60
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Weymouth Woods 100K is unusual for an ultra because it is a lap course with chip timing. This gives accurate timing for each of the 14 laps, which were nicely published for some number crunching.
http://jfsavage.smugmug.com/photos/768651953_edUQc-M.jpg
[Full size at [http://jfsavage.smugmug.com/photos/768651953_edUQc-O.jpg http://jfsavage.smugmug.com/photos/768651953_edUQc-O.jpg]]
This graph shows the time taken for each lap (in seconds), with each line as a different runner. You can see that the time difference between the fastest and slowest runners grows as the race progresses. Initially there is about 2,000 seconds between the fastest and slowest, but at the end, the gap grows to 5,000.
== Relative Times ==
http://jfsavage.smugmug.com/photos/768652202_jt5qT-M.jpg
For this graph, I worked out each runners average lap time, then divided each lap by the average. This graph then shows how much faster or slower a runner completes each lap compared with their average. A runner who runs even splits would be a flat line, a runner how slows up will be an upward facing line, and if any runner had done negative splits (got faster), the line would slope downward.
That's the really hard question to answer. Is slowing down A Bad Thing, or an optimal strategy? Conventional wisdom is to run close to even splits, but I don't know of any study to show this works best.
Looking at the WW100K, the variation in finish time does not dramatically go up with the finishing place. (Plot of standard deviation against finishing place.)[http://jfsavage.smugmug.com/photos/768673366_648jK-O.jpg
http://jfsavage.smugmug.com/photos/768673366_648jK-O.jpg
Note - the spreadsheet is available on request - just email spreadsheet@fellrnr.info and I'll send it to you.