For speed aficianados

Posted by: slowcoach

For speed aficianados - 20/04/10 06:48 AM

Came across a small group of Coast to Coasters yesterday bivouacking near Scarth Nick. They were on an exercise requiring them to complete the walk, carrying their own provisions, at an average of 3 MPH, ie 65 hours including stops. I was going to offer to accompany them on the last section but felt that their pace would slow me down!
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 28/01/11 11:03 PM

Did you get to know if they completed this SC?
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 29/01/11 02:12 PM

No, unfortunately, like most walkers that I meet they are merely ships that pass in the night. I tend to have a brief word with almost everybody that passes if I am working locally but once they have gone I seldom hear about their success or failure.

I am however, quite interested in this group and I am trying to discover if, and if so, when their attempt is this year.

I met a couple from Sunderland Uni who were both keen long distance walkers. They had completed the Coast to Coast in 8 days at the beginning of summer vacation 2 years ago. They then returned to complete it in reverse in 7 days before the start of the autumn term. When I met the last summer they were on a 6 day self-contained crossing.

This year, they told me, they were going to walk along with 2 friends. They plan to leave St. B and walk as far as they can on each day. Their friends were driving as support, pitching the tents and providing food. When they reach Bay they plan a role reversal supporting the other two on an east to west crossing. Quite a novel idea!! I hope that I find out how they do.

I asked them to post their exploits on here but they haven't as yet done so.
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 02/02/11 11:00 PM

Cheers - thanks for that SC - keep us posted... all in a day's work. I only found out about the 3 day crossings of Barry Pincer from Keith at Cromwell's Plaques.
We just must be internet junkies! - others just get on with their lives lol
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 03/02/11 07:19 AM

Thanks for that. The sheer variety of ways that walkers attempt all the long distance paths reflects the diversity of people themselves, (End of today's deep thoughts ... back to reality now)
Posted by: guybrush

Re: For speed aficianados - 24/03/11 12:16 PM

Originally Posted By: slowcoach
Thanks for that. The sheer variety of ways that walkers attempt all the long distance paths reflects the diversity of people themselves, (End of today's deep thoughts ... back to reality now)


One year, we kept bumping in to a well-to-do group, nice and friendly but seemed to be finishing the day at some odd places.
Over the walk we got also got friendly with their support drivers and assumed that they were getting a lift to a B&B each night. It wasn't until the penultimate day, when discussing the weather, at the Lion Inn that one of them let slip that the pilots weather forecast showed rain later. It then came out that they had been using a helicopter to go back to their manor house for a slap up dinner, wine and a hot shower each night!

This was all in the aid of raising money for a school bus.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 24/03/11 02:19 PM

Now, that crossing takes some beating!
Posted by: tonyk

Re: For speed aficianados - 24/03/11 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: slowcoach
Came across a small group of Coast to Coasters yesterday bivouacking near Scarth Nick. They were on an exercise requiring them to complete the walk, carrying their own provisions, at an average of 3 MPH, ie 65 hours including stops. I was going to offer to accompany them on the last section but felt that their pace would slow me down!


Sooner them than me.To average three mph with stops you would have to spend half the time jogging at 5mph or more.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 25/03/11 10:03 PM

I did meet a chap who covered the walk in 106 hours (with virtually no planning) including overnighting in B and B and, when I met him, he looked like he had just set off!
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 26/03/11 03:09 PM

Originally Posted By: tonyk
Originally Posted By: slowcoach
Came across a small group of Coast to Coasters yesterday bivouacking near Scarth Nick. They were on an exercise requiring them to complete the walk, carrying their own provisions, at an average of 3 MPH, ie 65 hours including stops. I was going to offer to accompany them on the last section but felt that their pace would slow me down!


Sooner them than me.To average three mph with stops you would have to spend half the time jogging at 5mph or more.


Thing is did they do it in that time. It could be a case of a bit like the many, many Marathon runners I know that state they are going for a particular time.
Many when asked later if they succeeded, reply, "No, but I was on target at 20 miles."
Things can only be compared if done in identical ways.
If I do get an early opportunity to have an E - W attempt, it is unlikely to compare with LWMs future attempt, as I intend following the low level route between Reeth and Keld, a different seasonal route up Nine Standards, a lower level after Rosedale railway, possibly different route from Dunmail to Rosthwaite. I will also be all walking,(probably) and carrying a tent.
There are just so many variables.
Also the age thing comes into it, for example Mike Hartley still holds the record at a little over 39 hours for a fully supported run. What time would be considered comparable to that for someone say 35 years older.
The Lakeland Joss Naylor challenge is for the over 50s only. At 50 the time allowed is 12 hours, at 60 it's 18 hours and 65 is 24 hours (Double that at age 50). These times weren't just guessed at, but calculated for the human bodies physiologically changes between ages.
Dave.
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 28/03/11 01:58 PM

