A lockdown time trial idea - Fishing for interest

Lazare

I've had an idea for a TT/Challenge for a while, thought recently that it's a good time for it with nothing much else going on. Posted it in the random questions thread and a couple of fine folk said they liked it, so I figured I'd start a thread and throw it out there.

The basic idea is simple, a progression time trial. You've to run each kilometre faster than the previous one. As soon as you run an equal or slower km, game over.

So you run 11 progressively faster kms and the 12th one is 3 secs slower, your race is over and your score is 11km.

We could have a leaderboard table which also includes moving time. So someone who runs 8 progressive kms in 43 minutes ranks higher than someone who runs 8km in 44mins. Or maybe a range field showing your first and last km, the tighter that range the higher you rank.

Could have it as an ongoing thing, run it whenever you want and update the table, not narrowed down to a specific date.

Would be a cracking workout, while also a bit of craic.

I personally think metric works better for this, but open to correction.

Also wide open to tweaks and ideas.

What do people think?

Comic Book Guy

Nice idea C, like ya said would definitely add an extra element to an otherwise mundane progression run!

Would we have to sign up to an honour system to avoid taking the proverbial and starting at a pace way below our normal easy pace?

Lazare

Comic Book Guy wrote: »

Nice idea C, like ya said would definitely add an extra element to an otherwise mundane progression run!

Would we have to sign up to an honour system to avoid taking the proverbial and starting at a pace way below our normal easy pace?

Cheers J, yeah I think a gentleman's gentlewoman's agreement not to act the monkey.

Kinda the reason for the range field in the table too, incentivising people to go fairly hard at it.

Dudda

So you could technically start out very slow, walking pace, and slowly build up? If you start super slow and pace it right you could do half a marathon before you start to jog at all. The winner of this could be paced by a toddler for the first km and complete 50km in 9 or 10 hours.

Maybe put a limit of 21km / half on it to stop it going on forever?

Edit: the above replies didn't show until after I posted.

Lazare

Dudda wrote: »

So you could technically start out very slow, walking pace, and slowly build up? If you start super slow and pace it right you could do half a marathon before you start to jog at all. The winner of this could be paced by a toddler for the first km and complete 50km in 9 or 10 hours.

Maybe put a limit of 21km / half on it to stop it going on forever?

Edit: the above replies didn't show until after I posted.

Technically you could do that, but I doubt most would.

For instance, if I set out at a ridiculous pace, I'd be doing so knowing there's a fair few boardsies who would look at it and know I was taking the mick.

spc78

Dudda wrote: »

So you could technically start out very slow, walking pace, and slowly build up? If you start super slow and pace it right you could do half a marathon before you start to jog at all. The winner of this could be paced by a toddler for the first km and complete 50km in 9 or 10 hours.

Maybe put a limit of 21km / half on it to stop it going on forever?

Edit: the above replies didn't show until after I posted.

Between the 5k and the mile TT times posted already you could already set a minimum allowed start pace based on those. Might be a few people who posted no times in those that would need to be assigned a minimum pace

OOnegative

I think we’ve found our next organiser for a TT, good man C!!!

Lazare

OOnegative wrote: »

I think we’ve found our next organiser for a TT, good man C!!!

lol

Which do you think is best, a specific date or just randomly doing it whenever anyone wants and updating an ongoing table?

I kinda like the latter, but easy either way.

OOnegative

Lazare wrote: »

lol

Which do you think is best, a specific date or just randomly doing it whenever anyone wants and updating an ongoing table?

I kinda like the latter, but easy either way.

Think a specific date works best C, few rules you deem fit for the TT yourself also.

skyblue46

I think that the idea is good but needs refinement. As a basic format, untweaked, it could have people running massive distances. Healy did a 15 miler recently without a bother. With watches now it's not that hard to increase paces by only a couple of seconds a mile/km. It would probably just replace people's long runs rather than the race day kinda feel some people got with the shorter TTs..

Lazare

Maybe ban the use of pace guides? I know you'd be depending on people playing ball but generally people do.

Swashbuckler

I think whatever the next one becomes it should be a specific date. It really has a race day feel.

I like the idea of thinking outside the box and not just running a normal race distance. Some people could manage marathon distance without some refinement to the rules. Not that I'm clever enough to suggest any ideas there. Fair play for stepping up C. Just don't get bogged down in too many opinions. We'll support regardless.

Lazare

Cheers P. Yeah, you're right, the race day feel is the buzz.

Let's see if there's enough interest in the concept of it and take it from there.

Ears 100% open to ways of refining it.

OOnegative

What about setting a specific distance, as C says measure it off kilometres. Each one has to be progressively faster than the last, if it isn’t your out of the race. Each participants starting pace is there easy pace measured off either there 5k TT or 1 mile TT?

