Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
A question about RFLs
Curly45
✭✭✭
Okay so I've never done one...I dont do charity running and I dont agree with gender specific events...
That aside - I am wondering why lots of people are coming on here asking about the accuracy of the RFL courses??
They are fundraising events which is fine, but where are people getting the idea that they are running events (and therefore likely to be accurately measured)?
This seems to be quite a new thing about course lengths (I wonder if its because everyone has garmins now)...I agree with accurately measured courses, but I dont get why it matters to those who run RFLs.
Can anyone explain it me please - it is a genuine question, I'm not trying to start an argument about RFLs in general I'm just a little fuzzy on the thought process.
(partly I am wondering if it matters to enough people who do the events then could they start encouraging cancer research to formalise the events with measured courses/certificates and what that might do to the character of the events? And also I am wondering whether it is a policy of CR to make them a little short to encourage better times?)
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
I think its because if people who don't run usually say they did 5k at the RFL in 20 mins yet you have been struggling to run it at 25 mins it might peeve you off................
or some people think there kids might be talented because of their times........
I think the fact that it's a charity event is beside the point. Traditionally you sponsor people to undertake some sort of challenge, so if the challenge is defined as running (or walking!) a 5k or 10k course, then even if Cancer Research haven't got out the Jones counter you would expect it to be there or thereabouts.
Plus I'd imagine that RFL is many people's introduction to races. A friend of mine did the 10k last year and seeing as 10k is a reasonable distance for a non-runner to prepare for, she did take the training reasonably seriously and ran as quick as she could on the day. Ended up running just inside 50 mins which she was pretty pleased with, but given that she probably ran about 9.4k, there's not much point in plugging this into McMillan to see how she might do in her next race, if she'd decided to take up running more regularly!
I'm not arguing for the courses to be certified but I can see why people might get a bit miffed if they set themselves up for a challenge and find out afterwards they didn't even cover the distance. At least get it close, I reckon.
I think many of the participants do think they are running events. If you are new to running and don't know about course certificates and UK athletics permits (and frankly why would you?) then it's not unreasonable to assume that an event branded as a "race" and labelled a 5K would be, well, a running race over 5K. (Even if you are then encouraged to walk it
)
I think suspicions are then raised by those people who do take their running a bit further by entering some non-RFL events, and promptly discovering that they've apparently gotten slower.
D2D - wasnt worried about the value of RFLs - I can see this for others (just not my cup of tea)
Seren, Wobbled and Phil - think you might have hit the nail on the head there...which leads me to wonder if there should more promotion of the difference between fun runs and races rather than just assuming that everybody knows?
Surely if a race (event, charity run, whatever) is advertised as 5k or 10k, then it SHOULD be 5k or 10k?, surely anything other than that is mis-advertising?.
I mean, its not hard these days (with GPS, Sat data, etc etc) to get an accurate (if not 100% certified) course?.
I don't know why Seb Coe would think that amatuer runners are not encouraged enough.
There are many thousands of amatuer runners taking part in races (and 'events') around the country every weekend - and thousands more who run regularly but race only occasionally, or not at all.
There are at least five running clubs in or around the town I live in.
Every time I go out running, I see other people running.
Some races, even local races, fill up very quickly.
That sounds like plenty of people are feeling able to take part!
On the R4L question, I don't know the answer. Pehaps R4Lifers have been telling their already-running friends that they're doing it, and been told "well it won't actually BE 5k, you know...."
Nice Womble! They had to do that at Brampton to Carlisle earlier in the year due to flooding, but no-one got a 'result' becuase of it
Dano - maybe thats what they do with the term 'fun run'?
I've got more questions than answers here was just articulating my idle wonderings to the general forum
How wide is an average RFL course? And how much could you expect to cut off it by running along the inside of every curve? Yeah, really - if they're going to call it a 5k, why not at least try to get it right?
How accurate is a 'real' 5k anyway, is there someone with a clickwheel - and if so, do they take the tightest route possible around marshall positions?
Finally I've always wondered why it's 5k and not 5km...
@D2D, I don't think you entirely correct, sure, there are many people who are doing that, but in my experiance, there is as many again that are treating it as a "race"
I think there could be something in that.
I'm also being thrown into confusion over the introduction of the 10K routes this year. The number of times I've been poised to say "Oh my god you did 10K in 36 minutes!!" before the penny drops.
On promoting fun runs versus "real races" I'm not sure whose responsibility this would be. Should RFL go out of there way to tell participants that it's just a bit of fun and what that means? It doesn't seem in their interest to do that and I'm sure if you pushed them they'd say that they not actually make any claims to credibility anyway.
SaraJoy - here's some info on course measurement accuracy:
http://coursemeasurement.org.uk/
About 0.1% (if you race the racing line) accurate with a jones counter for 10k races - darn accurate I'd say (and why VLM paint a line on the road
)
I think the k thing is just laziness isnt it
You can get very anoraky about course measurement if you want to. Not that I would, obviously. I'm not an anorak. Oh no.
Here's a snippet from http://www.coursemeasurement.org.uk/director-1.htm which you may (or may not) find interesting:
"HOW ARE COURSES MEASURED?
The UKA requires courses to be measured according to IAAF procedures by a measurer who is accredited for measurement in the UK.
The measurer will ride a bicycle along the shortest possible route, within the boundaries of the course. He uses a special counter to record the revolutions of the front wheel which gives a precision of about 10 cm. To get an accurate length he has to calibrate his bicycle by riding along a short calibration course which has been accurately surveyed with a steel tape or an Electronic Distance Measuring machine.
The overall accuracy of measurement is normally a little better than 1 part in 1000, which is equivalent to 10 metres in a 10K or 42 meters in a marathon. To ensure the course is at least the advertised distance, the measurer uses a short course prevention factor when determining the official distance. For example, he will aim to make a 10,000 metre course 10,010 metres long, and the official distance which appears on the certificate will be 10,000 metres, because the measurement has established that the course is definitely not less than 10,000 metres."
Once he is happy with his day's course measuring he'll pat himself on the back, undo his bicycle clips and settle down to sup on a nice pint of real ale.
Oh Curly!
D'oh!
they don't regard themselves as a race - no times published (i believe)
where's the harm?
I can't believe I'm actually gonna say this but I actually agree with D2D!
RFL got me into running and even nowadays I still try and do one when I can, just as a bit of fun and to remind me how far I've come.
Btw, to those who think the course is always short, the one I did on Sunday came up as 5.29k!
I think D2D's hit the nail on the head, too!
The first 'race' I ever did was a R4L and having recently marshalled at one too, I'm pretty sure that the actual distance is pretty immaterial for most participants.
I reckon RFL is a brilliant events because they're gender-specific. I think they get a better turn out because men aren't invited, and you certainly cannot argue with the cause.
As a spectator, I'm more than happy to stand near the finish and watch the super-fit chicks cross the finish line in sub-25 minutes.