Dave, would it not be possible to set something similar for the C2C along the lines of distance covered and height gained and lost..? Unofficially of course...
Classes:
Supported as in Mike H's case
Fully self-Sufficient (ie. Geoff Bell's 5 day Pennine Way)inc.Acc+food
Part self-sufficient (ie. buying food enroute but using own tent/bivvy etc)
Accommodated (ie. no tent or bivvy used - as the 5 dayer you met last year where very little needs to be carried)

just a thought...
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 28/03/11 02:53 PM

You say distance covered as opposed to various points being visited. The Bob Graham and Joss Naylor follow the rules of most Fell races where certain points, in those cases usually Summits and Passes, have to be visited. Any route in between is allowed.
A C2C route could easily be worked out following a certain criteria.
For example, if it was thought that in order for it to be an ethical crossing, certain normal stopover places must be visited and if a high level route from Keld to Reeth had to be followed, then you could make it that 'Level House Bridge' had to be taken in en-route. Times of day and splits in between these places would have to be recorded and an honesty statement signed.
Of course anyone could cheat or even make up a fictitious crossing, but at the end of the day, they would they only be cheating themselves
I class mehtods as :-
SELF SUPPORTED -
On your own, carrying everything needed to get all the way across - shelter & Foods etc, not making any purchases, although water can be obtained by knocking on a door.
UNSUPPORTED -
On your own as in Self Supported, but can make purchases of food and drink en route.
SUPPORTED -
On your own or with others carrying your own gear, but using B&B or Bunkhouse accomodation.
FULLY SUPPORTED -
As in supported, but using a Baggage Carrying Service.
Dave.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 28/03/11 02:54 PM

Methods not mehtods!
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 29/03/11 08:36 PM

Good clarification there Dave - makes sense... I suppose it's both a good thing and bad that Wainwright didn't really make it too specific, which I suppose says a lot about the man himself..?
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 01/04/11 12:11 PM

Just to note that Mike Hartley covered the route at 12.5 m/m pace with just 1 hr 17mins rest (ie. a moving pace of 12.1 m/m)
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 01/04/11 02:40 PM

Originally Posted By: lightweightmick
Just to note that Mike Hartley covered the route at 12.5 m/m pace with just 1 hr 17mins rest (ie. a moving pace of 12.1 m/m)


He would have been walking the ascents and so moving faster than his average on the descents. Roughly 5mph at a time when he would easily have been doing more than 10 mph on the road in a 10 mile race. The country don't half slow you down though.
I hear he suffers from hip/knee/leg problems, still walking but hasn't run for some time. Same thing happened to Mike Cudahey, double hip replacement. Good at the time, and what they did was right on the edge of hard extreme, but makes you wonder whether they would have done all that fast really high mileage stuff, if they had known the eventual consequences.
The answer most likely is - Yes they would!
Dave.
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 01/04/11 10:50 PM

I don't need country to slow me down Dave... current training pace is around 10.5 m/m and if I'm very lucky might get down to 8.5 m/m over 5m at best! Even in my 20's 6.9 m/m was my best shot lol
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 01/04/11 11:16 PM

I met a person today who is involved with the 65 hour walk. I have asked him to post details on this site. So, with a bit of luck ........
Posted by: tonyk

Re: For speed aficianados - 02/04/11 12:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Slogger
Originally Posted By: lightweightmick
Just to note that Mike Hartley covered the route at 12.5 m/m pace with just 1 hr 17mins rest (ie. a moving pace of 12.1 m/m)


He would have been walking the ascents and so moving faster than his average on the descents. Roughly 5mph at a time when he would easily have been doing more than 10 mph on the road in a 10 mile race. The country don't half slow you down though.
I hear he suffers from hip/knee/leg problems, still walking but hasn't run for some time. Same thing happened to Mike Cudahey, double hip replacement. Good at the time, and what they did was right on the edge of hard extreme, but makes you wonder whether they would have done all that fast really high mileage stuff, if they had known the eventual consequences.
The answer most likely is - Yes they would!
Dave.