Lazare

OOnegative wrote: »

What about setting a specific distance, as C says measure it off kilometres. Each one has to be progressively faster than the last, if it isn’t your out of the race. Each participants starting pace is there easy pace measured off either there 5k TT or 1 mile TT?

I like it but it would eliminate the predictions element of if though.

Swashbuckler

OOnegative wrote:

What about setting a specific distance, as C says measure it off kilometres. Each one has to be progressively faster than the last, if it isn’t your out of the race. Each participants starting pace is there easy pace measured off either there 5k TT or 1 mile TT?

I like the idea of capping the distance. Then it becomes a case of how do you measure 1st, 2nd 3rd etc etc?

Swashbuckler

Lazare wrote:

I like it but it would eliminate the predictions element of if though.

I think the predictions are not so important. The main thing is finding a metric for measuring the "winners".

Lazare

What sort of number would you be thinking of as the cap?

Winners of each category could be the fastest final km.

Swashbuckler

Lazare wrote:

What sort of number would you be thinking of as the cap?

Hmm. I'm going against my mantra of telling you to not take too many opinions on board. Haha. Personally I'd cap it at 21k

Lazare wrote:

Winners of each category could be the fastest final km.

Hmm not a bad idea. I like it.

jimmii

You could group it by starting pace so you have a 6 min/km group, a 5.30 group, 5 group etc and maybe make it 10 seconds quicker each km that way it won't take that long?

Lazare

I'm also racking my brain trying to come up with some sort of way of levelling the field, giving everyone a shot at winning.

Some way of scoring things so that potentially somebody starting at 6:50km can rank higher than someone starting at 5:50km.

Any ideas?

OOnegative

Lazare wrote: »

What sort of number would you be thinking of as the cap?

Winners of each category could be the fastest final km.

8km/5miles as a cap? Winners of each category who make it that far measured on fastest time & for this one I think P is right, prediction not needed. Numbers may dwindle with this one possibly.

Lazare

jimmii wrote: »

You could group it by starting pace so you have a 6 min/km group, a 5.30 group, 5 group etc and maybe make it 10 seconds quicker each km that way it won't take that long?

Very good. Really like the 10 second idea.

jimmii

Lazare wrote: »

Very good. Really like the 10 second idea.

Yeah speeds it up a good bit. For most people if they start at a realistic pace it's going to start getting tough post 10k!

I think its needs to be relatively simple so as many people as possible get involved. If there were 4 or 5 groups you could say someone could only enter two groups max so you don't have a couple of people dominating them all.

skyblue46

OOnegative wrote: »

8km/5miles as a cap? Winners of each category who make it that far measured on fastest time & for this one I think P is right, prediction not needed. Numbers may dwindle with this one possibly.

This I think is the big risk...along with a way of actually ranking 'results'.....

Swashbuckler

skyblue46 wrote:

This I think is the big risk...along with a way of actually ranking 'results'.....

I'm not sure I'd worry about dwindling numbers. It's not up to C to match previous TT's. These provide a focus for people in a time where we have no races. To me this concept would fit well into people's general training.

In terms of the ranking is it not just a case of using the same age categories against fastest last km?

Lazare

I never really intended for it to be TT #3 tbh, in case people had ideas for what that might be. A new poll maybe.

My thoughts were for it to be just an ongoing thread with a table that people randomly updated.

Don't mind either way obv, but hope people don't think I'm just bulldozing into the next TT.

skyblue46

Swashbuckler wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd worry about dwindling numbers. It's not up to C to match previous TT's. These provide a focus for people in a time where we have no races. To me this concept would fit well into people's general training.

In terms of the ranking is it not just a case of using the same age categories against fastest last km?

So the challenge is to speed up as required but by as little as you can so that you can save as much as possible for a sprint finish?

Swashbuckler

Lazare wrote:

Don't mind either way obv, but hope people don't think I'm just bulldozing into the next TT.

We need people to bulldoze. Haha. Otherwise we'll hit a standstill.

So if this becomes more of a long term thing (in parallel with a new TT) then that would also work. I'd be up for it

Swashbuckler

skyblue46 wrote:

So the challenge is to speed up as required but by as little as you can so that you can save as much as possible for a sprint finish?

Haha well when you put it like that!

I think the concept needs refinement but the general idea is good imo.

TFBubendorfer

I think it's a great idea, but to cap the distance allowed would be a terrible idea IMHO. You're meant to get faster and faster and be limited by how fast you can go on tired legs. If you already know how man km you will go right from the start, half of the challenge and fun is gone.

If you really want additional rules, giving a certain range for the first k pace would be much better. Easy pace according to TT might work, for the ones who did one of the TTs at least. Keep in mind, the fewer rules the better.

