Understanding the S...
 

MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch

[Closed] Understanding the Selkirk Merida results.

20 Posts
12 Users
0 Reactions
72 Views
Posts: 11628
Full Member
Topic starter
 

OK, I know the event isn't supposed to be a competition, but having never done one before, I would like to know how my time compared to everyone else's. Problem is the results online have all the distances lumped together, making it difficult to compare times.

Does anyone know which race numbers were doing the 100km, or alternatively where some 'sorted' results can be found?


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 4:01 pm
 Stu
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

3 fig. numbers = 100km, 1000's = 75km, 2000's = 50km, 3000's = 25km. Impossible to sort them out though as you don't know who did the full distance (ie I think about 20 folk on the 100 came in before Nick Craig which is unlikely...)


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 4:05 pm
Posts: 11628
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Rats, should just have asked when i finished then, was a little bit startled by the camera being shoved in my face though!


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 4:22 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The organisers apologise on their site for not being able to provide the results in a more user friendly format. There are 2 names in CAPS possibly highlighting fastest and slowest (one is Nick Craig....)


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

If it helps
6 Hours for the 85k would have put you about 75th
7 Hours would have put you about 150th
7 1/2 Hours would have put you about 200th


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 4:48 pm
 jonb
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I came in in just over 6 hours (6h5min I think) The guy said I came in 87th but I don't know if that includes the people who cut it short.

Number 18 if it helps benchmark the rest of the list.


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 5:15 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

jonb, they had no way of telling who cut it short as it wasn't a race so marshalls were not taking notes on numbers.


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 5:22 pm
Posts: 8
Free Member
 

That guy in blue was a star and yes he was counting the 100km riders.

Down the last climb he said I was 113th and I dropped 2 places after seeing him, so the 115th came home in 6hours 38mins.

He counted me in at 63rd on the top of the 2nd climb, but a split tyre and bodge dropped me down the field, but hell it wasn't a race.


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 6:47 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

4h55mins was 15th across the line in the full distance. Since the 85 differed from the other routes you can work out who did the full distance based upon the photos available online, not foolproof though and also could be seriously time consuming!


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 6:47 pm
 jonb
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

They painted your number if you turned off early so they would know who had entered but not done the full 85km.


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

painted numbers were only for 75k route as it doubled back


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 8:50 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

Well, I'm well chuffed because it seems I was first girly in the 50k by about 15 mins (Sub 4hours) so.................YAY for me!!!!!! 😀


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 10:33 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Does anyone know the 'legal' reason they state on the site as why the results are published like that? Is it possibly something to do with insurance being higher if you call it a 'race'?


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

I think it is something to do with racing 2 wheeled vehicles on bridleways........I think.


 
Posted : 05/08/2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

To gain access to bridleways in England they have to say it is not a race. As you are not legally allowed to race on them. But Scotland doesn't have bridleways, we found this out after talking to the organisors. Anyway, it's not a race as the first home doesn't get a trophey, money or a prize.


 
Posted : 06/08/2009 6:25 am
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

Also, I suspect that if you have it as a 'race' then it needs to be licensed with British Cycling, which would cost more - e.g. each rider would need to be licensed.

I am surprised that they didnt note who turned off early. Top Dog - I think you are wrong, the blue dot was painted on if you shortened to the 45 km route, red dot if you shortened to the 75 km route. Wouldnt have been hard to note down which route you actually did when you crossed the finish line.


 
Posted : 06/08/2009 8:23 am
 Stu
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

Painted numbers are for folk who bailed on the full distance they entered. No need to paint any from the start as the numbering clearly states the category entered - see my post above.


 
Posted : 06/08/2009 8:28 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Agreed, i think British Cycling would charge a higher rider 'levy' if it was classed as a race rather than an off-road 'sportive'. I entered the 70km and rode the 70km after deciding not to turn left at the split and do the 85k. Got red-dotted there still.


 
Posted : 06/08/2009 8:40 am
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

Stu - yeah - thats what I thought. I bailed (the shame!) and I got painted.

Ah well - who cares - its just supposed to be a fun day out - I was never going to win anyway!


 
Posted : 06/08/2009 8:43 am
Posts: 11628
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Cheers guys, shall have to settle for being happy with my time regardless.

Brilliant event, looking forward to entering similar in the near future!


 
Posted : 06/08/2009 12:41 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I have been told Nick Craig was the fastest in the longest distance, followed by an Aussie pro and Adrian Lawerence was fourth fastest if that helps anyone ❓


 
Posted : 06/08/2009 1:19 pm