I don't think distance is the problem as John Merrill is still going strong in his sixties.Running seems to be the culprit as the Victorian six day racers seemed to suffer the same problems.Charles Rowell,who held the world 100 miles and 24 hour record died at the age of 53 whilst Edward Payson Weston,who was a walker,was still going strong in his seventies despite covering the same mileage.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 02/04/11 02:36 PM

Yeah, Tony that's is my thinking too, and although I am trying to get back into running, it is only for the sake of training and maybe the odd race. However over long distance I'll think I will stick to walking as I dont want my Hip/Groin problems to flare up again.
Running on these LDPs no doubt will shift you along in the early stages, but I think it is most probable that it takes more out of you, than walking for more hours at a good pace.
Dave.
Posted by: walkanddrink

Re: For speed aficianados - 02/04/11 03:32 PM

unfortunately my running days are definately over due to knee problems. I can manage the C2C with very little pain, couple of miles running and I'm laid up for a week on pain killers.

Mick
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 02/04/11 08:30 PM

Unfortunately there has been no post from the person that I met. He was quite shocked to learn that I had been told about the walk, Evidently it is known under another name but he wouldn't tell me what it was! This is because the overnights are unauthorized and it would cause problems if it was known that an official group was camping unofficially.
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 02/04/11 09:12 PM

Ha ha... the 'whispering grass' of the C2C - I only learned of Barry Pincer via Keith at Cromwell's - he's become some kind of legendary ghost to me lol - seriously though, 3 days carrying your own kit has to be up there...
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 06/04/11 08:40 PM

I agree Mick, it has to be up there. Obviously some of it was run.
I think attempting a 3.5 day crossing with your own kit and walking all of it, you would probably not need the kit as you would have to be walking most of the time.
190 miles in 3.5 days works out at at an average non stop pace of 2.25mph.
That would be a good non stopper!
Dave.
Posted by: sgtjames

Re: For speed aficianados - 11/04/11 07:33 PM

testing
Posted by: sgtjames

Re: For speed aficianados - 11/04/11 07:35 PM

Slowcoach.

I have had to wait until my details have been approved, hence the delay in responding to your request.
Posted by: sgtjames

Re: For speed aficianados - 11/04/11 08:02 PM

I successfully took part in the 65 hour challenge in both 2003 and 2004 before assisting in the organisation of it in 2005. The details are for the years that I was involved and may have changed.

The challenge has been an annual event for about 20 years now. It is usually timed to coincide with the longest days in June.

Participants are expected to have completed the walk beforehand in under 100 hours, self contained throughout. This is not verified.

They leave St Bees at 0400 and aim to cover 72 miles in the first period of walking. (24 x 3mph). They walk in groups of 4 maximum and file their own route plan. After leaving St Bees they rendezvous at a prearrange overnight site.

They must be ready to leave this site at 0600 the next morning. Anyone unable to leave at this time is not permitted to continue. Leaving before 0600 is also not permitted so as the challenge is not turned into a race.

They rendezvous for the second night after 145 miles. Leaving the following morning at 0800. This leaving 40 miles or so on the last day to be covered in 13 hours.

Numbers are usually about 50 of which up to 10 will drop out. These are collected by a minibus which meets them as close as possible to the camp site each night or on the route if called.

Fatigue is not usually a problem unless the weather is overhot. Sleep is no problem as most participants get at least 3 or 4 hours over the short period.

The need to use unlicensed sites is the reason for the lack of publicity about the challenge and participants are not permitted to publicise their exploits. I am disappointed that this story came out. For this reason non identifiable clothing is worn.



This is a coast to coast walk, not THE coast to coast walk and their routes are at their discretion. There is no need to go off road and no requirements to pass any place other than the overnight campsites.

I hope this clarifies what used to happen.

I can offer no further information as what happens today may have changed considerably.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 11/04/11 09:17 PM

Got it, so it's primarily a road route.
Getting 3 or 4 hours rest at camps means that it is not completed as a pure walk but as what I refer to as 'Free Styling'. Averaging a constant moving speed in excess of 4mph, means some walking with a lot of running/trotting, and clearly a young mans game.
Sounds a bit like the TGO across Scotland challenge held every year, only at a faster pace.
I wish I had known about it 20 years ago.
Dave.
Posted by: Reluctanttrucker

Re: For speed aficianados - 11/04/11 11:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Slogger
Got it, so it's primarily a road route.
Getting 3 or 4 hours rest at camps means that it is not completed as a pure walk but as what I refer to as 'Free Styling'. Averaging a constant moving speed in excess of 4mph, means some walking with a lot of running/trotting, and clearly a young mans game.
Sounds a bit like the TGO across Scotland challenge held every year, only at a faster pace.
I wish I had known about it 20 years ago.
Dave.