Swashbuckler

Fair point above. And you'll have a lot of reference points from the last two TT for where to set min starting pace.

skyblue46

Swashbuckler wrote: »

Fair point above. And you'll have a lot of reference points from the last two TT for where to set min starting pace.

I want a head to head with ivory Tower...starting paces based off our Tinman easy paces as per the mile TT, no minimum pace increase.

jimmii

Let people choose their own starting time so they can make it as long or change the challenge for themselves. You could have as many groups as there was demand for but figured something like this would include most people here?

Group 1: starts at 6min/km
Group 2: starts at 5.30/km
Group 3: starts at 5/km

10 seconds quicker per km furthest wins tie breaker would be quickest last km in the event of a distance tie. First km would need to be +/- 5 seconds of the target time then each km at least 10s quicker than the preceeding one. Think I might go give it a try this week see how far I can get!

Lazare

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I think it's a great idea, but to cap the distance allowed would be a terrible idea IMHO. You're meant to get faster and faster and be limited by how fast you can go on tired legs. If you already know how man km you will go right from the start, half of the challenge and fun is gone.

If you really want additional rules, giving a certain range for the first k pace would be much better. Easy pace according to TT might work, for the ones who did one of the TTs at least. Keep in mind, the fewer rules the better.

You're right T, what do you think would be a good separator though for multiple people hitting the same distance?

Obv fastest time would be one but that just makes it impossible for many to compete.

What about biggest gap between first and last km?

This assumes a fair start pace, based off previous TT results or Strava history.
Two athletes run 12km. Athlete A starts at 6:20 pace and finishes at 4:35
Athlete B starts at 5:25 pace and finishes at 3:45.

Athlete A ranks above athlete B, with a 1:45 spread against a 1:40 spread.

Any holes in that?

pc11

OOnegative wrote: »

What about setting a specific distance, as C says measure it off kilometres. Each one has to be progressively faster than the last, if it isn’t your out of the race. Each participants starting pace is there easy pace measured off either there 5k TT or 1 mile TT?

Do this but also have a tiebreak that lowest total time wins. This reduces the incentive to game it too much.

Also you could set that the slowest and fastest KM should be no more than 2 minutes difference or some such.

BeepBeep67

Consideration, I always like to try and find a mathematical solution

Run 1 mile at your all out mile pace from the recent TT +50%.
Example 6min milers start at 9min/ml.
Each mile run 'at least' 5% faster than your 50% differential, in this case 9 secs.
Mile 1 = 09:00
Mile 2 = 08:51
Mile 3 = 08:42
ETC.......
Seems achieveable, mile 10 would be 07:39, Mile 13 07:18 (very close to McMillian HM pace off a 6 min/ml), of course if you run mile 1 in 8:55, your next mile needs to be at least 9 seconds faster.

This seems to work across the ranges and obviously if people don't want to run for 13 miles +, you can set at 6%, 7%, etc.

Dudda

Another thing to consider is some people will have run a lot of progression runs in training and some will never have ran one. The experience will help a huge amount. Those who aren't used to progression runs will be looking at their watch every 10 seconds and it will be a higher level maths assignment for others.

Does an app or Garmin widget exist that says speed up or slow down after you program everything in? I've only once attempted a progression run and had the paces all over the place.

shotgunmcos

Progression run is a great idea and it's a great session too. How feasible is it to track though? I did a royal flush a while back and while I aimed for 10sec drop every mile I was +/- 3 secs or so and that was with the help of LL pace on the garmin etc

Not everyone will have the functionality etc..

It was undoubtedly a body of work to set up strava and boards thread, chase and validate users on both ends, motivate, track and verify results on strava, collate on a spreadsheet, edit, verify again and then cross fingers its all 99.99% right. How much work would that be to do to track and verify split times?!!

TFBubendorfer

Dudda wrote: »

Another thing to consider is some people will have run a lot of progression runs in training and some will never have ran one. The experience will help a huge amount. Those who aren't used to progression runs will be looking at their watch every 10 seconds and it will be a higher level maths assignment for others.

Does an app or Garmin widget exist that says speed up or slow down after you program everything in? I've only once attempted a progression run and had the paces all over the place.

I haven't done THAT many progression runs but Lap pace works very well, I find. Set the lap distance accordingly and then you get pretty good feedback on you present lap.

skyblue46

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Progression run is a great idea and it's a great session too. How feasible is it to track though? I did a royal flush a while back and while I aimed for 10sec drop every mile I was +/- 3 secs or so and that was with the help of LL pace on the garmin etc

Not everyone will have the functionality etc..

It was undoubtedly a body of work to set up strava and boards thread, chase and validate users on both ends, motivate, track and verify results on strava, collate on a spreadsheet, edit, verify again and then cross fingers its all 99.99% right. How much work would that be to do to track and verify split times?!!

