Solo rounds

I fancy a crack at the BGR some time in the next few years, but fancy either a fast time or a solo run.

At the moment the solo idea is appealing. I'd love to do one of the rounds solo and reckon the BGR is the most amenable to run solo.

Now to be strictly solo is that just running without any pacers, food carriers etc, so no hill support. Does support at road crossings mean it is no longer solo? Or would that be solo supported?

Would solo unsupported be a solo run with no road support, but are prior food drops acceptable.

A bit anal I know - i'm just unsure what all the definitions mean.

All very valid stuff!

Strictly solo I see as meaning no support at all. This means to me no road support, no prior stashes of food, nothing apart from what you carry and what you can naturally get/catch on route e.g water

Solo Supported can mean road support and/or prior stashes

My take on it anyway.

Now along those lines and also relevant to Iain's thoughts on BG.

Onsight a term used in climbing is no prior practice or in running terms recce's. Would you consider if you know the area but have not recce'd the actual route an onsight attempt or not?

I think, from memory, that Martin Stone came up with:

Solo - on your own, food drops allowed
Solo supported, on your own on the fells, support allowed at road crossings.

I reckon the Ramsay would be preferable as a solo. Solo on the BG is just ignoring lots of walkers on the fells and traffic on the roads.

Iain, I think that there would be a fair split of opinion as to what constitutes Solo Unsupported.
There are some real purist hard men like Glyn Jones from the Galloway area who did a solo unsupported Southern Upland Way, setting off with a 30lb pack that contained all the food that he would require for 6 days, plus sleeping bag and plastic bivvi-shelter - in Glyn's definition unsupported means not using any pre-constructed shelters ( sheep-folds, barns, bothies or your mate's van).
For my 50th I did a Scottish C2C (Stonehaven to Fort William - although some purists would say that Fort Bill is a good way up a sea loch and does not constitute the 'coast'; I was happy to dip my toe in tidal water).
I was definitely solo, but had posted food drops to the P.O.'s in Braemar and Dalwhinnie ( packets of Complan and glucose to mix with burn water en-route). I set off with an 18lb pack that included my Goretex bivvi bag, but also used bothies, bunk houses and youth hostels. I ate in cafes in Braemar and Dalwhinnie and raided the 'spare, abandonded food' shelves at the youth hostels. All my hill-going mates declared the trip to be 'unsupported'. I was not bothered one way or the other; it was a great way to celebrate my 50th and a memorable trip that really lit my candle; after all, I was doing it for me - no-one else! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AJF

All very valid stuff!


Now along those lines and also relevant to Iain's thoughts on BG.

Onsight a term used in climbing is no prior practice or in running terms recce's. Would you consider if you know the area but have not recce'd the actual route an onsight attempt or not?

---

Not a climber; BUT if a climber did a route that he had never been on before, DESPITE having done other routes (totally different lines) on the same crag, would that not constitute 'on sight', even though that climber had a previous familiarity with the area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wheezing donkey

...I was doing it for me - no-one else! ;)

---

...and that's the crucial point. Your challenge, your rules.

Good point Bob. Think you may be right about the solo Ramsay. There's a good chance that you could see noone for the whole round.



Cheers

Iain

The gofar.org.uk website offers definitions for:

supported - pacers and or roadside support or shops/cafes
unsupported - no pacers or road support but food dumps allowed
self-sufficient - carry your own food, only naturally occurring water or food
can be taken on.

The definitions page goes into a little more detail. The unsupported or self-sufficient attempts could be solo or group. Perhaps the important point is to make clear the difference between unsupported and self-sufficient.

Iain

I have had various enquiries from people wanting to do solo or unsupported rounds of the BG.

In terms of history, most solos have been done by those who did the BG in trad fashion first, but a number of recent enquiries have come from people who are/were planning a solo as their first BG.

I have copies of emails I have prepared and sent to others on the topic. Rather than clog up this thread with material sent to others in response to specific questions they asked me, I would be happy to share some of this information with you via PM if you want to email me at [email protected]

Morgan

Just on Wheezing Donkey's point, yes that would still be on-sight, but with a bit of prior knowledge.

In climbing, the on-sight flash is most highly prized - only the information you've gained looking up from the ground. In practise, most ascents are contaminated to some extent by 'beta' - prior knowledge of the route - legend, crucial moves, key bit of gear, etc. On a hill run, it's a given I'd have thought.

Iain,

You've not thought of another way either. Remember those panniers we saw on that dog in Langdale I'm sure you could load up the dogs and technically not use road side support !

