Rombalds Stride

Didn't do the Rombald's this year but last year I had a figure of 22 miles for the old course from Memory Map. Doesn't sound as if they are too different.

Muddy Retriever and I were at the top of the chevin thinking how they gonna get another 4 miles out of this !!!!! Anyway...it was a pleasant suprise..don't know why we all worry about an extra couple of miles either way...but we do :-)

Some numbers

2008 winning time 2.48.04

2009 winning time 3.13.56. This is slower by 15.4%.

Skyrac's first finisher

2008 17th position 3.12.55

2009 18th position 3.42.35. This is slower by 15.4%.

Aren't numbers wonderful?

However I suggest runners further down the field cannot just use say, 15%, to adjust their times because it is clearly tougher for the front runners to make a path through the virgin snow than for those well down the field whom the snow would hardly affect and indeed there is an argument that the normally boggy bits of the route were faster than usual because the ground was frozen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamB

Eh?

My Garvin was 21.89 and I know the route ie I didn't go more than 100 yards off course. (You can see my house on the section going up to Baildon Trig and on to Lanshaw Lad and I train over much of the course). I do not believe the old route was less than 20 miles. Received wisdom is it was around 22 but I would be interested if someone who has run it in the past with a Garmin could confirm.

---

I measured Saturday's route on Anquet (1:50,000) at 22.6 with 1023 metres of ascent.Don't know how accurate that is compared to your Garvin (sic) Graham.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUGH JARSE

I measured Saturday's route on Anquet (1:50,000) at 22.6 with 1023 metres of ascent.Don't know how accurate that is compared to your Garvin (sic) Graham.:cool:

---

My Garmin was 3634 ft ascent and 3613 descent

I gather Garmins are not very accurate on ascent/descent although there is not much tree cover on the Rombalds to upset them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamB

My Garmin was 3634 ft ascent and 3613 descent

I gather Garmins are not very accurate on ascent/descent although there is not much tree cover on the Rombalds to upset them.

---

I was basing my comments on this post from Chris Brown

"I've just plotted the new course changes on to a map and now make the total distance between 24+miles (pos 25), vs. the old route at 22+miles. I'll be doing a full recce over the xmas break, let me know if anyone wants to join me?

Though I was suprised when I read it because though the new loop is biggish a lot has been cut from the Chevin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antisocial

I was basing my comments on this post from Chris Brown

"I've just plotted the new course changes on to a map and now make the total distance between 24+miles (pos 25), vs. the old route at 22+miles. I'll be doing a full recce over the xmas break, let me know if anyone wants to join me?

Though I was suprised when I read it because though the new loop is biggish a lot has been cut from the Chevin.

---

Well it doesn't matter but I don't think there is anything in it distance wise. One thing is for sure. It is now a better course.

What's the extra bit that makes up for the loss of the loop out to East Chevin car park?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

What's the extra bit that makes up for the loss of the loop out to East Chevin car park?

---

Carrying on along the wall beyond the masts and then turning downhill to Piper's Crag on the edge of Addingham High Moor and returning to the bottom of Keighley Road (to give the track its correct name) in Ilkley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamB

Carrying on along the wall beyond the masts and then turning downhill to Piper's Crag on the edge of Addingham High Moor and returning to the bottom of Keighley Road (to give the track its correct name) in Ilkley.

---

What's its incorrect name?