Different Options Available on the KLETS

I thought that competitors would like to know something about the different options available on the Klets course.  The following is an analysis of the routes the competitors took and some comments on the way the course was laid out.

Day 1

The controls were positioned in three blocks centred on Easedale Tarn, Scafell and Glaramara, each with four controls.

Easedale Tarn.  My reckoning was that either 141 or 110 was the best attack point for Scafell.  I was surprised that 9 out of the 26 to finish this day did 130 as the last of this block.  My calculations indicated that this imposed about a 10 minute penalty on the fastest.  140, 130, 110, 141 … was about 1.8 Km shorter but had an extra 75 m climb compared to 140, 141, 110, 130 … .

The first control would be either 130 or 140, depending on which attack point was used.  I preferred 140, although, in theory 130 was faster, because the ground from the Start to 130 looked complex and possibly slow from the map.  Whilst I was surpised that many did 140, 141, 110, 130, no-one used 130, 110, 140, 141, which I thought was viable.

The next block round Scafell could be done clockwise or anticlockwise.  The latter was estimated to take about an extra 15 minutes, being about 800 m longer with an extra 120 m climb.  There are several permutations possible here depending on the order the controls were taken but this gives a rough idea.

For those going clockwise, and doing … 133, 134, … , it was better to do …, 142, 132, 133, 134, … than doing 142 after 132.  The gain being 2 – 3 minutes.  142 was positioned in such a way that most of the height climbed to 142 would be lost if approached from 132.  What I had not anticipated was that competitors would do …, 132, 133, 142, 134, … .  I had reckoned that having climbed to 133 they would not want to lose that height.  As it turned out, this route was compatible with my optimum, the minute difference being irrelevant in the estimates.

The block around Glaramara did not present as many options.  We had great difficulty placing 119 and 135.  As it was, doing …, 135, 119, … had a small but noticeable edge of about 5 minutes.  There was little difference in 134, 135, 119 or 134, 119, 135.  The edge was in the leg to 156.  I thought that the run from 119 down into Comb Gill and the short climb to 156 would be faster than the undulating route from 135 to 156.

Below is a table for Day 1 estimates.  The times have been adjusted on all routes to that of the actual time of the leader on Day 1.

Please note that all distances are straight line between controls.  The heights climbed are approximate values for each route.

Day 2

The controls on Day 2 were in 2 main blocks, around Ullscarf and the Far Easedale Gill/Easedale Tarn areas, with an outlier to the south west of High Raise (139).

The initial consideration was whether to go to 154 or 136 first.  154 was the preferred option for two reasons. I reckoned that some one who did Start, 154, 136, … would be only about 10 minutes behind someone who went directly to 136.  The crux was 137, 154, 139 (starting at 136) or 137, 139 (starting at 154).  137 to 139 could be run the whole way more than making up the 10 minute deficit.

Another option was to cross the Wyth Burn, do the controls to the south and then head west.  The main disadvantage of this was the additional height climbed, nearly 300 m which was worth an extra 20+ minutes.

The other rather intriguing point was which order to do 138 and 144.  138, 144, 131 was a little shorter but with a little more climb.  This was the quicker route but would the tired limbs cope ?  144, 138, … had only one climb but with a very steep descent.

The corresponding table for Day 2 is below

Chris Hall (Planner)