But you would have been held up by the other 49

Posted by: Reluctanttrucker

Re: For speed aficianados - 11/04/11 11:04 PM

dunno wot appent theere. me post got lost int quote.
polo gees
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 12/04/11 06:19 AM

Thanks sgtjames.
Posted by: sgtjames

Re: For speed aficianados - 12/04/11 08:38 PM

Slogger

Although each group of participants is responsible for its own route the need to reach the two overnight camps severely limits their options. When planning my own route from St Bees to east of Shap there is no realistic route utilising roads. KS to Reeth could be but this defeats the spirit of the challenge. We, and I presume most others, used the route over Nine Standards, Crackpot and the track to Surrender Bridge

From Osmotherley to the Whitby/Scarborough road deviating onto roads saves little time as the paths are so well worn. The major use was from the Whitby/Scarborough road direct down via Sledgates into RHB. So, effectively, the route used was the official route, though this was by choice rather than necessity.

The extra 2 hours added to the "day" reduces pressure of needing to route march or run. Most in my experience covered the two days in sufficient time to allow three or four hours sleep each night. Running would be more of a challenge as full pack is carried and only allows extra sleep as the starting time is fixed each day.

Hope this clarifies it.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 13/04/11 05:24 PM

I know well what it feels like to walk at 4mph and there is no getting away from it that one cant keep that average pace up with a pack on your back for too long, without becoming injured.
Lots of LDWA members do the 100 miler each year. For anyone that doesn't know, LDWA members walk fast, very fast. The 100 miler is usually won by a Fell/Trail runner in around 27 - 29 hours. They are fully supported with food etc supplied at check in points, so they carry very little.
The C2C is not far off double that, so doubling the winning time without any slowing down, on a continuous sleepless journey running most of it, with no gear, would be around 54 - 58 hours.
Yet these guys do it inside of 65 hours, walking, and carrying a self sufficient pack with sleep stopovers.
I don't mean to be rude and certainly wouldn't accuse anyone of Bull---t, but I wouldn't mind betting I am not the only experienced guy having problems with this.
Dave.
Posted by: MarkF

Re: For speed aficianados - 13/04/11 11:22 PM

I expect you will find that these guys are special forces, not the average bunch of recruits.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 12:16 AM

Yes Mark,
I did consider that. What I am saying is even Special Forces cant keep up that pace with packs for so long walking all the way. I have done similar long jaunts whilst in the Army carrying a pack and we didn't route march the whole way we ran and trotted the easier parts.
I am not saying it is beyond well trained special forces to complete it in 65 hours, but I am saying to do it within that time limit they have to be running and trotting as well as walking.
Not all SF members are supermen by the way, just fitter than the average squaddie.
Dave.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 06:32 AM

What, basically, are you saying then ....

I made the meeting with these people up? This person is fictitious?

I have no knowledge of the ability of people to achieve such a feat as it is something I have never undertaken. But,how much would they need to carry for 65 hours? Would more than an outdoor bivvie bag be needed over such a short duration?

I well remember in my youth experts saying that the 4 minute mile was impossible!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 08:42 AM

Originally Posted By: slowcoach
What, basically, are you saying then ....

I made the meeting with these people up? This person is fictitious?

I have no knowledge of the ability of people to achieve such a feat as it is something I have never undertaken. But,how much would they need to carry for 65 hours? Would more than an outdoor bivvie bag be needed over such a short duration?

I well remember in my youth experts saying that the 4 minute mile was impossible!!!!!!!!!


My reply was not to you but Sgt James.
It just doesn't add up to me. Think about it, we are not talking of one person but 40 people succeeding in this out of 50.
Mike Hartleys record stands to this day of a run across the country of just under 40 hours, fully supported carrying nothing. He stopped for less than 2 hours during this. he had trained specifically for it for two years and was at the time one of the country's top long distance Fell runners.
Now put an overnight self supported pack on his back and have him walk, not run. On top of that he stops en route for 6 hours. That cuts his walking time down to 59 hours, his fully supported running time was 38 hours.
The fact is he is going to take more than twice as long, when walking with even a light pack.
38 x 2 = 76hrs.
If you believe that is possible from 80% of those that starters of walkers obviously less capable than MH, then do so, however I do not, simple, and from the PMs I have received, I am not alone.
I repeat SC I am not having a go at you, my reply was aimed at Sgt James.
Dave.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 09:06 AM

I did some events whilst in the Army, which involved getting from A to B within a time limit. Although we were meant to go on foot, we would go by any means including hitching lifts.
65 hours would easily be possible taking in the stopovers with the same method. The challenge simply being to get across the country in that time.
Sgt James in his first post says there is no need to go off road.
In his second post he says, when planning his own route, there is no realistic route utilising roads!?
Dave.
Posted by: tonyk

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 09:57 AM

Originally Posted By: slowcoach
Came across a small group of Coast to Coasters yesterday bivouacking near Scarth Nick. They were on an exercise requiring them to complete the walk, carrying their own provisions, at an average of 3 MPH, ie 65 hours including stops. I was going to offer to accompany them on the last section but felt that their pace would slow me down!