Karl

You should be aware that dogs have been banned from certain fell races for that very reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

At the moment the solo idea is appealing. I'd love to do one of the rounds solo and reckon the BGR is the most amenable to run solo.

Now to be strictly solo is that just running without any pacers, food carriers etc, so no hill support. Does support at road crossings mean it is no longer solo? Or would that be solo supported?

Would solo unsupported be a solo run with no road support, but are prior food drops acceptable.

---

I did a sort-of solo Ramsay, but with a mate at Loch Trieg 8 hours in and again at Loch Eilde Mor at 16. Yet I can't really claim it as solo in any sense because someone came with me over the Ossian 3 for company. Did the other 21 on my tod. I can't remember if he carried anything or not, but it didn't make much odds. When I was alone everything I needed went in the Buffalo top pocket. But it was solo enough! It added to my sense of achievement that I'd got myself over the Ben and Grey Corries in the dark, and the Mamores in the wet, instead of being escorted round. Well-meaning pacers twittering at you and shoving bananas down your neck every ten minutes can get a bit wearing when you're just trying to focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

I reckon the Ramsay would be preferable as a solo. Solo on the BG is just ignoring lots of walkers on the fells and traffic on the roads.

---

I agree with Bob plus

Its harder to get support for a Ramsay and not as many people know the short cuts.
I think it would be much more satisfying, apart from the Ben you'll see very few people, real sense of being on your own.

Then we have a fast BG, lots of people know the route and live near it so you'll be able to get plenty of support (leg 4, Navigate only, no carrying of water or food :D)

Whatever you decide enjoy it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donkarlo

Iain,

You've not thought of another way either. Remember those panniers we saw on that dog in Langdale I'm sure you could load up the dogs and technically not use road side support !

Karl

---

I was thinking of organising a club relay on the PBR and getting everyone to take Fly on their leg, It'd be brilliant for the PBR record to be held by a collie :-)

Ian,
Best to solo the Ramsay, where you will have a chance to enjoy actual solitude. When I soloed the Ramsay, Rob Woodall was in Lochaber and I had asked him to meet up with me anywhere he wanted for spot checks. The weather was quite bad on and off and we never saw one another, although I followed his studmarks for a while.
Doing it solo also saves you having to organise support that far from home and with travel being so expensive.

Let's not introduce too many designations into such pure eandeavours. Let's keep the traditional two: solo/accompanied and supported/unsupported. As Bob said, solo means doing the whole distance on your own and supported means picking up supplies (from supporters or stashed by yourself). Unsupported, as Martin Stone would say, means carrying everything from start to finish.
Yiannis

Although I don't really regard these designations as important, I would take a slightly more liberal view of what constitutes "unsupported". When I did the Integral de Sierra Nevada in 1989 (when????!:o) I was completely unsupported - no caches, pacing or other assistance en-route - but a number of challenges have been inaugurated in Bowland over the past few years (many of them by Duncan Elliott) and pre-stashed caches have become a popular feature of these.

If the caches were placed by you and you have no other support on the day I would regard these as "unsupported" efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trundler

..........If the caches were placed by you and you have no other support on the day I would regard these as "unsupported" efforts.

---

Is that not a bit unfair to the person who carried everything?
Yiannis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ydt

Is that not a bit unfair to the person who carried everything?

---

No, because if you've taken an interest in what that person has done you will know they have carried everything. What is more unfair is simply boiling everything down to 'solo/accompanied' or 'supported/unsupported'.

I think the important thing is not to get too hung up on designations (what are they for, anyway?) each of these endeavours is unique - that's one of the things that makes mountain challenges so much more interesting than, say, records on the track, where everything has to be tightly controlled and wind speed is measured to a metre per second in case it gives someone an 'advantage' or creates a situation where two efforts are not "directly comparable".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trundler

......I think the important thing is not to get too hung up on designations (what are they for, anyway?).

---

Trundler,
Simple! just call it solo and nobody will question you whether you were supported or not. That way you avoid too fine a terminology. When I soloed the Ramsay clockwise I picked up one lot of food I had left at Fercit and Martin Stone (who is one of very few who have done unsupported challenges) made it clear to me that my Ramsay was 'supported'. I totally agree with this.
Yiannis

I think to debate this much further would just take us deeper into semantics, which would be absurd.

I only ask, was your solo Ramsay closer to Martin's pure "unsupported" effort or to the average "supported" BG, with it's travelling circus of support?

I don't decry the supported BG (it's tough however you do it) but a solo Ramsay is something else. 'supported', 'unsupported'. What do those terms mean on their own? I would suggest they mean very little in this context.

And with that, I withdraw from this debate. :)