nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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 isnâ€™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.