What time of the day did you see them bivouacking?
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 12:14 PM

It would have to be early doors (ie. before 8am of the last 40m day) and the route from there is 47.5 (Footprint) - my own route from there is 43m (flat measured - Google) - missing Maybeck Woods and using road into RHB probably will account for the difference.

4am start 3mph for 23hrs (69m) 1hrs rest
6am start 3mph for 23hrs (69m) 1hrs rest total (covered 138m)
8am start 3mph for 13hrs (39m) total (covered 177m)

these guys are covering less than the accepted 190m by using roads where possible and moving at nearer 15m/m (4mph) at times to make this possible, otherwise time lost in negotiating stiles and gates, routefinding etc would soon erode into that 'free' rest hour
Posted by: tonyk

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 02:33 PM

Mick,

When I did the LDWA 100 in the Yorkshire Dales I averaged around 3.5mph.Fast walking pace by most people's standards but the only thing is I had to run at least half of it to keep up that pace.Just looked at the results 26 miles point 5hr 42 min,50 miles 12hr 5min,63 miles 16hr 34min(this part was in the dark),84 miles 23hr 55min,100 miles 30hrs 30 mins.

Average over fist 50 miles 4.2 mph.Most of this was run on the flat and downhill sections.

Average over last 50 miles 2.72 mph.I went through a very bad patch after 70 miles and only picked up again at the 90 mile point.

I wasn't carrying any kit other than a small backpack with the mandatory safety gear.This weighed no more than a couple of pounds.I finished in 32 place out of 500 starters.Not too bad for a first attempt but far worse than I had expected.Only three guys finished inside 24 hours Cudahy,Harney and Simpson.There were 233 finishers out of 500 starters.Most of them took over 35 hours.Theory is a fine thing but when you get in the field it all starts to fall apart.

Quote:
I expect you will find that these guys are special forces, not the average bunch of recruits.


Might also be someone who does a desk job and has plenty of time to train.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 08:25 PM

If Mike Hartley was the person who came into the information centre that I was covering in and spoke to one of my colleagues (I posted it towards the end of last year) then he said that he has covered the route in much shorter times. He cannot, however claim these as they were not correlated. He mentioned that what actually slowed him down was the stopping along the way for various official reasons that did not apply when he was solo.

This visitor (on a motorbike) told her that he had won the annual race a number of times.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 08:28 PM

(One of) My problems are that I tend to believe everyone that I meet (at least to their faces!). I hear some fantastic tales and it is difficult if it outside my field of expertise to pass judgement. I can only report what I am told!
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 08:32 PM

I would be very interested to see these messages if the posters could PM me too. Am I being taken for a *******. But, what puzzles me, is why did they say this to me when I met them at Sneck Yat if it is a figment of their imagination .... and what were they really doing at that time in a morning?
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 08:34 PM

Sorry, of course, Scarth Nick .... I have been at Sneck Yat today .... sorry.
Posted by: sgtjames

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 09:24 PM

It is not my intention to enter into any form slanging match about the challenge.


If anyone who has sent a PM to another poster about this challenge would like to copy me in I will try and supply a personal reply to them.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 14/04/11 10:56 PM

SC,
Don't take any comments on this as personal, nothing is directed at, or being said behind your back about you. You have not been mentioned at all. You just passed on what you were told, nothing wrong in that.
I/we are just having difficulty in working out this challenge is possible walking all the way, and it doesn't add up. Now if it was said that running the flats and downhills was actually what happens, then I/we would not have any problem accepting that. It would still be a hell of an accomplishment, but a believable one. If I/we are wrong then, that's the way it is, but some things just shout out - foul!
Dave.
What is being discussed
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 06:20 AM

The point that puzzles me is ... I came across these people breaking camp at Scarth Nick last year. It was these that told me about the walk. then a month ago I came across this walker doing the C to C in (he claimed) 100 hours, who, quite independently, told me about it as well. A strange coincidence?
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 08:35 AM

