dibber or die !!

[fozzy]

Fozzy - I didn't mean as you start but as you get to the start - just a bit more reliable than assuming everyone who has taken a number did actually start the race. Graham Arthur at Jura this year corralled everyone before the start and made everyone put a bread tag in a bag just before the off. Still not totally foolproof but I thought it was a good idea. I'm still not convinced about how effective or fast relying on boxes to be brought down off the hill and downloaded at the finish would be. Imagine a marshall on Kirkfell in Ennerdale - after the last runner goes through they might have a two or three hour trip back to the finish by which time the leading runners may have been back for a good few hours. If marshalls on a checkpoint are able to contact race control during the event and either they or race control queries a particular runner or numbers the box wont tell them unless they can access it there and then. They will have their written list which may or may not be accurate depending on conditions etc, but they could physically check their bag of tags. The alternative would be boxes linked electronically to race control, fine if it works which it may well not on lots of race checkpoint locations and a disaster if you are relying on it and it goes wrong which sods law says it will sooner or later.
I still think simplicity rules - writing down numbers and backed up by tags.

That's what race registration is for - everyone collects their dibbers (or registers their own) and this indicates that the person is going to run the race. I think it's very odd to have to hand a tag in to say you've started - if you've registered on the morning of the race and collected your number, it's usual to start the race! On the rare occasion someone doesn't start after registering, the onus is on them to report to registration/download and say as such, as is the case if you decide to drop out enroute and DNF - bans have been handed out to people for not doing this I believe.

You have also taken perhaps the most extreme example here, but ok. Assuming your 2/3 hr estimate is correct (which isn't necessarily true - it is possible to drive to Wasdale head and walk from there, although admittedly still a long drive), it won't make any difference whether the marshal is taking numbers on a piece of paper or using a dibber box - the marshal would still have the 2/3 hour walk back to race HQ and the first runners would still be back (as is the case in the majority of long fell races I suspect - the front runners will be in well before the back markers get to the later CPs). In your example, the marshal on Kirk Fell has no way of knowing under any system whether a particular runner has got to say, Red Pike, gone through the CP, but then say along High Stile, decided to drop out and so heads back into the valley and back to HQ.

The tags system is an extreme Luddite version of the SI system in my opinion as well - it doesn't allow monitoring of numbers on the hill (is a marshal going to sit and count all those tags on the hillside - of course not!) and so is therefore merely a system of determining whether a runner went to a certain CP - and a slow one at that - the SI system takes seconds to upload. Even in a race with smaller numbers, it would take hours to manually register each individual labelled tag against a list of runners. The system is also not completely reliable - what happens if someone drops one out the bag?

I grant you, the SI system is not completely foolproof (no system is), but the boxes are extremely reliable - orienteering events have shown this - the boxes are often out in all weathers for 24hrs+ and you have the possibility if it's required for "live tracking" via radio controls if required, or, as I've said before, I am sure the system could be developed whereby a marshal plugs his smartphone into the box and it immediately downloads an accurate count of the number of runners that have passed and even a list with times. Again, not foolproof, but quicker and easier than the alternatives in my opinion.

To me the argument against using technology in fell racing/running is a Luddite view - you all seem to have this "sepia-tinted" view of the sport, yet how many of you wear the latest fell shoes (even walshes have changed over the years to new materials, although I admit the design is virtually the same), how many of you have the latest lightweight gore-tex jacket, running tights, shirts etc.....

[Fishy]

I grant you, the SI system is not completely foolproof (no system is), but the boxes are extremely reliable - orienteering events have shown this - the boxes are often out in all weathers for 24hrs+ and you have the possibility if it's required for "live tracking" via radio controls if required, or, as I've said before, I am sure the system could be developed whereby a marshal plugs his smartphone into the box and it immediately downloads an accurate count of the number of runners that have passed and even a list with times. Again, not foolproof, but quicker and easier than the alternatives in my opinion.

What happens if you can't get a signal?

[fozzy]

What happens if you can't get a signal?

I don't understand your point.

If you can't get a signal for "live tracking" then you're in the same situation as a marshal stood in the place with no mobile phone signal, and so the box is still an extremely effective way of monitor who has reached the CP (and easier than the tag system or writing numbers down) - just without the live tracking you have wait until the box is back at HQ to download the data - in the same way that the marshal would have to bring a written list or a bag of tags back to HQ, only when you get there, the SI box takes seconds to download the information, rather than having to transcribe all the information from soggy bits of paper or by spending hours counting tags

The boxes themselves are autonomous and don't require any particular signal to operate - only if you require the live tracking for the info to be available instantly at HQ or more widely

[fozzy]

This thread is rapidly becoming like the Intelligent Design v Evolution debate.

The ID people see a tiny hole in the Evolution argument and drive to drive a bus through it, claiming that the one flaw overrides the whole wealth of evidence for evolution, rather than looking at the huge, gaping holes in their own argument.

I am not saying the SI system is perfect, nor has anyone claimed it to be, but it is a better system than tags, writing numbers or anything else. Yes, it's not going to be useful in some races (especially some short races - too many people, too close together, but then again your marshals aren't out as long), but it would be in a significant majority of cases.

If you objectively weigh up the benefits, and get this "anti-any change whatsoever" view out of your heads, you will quite clearly see this.

[wheezing donkey]

What happens if you can't get a signal?

Just like MRT's do when marshalling at an event and relying on radio contact .... set up a hill top radio-relay point that all CP's have contact with and which, itself can contact race HQ. Exactly what Bowland Pennine MRT do when manning the remoter CPs on the Fiendsdale race.

[Mark G]

This thread is rapidly becoming like the Intelligent Design v Evolution debate.

The ID people see a tiny hole in the Evolution argument and drive to drive a bus through it, claiming that the one flaw overrides the whole wealth of evidence for evolution, rather than looking at the huge, gaping holes in their own argument.

I am not saying the SI system is perfect, nor has anyone claimed it to be, but it is a better system than tags, writing numbers or anything else. Yes, it's not going to be useful in some races (especially some short races - too many people, too close together, but then again your marshals aren't out as long), but it would be in a significant majority of cases.

If you objectively weigh up the benefits, and get this "anti-any change whatsoever" view out of your heads, you will quite clearly see this.

I like your choice of argument, evolution v intelligent design but I suspect its you thats putting faith in the god of technology while us luddites prefer to rely on more basic methods!

[fozzy]

I like your choice of argument, evolution v intelligent design but I suspect its you thats putting faith in the god of technology while us luddites prefer to rely on more basic methods!

I was actually thinking that dibbers could represent an evolution in the development of fell running.

And there is nothing basic about the theory of evolution!

[Grouse]

Before long everyone, including fell runners, will be compulsorily injected with a micropchip that can be read by scanner and tracked by GPS. These will be used by supermarkets to take payments - this already happens in some places I believe, and of course by the govt to monitor and control increasingly desperate and volatlie populace as human society crumbles. On the upside... ROs will be able to use them to track runners in races.

[Splatcher]

Before long everyone, including fell runners, will be compulsorily injected with a microchip that can be read by scanner and tracked by GPS.

What makes you so sure it hasn't been done already, Grouse?

This post has been brought to you by courtesy of the Illuminati.

The mgt

[Derby Tup]

Has Fellhound had anything to say about these here dippers being used in fell races? :closed: