Metric categories

I was getting dizzy reading this race description on the NIMRA site. I have never seen such switching between metric and imperial!
.... which is 250 metres before and 100 ft below the checkpoint (2) ....

http://www.nimra.org.uk/events/2012/...rd__commedagh/

It's no good, I'm going to have to put pen to paper and write to the editor of the fell runner. I just cannot visualise races in metric...the race reports in the mag do not have the same impact. I feel disenfranchised, sidelined and walked over by wholly unnecessary 'progress'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

pen to paper

---

what's that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

It's no good, I'm going to have to put pen to paper and write to the editor of the fell runner. I just cannot visualise races in metric...the race reports in the mag do not have the same impact. I feel disenfranchised, sidelined and walked over by wholly unnecessary 'progress'.

---

agree.

Just to be slightly mischievous, I liked the 10,000m race in the olympics tonight , would people prefer the 30,000ft (or whatever it is)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biara

Just to be slightly mischievous, I liked the 10,000m race in the olympics tonight , would people prefer the 30,000ft (or whatever it is)?

---

But it's been 10,000m at the Olympics for 100 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athleti...s_10000_metres

Are you sure!? I thought 400m used to be Quarter mile, 800m - half mile, 1500m - the mile etc. Its just my perception tho'!?

I need to investigate.....

....seems so! According to Wikipedia, at least! Cheers! for the link Dom.:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

It's no good, I'm going to have to put pen to paper and write to the editor of the fell runner. I just cannot visualise races in metric...the race reports in the mag do not have the same impact. I feel disenfranchised, sidelined and walked over by wholly unnecessary 'progress'.

---

I may have to join you, I was brought up using miles/feet and want to keep it that way!

Going off at a tangent (like I do when I stop believing my compass) and dinosaur though I am (happy that Britain can't afford to metricate its road signs, so we will always have miles). Metric races are here to stay, but FRA could have combined metrication with another and more useful reform of race categories. Race info has always shown length and climb. But race categories depend on length and average steepness. So why show climb in metres? Why not as a percentage of length, and define categories like this? C = 2 - 2.5%; B = 2.5 - 5 %; A = 5%+. Why is this better? Peris Horseshoe 28.2k / 2590m is category A so we know it's 5% or more, but if you really want to know how steep it is, you have to get out your calculator. Much easier with metric of course, but if the race info said 28.2k / 9.2%, you'd be saved the trouble, and we could easily compare the steepness of races.