UKC

The write up says.....

The Hill Ultra is an EXTREME test of mental and physical strength.
Its simple, you have 48 hours to run 160 miles. This is 55 times up and down The Hill (part of Shining Tor), one of the highest hills in the peak district.
One up and down stretch of The Hill is exactly 2.9 miles.
The Hill Ultra has an elevation of +/- 6380m, which is like climbing to the summit of Everest from basecamp and back down, almost twice!

'The Hill has a gradual incline, chosen so that there is never a need to walk. It should be runable within the time limit, as long as you keep going, but the MENTAL aspect of facing The Hill again and again will be extreme and for the toughest only'

Even I'm not that daft!

In reply to Wonrek: that has to be the worst event ever conceived. It's tag line should be along the lines of "fancy trying something really tiring and boring, why not wear out a footpath". I might go and heckle.

In reply to andi turner:
>

Hear, hear! I'll join you...

In reply to Clauso:

+1


Sounds like torture.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: ultra runners are kinda into torture though. This race doesn't appeal to me simply because of the number of laps rather than distance or ascent.

Anyone who pushes themselves on long, long after every muscle, bone and fibre in the body has screamed to stop has issues and would make a great ultra runner

As for the race, I'll be interested to see who does enter it though....

In reply to Wonrek:
Friend of a friend has done a couple of deca-ironmen ...the run was on a tiny little loop of a mile or so. Id need sectioning after 200+ laps of that.

In reply to Wonrek: I'm tired just thinking about it.

In reply to andi turner: Anything which mentions the word extreme should automatically be avoided.....

In reply to IainRUK: I'm learning that one pretty quickly. The use of the word extreme should so frequently be suffixed with 'stupidity' 'negligence' 'recklessness' 'laziness' or my favourite, 'apathy'

I'm not suggesting that any of these are applicable in this race of course because I don't know this organiser but 55 times over the same hill does strike me as a bit stupid....

In reply to Wonrek:
>... but 55 times over the same hill does strike me as a bit stupid....

I think getting into discussion about 'stupid' is a slippery slope when talking about ultras. 1 weeks to go to my first one for two years.

Any way, the motor-racing world seems to cope with 10s of laps (and a lot less scenery) in a race.

In reply to Marek: you've not been up that path on shining tor then? There's more scenery in Stoke.

There's also no comparison to motor racing, I'm sure if you were racing at Le Mans you wouldn't really get chance to get bored or take in the scenery.

In reply to Wonrek: remember also that The Hill is almost completely paved with those big slabs you see on kinder etc. The are not kind on the legs. Before then it was very peat-boggy, but much (no NOT much) more interesting to run. Personally I never run up there nowadays, and seldom down either (there are more interesting ways up ST. 55 times - you CANNOT be serious!

In reply to andi turner:

Yep. Run over it once a week or so. Not 'beautiful', but better than most lowland/urban running.


Because the racing is the point. Much like this event, I guess.

In reply to Marek: I suspect there's one heck of a lot more adrenaline and none of the tedium in motor racing that you'll find in even the best ultras.

I spoke to a few ultra runners about this course and funnily enough even those that have been lured in by the likes of Caesers Camp and the Grim Reaper aren't interested in this....

I definitely want to see who is. And I'm running an ultra next weekend too, mines a point to point along the Cotswold Way. Not the most scenic I guess but pretty enough and not covering the same ground twice....

In reply to Marek: once a week is good, 55 times in two days is ridiculous. There's miles of amazing running around there, so why just the one path is more the point. Motor racing (in the endurance style) is limited to race tracks, running isn't. It's like running a marathon on a running track, you just wouldn't buy into it.

In reply to HB1:

Hmm, I assumed the run up 'The Hill' was the ridge from Errwood reservoir up to the subsidiary summit between ST and the Cat'n'Fiddle. The paved path doesn't really have much climb.

In reply to andi turner:
There are ultras which just go round and round short flat laps. This is not much different. I wouldn't do either - I see ultras as more of a 'day out' than just a physical/mental test - but there's plenty of people with different views.

In reply to Marek:

Physical/mental tests are all very well but this seems like an excercise in masochism. A bit like sewing your scotrum to the sofa except you won't do it sitting down.

Yes, the more I think about who would want to do that the more I think that you'd have to be a masochist.

In reply to andi turner: one reason for the laps is the number of marshals required is massively reduced. Also course safety covers a smaller amount of terrain so fewer medics, checkpoints etc. the whole logistics is massively reduced.

In reply to the other comment. I doubt it's anything like sewing your scrotum to the sofa but feel free to try both and report back to us

In reply to Marek: I hadn't thought about that. You may be right, but I've just measured the distance Pym Chair to ST and it's .......









.... 1.9K

In reply to HB1: . . . or 1.9M even

In reply to Wonrek:


I doubt that very much, assuming you're talking about the spectator. I'm not sure mankind has yet designed a more tedious spectacle than motor racing.

jcm