100 hours, walking it, yes now that makes sense. My own last year was a little under 112 hours. Without the foot problems I had and if I had been pushing it, which I wasn't, a sub 100 hours wouldn't have been mega difficult. 65 hours is extreme to say the least especially for a group the size being claimed. Things like a fast C2C are so much harder when in the company of others, that's why I go solo. At times in company you can be encouraged when tired, but as everyone has good and bad times at different times, this can overall slow the average pace considerably.
Should I go for the 65 @ 65 next week?
No I'll be happy with 5 days.
Dave.
Posted by: MarkF

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 08:47 AM

Having just had a look at the map, I reckon I can shave at around 15 miles, maybe more, off the C2C by judicious use of roads, a couple of more direct paths (eg to Scarth Nick) and and avoiding the headlands at either end. This brings the distance down to around 180 miles or 60 hours (20 hours per day) @ 3 miles/hr.

Nothing I have read here suggests they are carrying a full pack as the are going mufti. I would also assume they use that fast shuffle style whenever possible and they will be young and super fit. It is described as a challenge which suggests that only those who feel capable of it are going to attempt the crossing.

Given these factors I have no hesitation in accepting the claim as achievable.
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 12:49 PM

"Theory is a fine thing but when you get in the field it all starts to fall apart."

Tell me about it...
one of my favourites is Geoff Bell's 'Armchair planning is one thing... actually doing it is rather different.'
In my post I'm just attempting to demonstrate that either their route is shorter or they are moving quicker or a combination of the two
cheers
lwm
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 06:12 PM

Achieving a constant 3mph is not as simple as it sounds, as I have found when attempting to do that on my many Non Stoppers of up to 90 miles. As soon as those inevitable foot problems start to manifest, which is a dead cert with speed and mileage, the pace soon drops away. The legs speed falls as the muscles tighten after 40/50 miles, the stride shortens, and before long you are wondering why those last few miles took so long, when you felt as though you were walking as strong as you were, 20 miles earlier.
You only have to have the briefest of stops for the average to be severely affected - the difference between 3mph and 2.5mph is only 4 minutes a mile.
Shuffling along for short sections may bring the average pace up, but then that's not walking and this is my whole point.
Out of 50 super fit young guys (not too young though or they wouldn't have the Stamina) if they did shuffle or ran parts, then on paper, yes it is possible. But I would say with a high percentage of dropouts, not an 80% success rate, maybe just one or two making it.
Anyway that's what I think, for what it's worth.
Dave.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 07:13 PM

Just come across this, have alook and see hard it is for Fell Runners.
http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showthread.php?10360-Coast-to-Coast/page3
Dave.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 10:37 PM

As I say, these experiences are beyond my experience. However, without wishing to appear rude in any way whatsoever, you do appear, on the forum at least, to be ploughing something of a lone furrow in your disbelief.

I see that there has been a post which gives credit to the claim which makes me even more confused.

Fatigue wise, as in the link, I don't really see a problem. One morning in 1976 I was asked to attend the recently started fire on Kinder Scout. Along with the army, the search and rescue teams and various other groups we attended for 50 continue hours (8am Saturday until 10am Monday). Yes we were tired at the end ... its jolly hard work beating heather with long handled beaters... but the adrenaline just took over and we coped. These walkers have a further 15 hours which can be used for sleep within the 65 ... which we didn't have.

I just find it hard to credit that two separate groups fabricate the same story at different times.
Posted by: Ozzie M & H

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 11:06 PM

Just reading this thread makes us weary!

In the equation of speed versus age we have reached the stage when we are getting slower (and rationalising it by claiming more photography and much gawping at the landscape) rather than looking for ways to get there faster. I doubt there was ever a time when we could match the times noted on the thread - perhaps our Southern Hemisphere legs are built differently!
Posted by: sgtjames

Re: For speed aficianados - 15/04/11 11:14 PM

Slogger.

No one has PMed me with any doubts since last night.

Participants are under no illusion about the nature of the event, hence the prerequisite to do a 100 hour crossing. It would be a brave man to deny that 40 fit service personnel operating in small units cannot accomplish this challenge in the allotted time.

I assume from the volume of posts you make about your own attempt that you desperately seek some form of recognition or praise. This you could get by completing your challenge and not denigrating others who also complete theirs

I repeat my offer. If anyone still has doubts PM me and I will try and elaborate.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 16/04/11 08:56 AM

1. Firstly I am not alone on this forum who have doubts about this, as per visible posts, posted.
2. I do not seek any praise from anyone as I know in my own mind my own achievements.
4. I have never denigrated anyone for their crossing no matter how long they have taken, I have always congratulated them for making it across.
3. My doubts, if you care to read my posts properly are not as to whether it could be done in 65 hours, but as to whether it could be wholly WALKED in a total time of 65 hours, which I still say is unlikely especially for such a large group.
Dave.
Posted by: sgtjames

Re: For speed aficianados - 16/04/11 06:06 PM

Slogger

Before I respond to your PM would you identify the parts of the posts which you suggest support your doubts. This will give the posters chance to express them personally and ensure that neither of us has misinterpreted them.