In a word.... impossible :pac:

As an idea it is something probably best suited to an ongoing thread devoted to progression runs. I just can't see it being manageable in the same way that the mile and 5k TTs were done.

OOnegative

skyblue46 wrote: »

In a word.... impossible :pac:

As an idea it is something probably best suited to an ongoing thread devoted to progression runs. I just can't see it being manageable in the same way that the mile and 5k TTs were done.

Yeah, way to many variables for it to work the same way as the other TT’s.

Edit: Not bashing C’s idea BTW.

TFBubendorfer

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Consideration, I always like to try and find a mathematical solution

Run 1 mile at your all out mile pace from the recent TT +50%.
Example 6min milers start at 9min/ml.
Each mile run 'at least' 5% faster than your 50% differential, in this case 9 secs.
Mile 1 = 09:00
Mile 2 = 08:51
Mile 3 = 08:42
ETC.......
Seems achieveable, mile 10 would be 07:39, Mile 13 07:18 (very close to McMillian HM pace off a 6 min/ml), of course if you run mile 1 in 8:55, your next mile needs to be at least 9 seconds faster.

This seems to work across the ranges and obviously if people don't want to run for 13 miles +, you can set at 6%, 7%, etc.

Just to clarify, I think we were talking about km progression, not miles. I know it would work either way but just as long as we're all talking the same workout!

Not convinced about the percentage calculations. I'll be struggling to correctly subtract 10 seconds from my target pace as the pace intensifies and my brain starts to shut down. I really don't think I'd be able to correctly adjust my target time by x % as we go along - and I'm a numbers guy!

Murph_D

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Just to clarify, I think we were talking about km progression, not miles. I know it would work either way but just as long as we're all talking the same workout!

Not convinced about the percentage calculations. I'll be struggling to correctly subtract 10 seconds from my target pace as the pace intensifies and my brain starts to shut down. I really don't think I'd be able to correctly adjust my target time by x % as we go along - and I'm a numbers guy!

Just write it on your hand!

Obviously it’s also possible to programme set lap paces into a Garmin workout and you’ll get aural and visual speed up / slow down feedback. Although of course that takes a lot of the fun and biofeedback out of it.

BeepBeep67

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Just to clarify, I think we were talking about km progression, not miles. I know it would work either way but just as long as we're all talking the same workout!

Not convinced about the percentage calculations. I'll be struggling to correctly subtract 10 seconds from my target pace as the pace intensifies and my brain starts to shut down. I really don't think I'd be able to correctly adjust my target time by x % as we go along - and I'm a numbers guy!

Dug out one I done before

KSU

Could keep it simple

Keep it as racing format for say 10k.

Fastest 10k wins

Caveat being

- First km/mile is a designated easy pace (based off recent TT), can be calculated additionally on column instead of or beside predicted time)

- Every subsequent split has to be quicker.

Means people have to balance trying to run as fast as they can with making sure they don’t positive split. Keeps everyone honest while also ensuring they follow progression format

ThebitterLemon

Anything longer than about 10k and in my current state I’m out.

Really enjoyed the last one and it was simple.

The proposed taxonomic gyrations are hurting my head

TbL

ThebitterLemon

What about some thing like 3 events over 3 or more days?

A 400m, a mile and a 5k, mix it up a bit and give everyone a chance.

TbL

Murph_D

ThebitterLemon wrote: »

Anything longer than about 10k and in my current state I’m out.

Really enjoyed the last one and it was simple.

The proposed taxonomic gyrations are hurting my head

TbL

I think, as has been suggested above, this kind of event is definitely more suited to being an ongoing challenge - something you can do in your own time whenever it suits. I know it can be simplified but at the same time I welcome its complexity, which poses its own challenges! (If you can't use the watch properly for a mile TT what chance do you have for this kind of thing).

Certainly something I would have a go at - I like beepbeep's variation based on TT pace. I'd like to think I could get to mile 14 or 15 based on that (could be wrong!) The challenge would be to keep going til it breaks you.

skyblue46

ThebitterLemon wrote: »

What about some thing like 3 events over 3 or more days?

A 400m, a mile and a 5k, mix it up a bit and give everyone a chance.

TbL

It's a great idea...but the problem on here is getting someone to take it on

TFBubendorfer

Well, I for one still love the idea of the progression run.

However, why does it have to be a competitive format? Why not let everyone do a workout as described originally: run every k (or mile) faster than the previous one and as soon as you slow down you're out. End of story, no real need for a ranking table.

Then we regale the rest of the world with our heroic war stories, slag of anyone who messed it up and watch TbL try and do it 3 times in one day.