Three Peaks Fell Race

[Stolly]

Irrelevant.

And by the way with the Application Form you completed (and so did I in 1997) it made it abundantly clear to even someone from Buckinghamshire what the race entailed. It was spelled out in lots of words and not just a few letters like "AL" or "BL".

I knew what the race entailed having run the route a couple of times on my own* - to get into the first race, given that I had no previous fell race experience and wasn't a club member, I actually telephoned and emailed one of the race organisers to let me enter.

I can never guarantee that any of my posts are 'relevant' by the way but I thought my last one was, given that you had been inferring I was a mythical being!


* That said going straight up Whernside was a massive shock.

[alias]

You prove my point!

You knew exactly what you were getting into and you spoke with a race organiser-presumably Bill Wade- who has done the race about 500 times and so can be deemed to be a "fell runner".

So you were not from a different planet after all.

[Fellhound]

alias.... and your point is?

If the thread's worthless, and the postings are irrelevant, why are you here?

[Joe]

This is becoming a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" thread.

It's far from a discussion about irrelevant philosophical debate, or it was until you asked about mythical figures...
I'm saying that currently the grades when applied correctly don't mean anything, but people place lots of meaning on them, and hang lots of things like kit requirements, championship eligibility, and kudos on them. So much so that correct categorisation according to the rules is seen as an insult to the races, and pointing these inconsistencies is viewed as trouble-stirring!

[noel]

It's far from a discussion about irrelevant philosophical debate, or it was until you asked about mythical figures...
I'm saying that currently the grades when applied correctly don't mean anything, but people place lots of meaning on them, and hang lots of things like kit requirements, championship eligibility, and kudos on them. So much so that correct categorisation according to the rules is seen as an insult to the races, and pointing these inconsistencies is viewed as trouble-stirring!

I think that sums things up pretty accurately.

Instead of inventing a new grading system, why not just delete the bit about "all championship races must be grade A", because this is clearly not the case.

If the FRA are worried that this would be the tip of iceberg and open the floodgates to people trying to get rubbish races as championship races, they could add something like "championship races should be grade A or, in certain cases, grade B if there is a compelling reason related to race severity, history and level of organisation".

That way we wouldn't have this thread once a year, and the FRA wouldn't appear like it's breaking its own "rules".

Sorry to get back onto subject, I'm sure mythical beings is a more interesting topic.

[omega man]

How about laying on buses for the road section of PPP so all the tough guys and gals can do a category A. All the softies can run it and do a category B !!!!

[Antisocial]

How about laying on buses for the road section of PPP so all the tough guys and gals can do a category A. All the softies can run it and do a category B !!!!

Best suggestion so far, it should be a double decker with steps at the back and front so people can do circuits as they are driven.

[Joe]

I have thought of an alternative - cat A = existing reqs or more than 4000 feet ascent & 175 foot ascent/mile.

You'd add in a couple of other races as cat A - Wadsworth Trog, Exe to Axe from a quick look at the online calendar...

[Fellhound]

See the table below...

It is true that extra climbing adds severity and that extra distance also (obviously) adds severity. For fellrunning, it's the combination of the two that adds up to a 'killer' race.

Orienteers usually reckon that 100m on the flat is equal to 10m of extra climb (or vice-versa) OR each extra mile = 500ft of climbing. Using this as a basis I looked at a range of races and calculated a severity rating by the formula ft climb/500+distance. The result was this:

Event
Climbing
Distance
Severity

ManxMM

8000
32
48.0

Wasdale

9000
21
39.0

Ennerdale

7500
23
38.0

3 Peaks

4500
23.5
32.5

Duddon

6000
20
32.0

Borrowdale

6500
17
30.0

Arrochar Alps

7800
14
29.6

Langdale

5000
14
24.0

Tour of Pendle

4200
17
25.4

3 Shires

4500
13
22.0

Long Mynd

5000
11
21.0

Grisedale H

5000
10
20.0

Sailbeck

5000
9.5
19.5

Ben Nevis

4400
10
18.8

Snowdon

3300
10
16.6

Ingleborough

2000
7
11.0

Scafell Pike

3000
5
11.0

Stanbury

1250
7
9.5

Dale Head

2200
4.5
8.9

Paddys Pole

1250
5
7.5

It does tend to rank the races pretty accurately (if my personal experiences are anything to go by!). Possible anomalies are that the MMM is not REALLY much tougher than Wasdale (despite more than 50% extra distance) and Scafell Pike should surely rate a higher severity than Ingleborough.

I should also add that the distances are the "official", quoted figures and we know that these are notoriously inaccurate. Duddon would drop down a fair way if it's 'true' distance of about 17 miles were substituted.

Anyway - the aim was to put the 3 Peaks where it belongs and this would seem to do that fairly well, though why I bothered I'm not sure...

Anyone got a better formula that can be demonstrated to rank races more accurately than this?

[Fellhound]

Sorry the table seems to have "lost integrity" in the posting...