I have still not received any PMs other than yours.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 16/04/11 07:05 PM

If you mean quoting people on this forum, no, it's not my place to do that. You only have to read through a few posts and you can identify their doubts easily enough.
You seem keen for people to believe what you claim, so why not openly give details. Why the secrecy. The fact that you say the reason is that the event uses unofficial sites seems a weak excuse.
If you really are genuine and want to know why I bother to express my views on things like this, I will tell you openly on this forum.
The 5 day attempt on 'THE' C2C was brought to my attention by another forum member. He got me interested and I was inspired. His attempts were part running part walking.
A bad injury put paid to my running over three years ago, so I thought I would have a go at walking it instead. I did this last September.
Since this 5 Day attempt (not mine) has attracted more and more interest and subsequent posts, there has been an increasing number of posts regarding very fast times, such as it being done many times inside 60 hours, but always without any form of corroboration.
I accept that times like that are possible and have been achieved, but by RUNNERS, not WALKERS.
It seems to me that some times these posts are deliberately put out to undermine anyone attempting the 5 day crossing, simply because they are not capable and trying to make out that succeeding in such a crossing is nothing special.
I happen to think it is, however it is not what I believe are attacks on my own attempt that bothers me, I have a thick skin after 9 years in REs and a member of a Fell running club where banter is always plentiful, but the apparent undermining of another members ambitions, whom I happen to have the utmost respect for.
I understand it can be galling to have someone doubt your word, when you are telling the truth, so if you are bothered, why not clarify. If you don't want to, then, fair enough, end of the matter.
Dave.
Posted by: sgtjames

Re: For speed aficianados - 16/04/11 08:36 PM

No Slogger. I thought that there weren't any!
Posted by: tonyk

Re: For speed aficianados - 16/04/11 09:36 PM

Sgt James,

I did express my doubts to Slogger about the high success rate of this exercise.It just dosen't tally with civilian events of a similar nature.Not saying it can't be done but was just a little surprised.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 16/04/11 09:54 PM

Originally Posted By: slowcoach
Came across a small group of Coast to Coasters yesterday bivouacking near Scarth Nick. They were on an exercise requiring them to complete the walk, carrying their own provisions, at an average of 3 MPH, ie 65 hours including stops. I was going to offer to accompany them on the last section but felt that their pace would slow me down!



I knew I should have stayed in bed.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 17/04/11 02:02 PM

Originally Posted By: slowcoach
Originally Posted By: slowcoach
Came across a small group of Coast to Coasters yesterday bivouacking near Scarth Nick. They were on an exercise requiring them to complete the walk, carrying their own provisions, at an average of 3 MPH, ie 65 hours including stops. I was going to offer to accompany them on the last section but felt that their pace would slow me down!



I knew I should have stayed in bed.


Ha, Ha, Sorry SC,
I do get carried away at times with my passion for fast high mileage walking.
I hope I haven't offended you in any way, I have great respect for your input on this forum especially your given local knowledge and advice on the C2C route in your neck of the woods.
I know you just missed me last time, but it would be good if I came across you during my next attempt.
Sgt James,
I have recently received information from a reliable source, that such a 65 hour crossing of the C2C, by members of Special Forces is within their capabilities.
If it is the case, (which hasn't as yet been confirmed) that the groups involved in the crossing ARE members of the Special Forces, then I accept that it is true, and apologise for disbelieving you.
Dave.
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 17/04/11 09:06 PM

...though not necessarily wholly walking lol - 'yomping' - after all the marines are renowned for their 10m in 2 hours battle yomps
here's a publicised event (though somewhat shorter...)

Dartmoor Yomp
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 17/04/11 09:08 PM

that should read Royal Marines of course...
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 17/04/11 09:18 PM

Here's another - and we all saw this one!

"56 miles (90 km) in three days carrying 80 pounds (36 kg)"

this including the Paras of course...
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 18/04/11 10:06 PM

Hi Slogger

I am working over all of Easter but only on the C to C section on Easter Sunday which will be too late for you.

Many staff have taken holidays to include the extra bank holiday so there is a shortage of people over the next few weeks. I am currently in the Lakes until Friday ... then I am working for the foreseeable future.

