Three Peaks Fell Race

[Joe]

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.

This is just a tweak of Naismaith's time honoured formula:

Allow 1 hour for every 3 miles (5 km) forward, plus ½ hour for every 1000 feet (300 metres) of ascent.

Thus 5000m distance is equivalent to 600m ascent, hence 1 mile is equivalent to 634 feet, and so 1000 feet is equivalent to 1.6 miles. For simplicity I quoted 1000 ft == 1.5 miles.
In practice I've found this to be a good judge of how long it will take me to run any given route, ignoring rough terrain and any ludicrously steep descents.
For fell running this formula is obviously superior to yours due to the extra importance it places on ascent

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

This sort of formula does very well at giving an overall sense of how "big" a race is, so it's very good for ranking S/M/L, but it doesn't do anything for the A/B/C debate.

[Fellhound]

True, but some earlier posters were justifying the Three Peaks' (erroneous) Category A status by talking about the "size" of it, the extra distance not making it any easier, etc..

The paradox is that distance undoubtedly adds difficulty but fell races are rated on their severity per mile. That's what distances the Arrochar Alps so far from a half marathon!

The Three Peaks is "big" but is doesn't have enough climbing per mile to be a Cat A under FRA definitions - that is a FACT. If Ingleborough, Penyghent and Whernside were a bit closer together the race would be a Category A, but they aren't and it isn't!

If we want to rate races by their "size" (and some obviously think we should) then we'd need a system more like those put forward above (Naismith's or whatever).

[gej]

If we could get a perfect version of Naismith (taking account of terrain, steepness of climbs etc) then the results would be directly related to running time. Therefore why not just use the record time for the race?

[Fellhound]

Superb logic gej

I suppose we already have all we need - A/B/C to rate severity per mile, L/M/S to rate distance and the record time to rate overall 'size'. All the more reason why the 3 Peaks should be given it's correct severity per mile rating ...

Category B !

[Joe]

If we want to rate races by their "size" (and some obviously think we should) then we'd need a system more like those put forward above (Naismith's or whatever).

The overall difficulty rating (whether mine or your variant) is surely a replacement for the S/M/L category - e.g. lots of ascent may turn a medium into being a long - not the A/B/C category. If you introduce it, you could (I suppose) just dump the A/B/C category.

True, but some earlier posters were justifying the Three Peaks' (erroneous) Category A status by talking about the "size" of it, the extra distance not making it any easier, etc..

I'm addressing the problem you identify by my suggestion that for longer races we reduce the ascent requirement.

Therefore why not just use the record time for the race?

That's what it was originally - see YT's post!
This is one subject where someone's (YT's?) suggestion of a wiki could help.

[Stolly]

The Three Peaks is "big" but is doesn't have enough climbing per mile to be a Cat A under FRA definitions - that is a FACT. If Ingleborough, Penyghent and Whernside were a bit closer together the race would be a Category A, but they aren't and it isn't!

Ah but..... surely to god the steepness of going up Whernside more than makes up for the gap between that and PyG? Okay I've far from run all the steep climbs known to man but Whernside is easily one of the steepest, most gruelling climbs going - steeper and longer than Big End or the scramble (with admittedly avalanches ) up Bessy Boot or the climb up Dungeon Gill to Stickle Tarn.

Just measuring height climbed alone isn't enough - a long undulating course with lots of small climbs and descents is just not as hard as one of the same length and height but with just two or three massive climbs.

[TimW]

It has always intrigued me why the 3 Peaks should be classed as an AL - ditto Edale Skyline and Brecon Beacons, when none of them meet the requirements of 250' per mile of climb.

Does the FRA have a rule that only A Category races can be Championships? And therefore these races must be made so to be included? Just a thought.

What I HAVE noticed though is that there is very little difference between the the leading runners at 3 Peaks and the leading runners at, say, Borrowdale or Duddon (allegedly tougher races that last about the same time). This to me proves that 3 Peaks is a genuine FELL race as opposed to a trail race. My definition of a fell race is: Could a top road runner beat a top fell runner on the course if he wanted to? If the answer is no then it's a proper fell race!

You never see a road runner winning it do you? Ron Hill tried didn't he? More than once. Whereas take the Up & Down World Trophy. It always has enough climb to meet the AM requirements and yet good road runners usually beat top fell runners at it. So there must be something about the 3 Peaks, even though on the face of it it's mostly fast and flat.

[dominion]

Does the FRA have a rule that only A Category races can be Championships? And therefore these races must be made so to be included? Just a thought.

I wondered that, but page 99 of the handbook confirms it,

If a race is category "A" then it will qualify for consideration for inclusion in the British and English Fell-running Championships.

[Fellhound]

Ah but..... surely to god the steepness of going up Whernside more than makes up for the gap between that and PyG?

Well Whernside is a tough climb but it's actually not that big, especially not the steep bit. On the race route, most of the Whernside climb is fairly moderate with the steep bit only about 500ft at the top. I don't think this alone is enough to qualify for an 'A' status.

I think individuals will vary on whether they prefer two or three big climbs in a race or a lot of smaller ones but this is subjective.

The only objective measure of a races' severity (not to be confused with its overall size) is the average climbing per mile and on that criterion the 3 Peaks doesn't measure up to the standard.

To my mind, two things make the Three Peaks tougher than the average Cat B: 1) The overall distance and 2) the uncomfortable combination of fast fast running and sudden steep climbs. I don't think anyone is comfortable with the latter combination. So, tough? Yes. Cat 'A'? No.

[alias]

Well Whernside is a tough climb but it's actually not that big, especially not the steep bit. On the race route, most of the Whernside climb is fairly moderate with the steep bit only about 500ft at the top. I don't think this alone is enough to qualify for an 'A' status.

I think individuals will vary on whether they prefer two or three big climbs in a race or a lot of smaller ones but this is subjective.

The only objective measure of a races' severity (not to be confused with its overall size) is the average climbing per mile and on that criterion the 3 Peaks doesn't measure up to the standard.

To my mind, two things make the Three Peaks tougher than the average Cat B: 1) The overall distance and 2) the uncomfortable combination of fast fast running and sudden steep climbs. I don't think anyone is comfortable with the latter combination. So, tough? Yes. Cat 'A'? No.

Since the 3 peaks is "one of a kind" I suggest it ought to be hors categorie (HC) ie not merely an "A" but tougher than an "A".

Everyone happy now?