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.
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.
Last edited by Graham Breeze; 10-02-2009 at 10:53 AM. Reason: whom for who
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.
What's the extra bit that makes up for the loss of the loop out to East Chevin car park?