Best of luck with your efforts (I really mean this)
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 18/04/11 10:15 PM

Funnily enough, if they are the special forces a lot is explained.

As I probably mentioned earlier, 2 remote valleys are now exclusively tenanted by retired officers of the special forces. These valleys both have a single road entering them and can be blocked off in a matter of hours if necessary (or possibly shorter). They are effectively out of bounds to all including staff like myself. This could explain the secrecy and the camping issue was a suitable cover. Both valleys also have a church used for "high profile" weddings and guests so security is tight. Please don't ask me where they are or my IP will be deciphered I'm sure

Hmmmmmm............
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 18/04/11 10:41 PM

Just out of interest... what time of day did you come across the party btw?
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 21/04/11 12:37 PM

Just before 7am
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 21/04/11 09:10 PM

...you work too hard...
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 21/04/11 09:51 PM

Call it work?

Being out in the hills all day. I still blush every payday.
Posted by: Lounge Lizard

Re: For speed aficianados - 23/04/11 05:57 AM

St Bees to Robin Hoods Bay by road is 158 miles according to the ‘AA Route Planner’ but that’s with going up through Cockermouth, so take a more direct route for the first section and you’re down to 150 miles which is a good 20% off the recognised 190 miles. Go mainly by roads and you’re cutting out over 20% of the gradient too as well as avoiding nearly all the stiles, gates, livestock and rough terrain. So only 50 miles a day, which is averaging about two miles an hour, without most of the hills isn’t as great an achievement as is suggested and is little more than we might expect from our service personnel who are paid handsomely out of the taxpayer’s pocket to keep themselves fit. Many would envy having a job where you’re paid for doing the Coast To Coast in work’s time but rushing like that would give little time spare for the good pubs along the way or for sightseeing. Such a routemarch wouldn’t appeal to me, especially in my advancing years, and I’m sure it’s not what Wainwright had in mind.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 23/04/11 06:33 AM

I suppose that the two fixed overnight stops somewhat limits the options for road travel though. I just get the impression that what I was told was being (in modern parlance "economical with the truth". There's more to the eye than I was led to believe.....
Posted by: tonyk

Re: For speed aficianados - 24/04/11 05:37 PM

Lounge Lizard wrote
Quote:
So only 50 miles a day, which is averaging about two miles an hour, without most of the hills isn’t as great an achievement as is suggested and is little more than we might expect from our service personnel who are paid handsomely out of the taxpayer’s pocket to keep themselves fit. Many would envy having a job where you’re paid for doing the Coast To Coast in work’s time


I am quite sure you don't face roadside bombs during your daily postal round yet you get paid the same "handsome" salary as the average squaddie.The army deserve a bit extra as they take risks that most of us would find unacceptable.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 24/04/11 08:18 PM

...... oh dear ........ not another angle ..........
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 26/06/11 09:50 PM

Slogger ..... I met the girl who encountered this mysterious record holder today. I asked her if she could remember anything else about him ...... evidently he is an undertaker! This either identifies him or deepens the intrigue!
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 27/06/11 11:30 AM

Could be a case being in the presence of spirits far too often!?
Dave.
Posted by: slowcoach

Re: For speed aficianados - 27/06/11 06:23 PM

Spooky ...........
Posted by: Lounge Lizard

Re: For speed aficianados - 23/02/12 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: tonyk
Lounge Lizard wrote
Quote:
Lounge Lizard wrote
So only 50 miles a day, which is averaging about two miles an hour, without most of the hills isn’t as great an achievement as is suggested and is little more than we might expect from our service personnel who are paid handsomely out of the taxpayer’s pocket to keep themselves fit. Many would envy having a job where you’re paid for doing the Coast To Coast in work’s time


I am quite sure you don't face roadside bombs during your daily postal round yet you get paid the same "handsome" salary as the average squaddie. The army deserves a bit extra as they take risks that most of us would find unacceptable.

Anyone considering and then applying for whatever vocation should have the sense to properly consider all aspects of that work, including the risks, as well as all the rewards, and should have a good idea of how the pay compares to other opportunities.
As for 'the army deserves a bit extra' I would have thought from £17,265 to £28,939 to be quite a generous 'Range 1' salary for 'the average squaddie'.
Posted by: Slogger

Re: For speed aficianados - 23/02/12 08:54 AM

Wecome back LL.
Dave.
Posted by: lightweightmick

Re: For speed aficianados - 23/02/12 11:45 AM

Aye aye, 'weather must be warming up a bit then...