men and women win the Iditarod"
when they were popular in late 80s when Susan Butcher had
her phenomonal series of Iditarod victories.

Dot at least Girl Scout cookies are the same (or at least
the mints are)

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
 
Ken wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Downie <[email protected]> writes
>> Doug Freese wrote:
>>> Tim Downie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> One of my biggest assets (with regard to the Speyside
>>>> Way) is my almost complete ignorance about the nature
>>>> of the course. Because I don't know what I *can't* do,
>>>> I'm just going to give it my best shot.
>>>
>
> You must be aware that there is (only) 900 ft climb - that
> is published information.

That's why I said *almost*. I've seen a few photographs
but I've never laid eyes on the actual way. On the day, I
dare say I'll be quizzing other runners who know the
course. Based on that, I'll probably modify my anticpated
pace up or down.

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support
rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/speyside or
http://www.justgiving.com/speyside if you're a UK tax payer.
 
Ken wrote:

> The position as of today is that the UK doesn't have any
> trail races over 50 miles except for Micky Mouse, do it
> yourself events.

Umm, define "mickey mouse". I mean I agree with most of your
points concerning the lack of infrastructure in this country
but I think you're doing a disservice to the guys who
organise events like the West Highland Way race. [..]
> The direction that the UK appears to be going is to
> organise events where the runners bring their own support
> teams. But many are able or willing to do so. Why is that
> Tim's wife/brother/Dad is willing to support Tim, but must
> be assumed unwilling to support all runners on the event?

Support from my family? I wish...

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support
rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
http://www.justgiving.com/pfp/speyside or
http://www.justgiving.com/speyside if you're a UK tax payer.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Downie <[email protected]> writes
>Ken wrote:
>
>> The position as of today is that the UK doesn't have any
>> trail races over 50 miles except for Micky Mouse, do it
>> yourself events.
>
>Umm, define "mickey mouse". I mean I agree with most of
>your points concerning the lack of infrastructure in this
>country but I think you're doing a disservice to the guys
>who organise events like the West Highland Way race.

The published details say that motorised backup is
essential. That's me out.

>[..]
>> The direction that the UK appears to be going is to
>> organise events where the runners bring their own
>> support teams. But many are able or willing to do so.
>> Why is that Tim's wife/brother/Dad is willing to support
>> Tim, but must be assumed unwilling to support all
>> runners on the event?
>
>Support from my family? I wish...

Then you can't compete in the West Highland Way Race either?

>
>Tim
>

--
Ken
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Downie <[email protected]> writes
>
>"Doug Freese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:R8H7c.1586
>
>> Isn't the real question, why can't you get any anyone to
>> organize(play RD) a race or get the volunteers? Something
>> in your water supply? ;)
>
>It is a good question and one I've often thought about. I
>wonder how much of it is simply down to the UK being a
>small crowded country? I don't think we have nearly as many
>options here for long distance races as you do on your side
>of the pond.

Even where I live (the SE corner) there is no shortage of
options. An obvious one would be to resurrect the SDW 80.
Then there is the Ridgeway, SW coast, North Downs etc.

>
>What's more, where roads are involved, policing issues come
>to the fore and in many counties, the police are taking an
>increasingly dim view to runners cluttering up the roads.

There isn't much the police can do about it. It would be
unusual for a trail runners (as oppose to their supporters
vehicles) to clutter roads, though there would be road
crossings at some point. If, however, your Regional
athletics authority, requires you to say that the police
support your race, then that is a different matter. There is
a question mark over whether UK:A are competent to govern
the sport of amateur running, but that must be for a
separate news thread.

>
>Tim
>
>
>

--
Ken
 
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Freese <[email protected]> writes
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>
>
>> I am under the impression that the USA has about 20 100
>> miles event.
>
>How about 32 specific 100's - see
>http://www.run100s.com/ultra.htm with another 400 28-3,100
>mile events.
>

Thanks. I'll check the link later. I guess that they are not
all running round in small circles.
>
>
>> I'm all for having unsupported events, and I'll quite
>> happily carry a tank of water and a side of bacon
>> where others are competing on the same basis.
>> Otherwise, why bother running at all. Why not just do
>> an assessment of who has the best support team and
>> give him or her the prize?
>
>An enjoyable macho attitude which keeps the number of race
>entrants very low and likely limited to males. Let's not
>start a pissing content about pacers and supported races.
>What is nice, we have our share of both.
It has nothing to do with being macho and on the
contrary, it is the events that have no support that
don't get the numbers


>
>
>>Instead of making preposterous claims that we do it better
>> than you,
>>what we should be asking is how have you managed to crack
>> the problem.
>
>Isn't the real question, why can't you get any anyone to
>organize(play RD) a race or get the volunteers? Something
>in your water supply? ;)

Because there is no organised trail running infrastructure.
Most, if not all, running clubs, a road running clubs, and
even though many train on trails, they are based around, and
do their training around, the London marathon.

It doesn't take many people to plan and organise a race. It
takes a lot more to run (in the sense of operate) the event
on the day.
>

--
Ken