Briones Brown Course, 4.4 km, 250m
BAOC USA
Below are a few comments based on my run on the Brown course. While there was a lot of discussion about the climb, I think the Brown was fine in terms overall effort and as indicated in the advance stats. A great course showing a lot of work and concern by Penny and Harold DeMoss. As always their organization excellent, in my humble, abject and always non-committal opinion. While I might have done things a little differently in some cases, I don’t claim any special insight as all of my comments are based on the well established principals, rules and guidelines of the sport. The difficulty comes in the application.
It’s easy to second guess, perhaps not aware of the reasoning of the course-setter and vetters or the lack of alternatives in all situations. Likewise it is possible that some of the usual no-no’s such as dog legs and flag visibility issues, could have little effect on either challenge or fariness under some conditions. However, citing the standards might raise awareness of their existance and perhaps be of use to future course-setters and vetters.
Start location: Remote start, great idea for steep/familiar terrain.
Alternatives: Something farther south and higher might have given Brown runners a look at something different and with less climb.
Start setup: Well designed with instructions and canopy. Maps in cases. Departure routes by prior runners open to view. (USOF Rules of Competition, 31.2) This can cost a good orienteer 15 or more seconds depending on starting order or if not observant.
Control 1: Fast downhill leg. Good for planning ahead and settling in. White level and loses all the elevation of the remote start. Flag well placed out of view on the approach.
Control 2: More running and planning. Yellow level control. Flag visible from the far distance.
Control 3: Nice leg with contouring through woods to the control. I relied too much on contours ignoring distance. Thought the second to last re-entrant was deeper than mapped. Several boulder groups and not sure the control feature was significantly larger. (Map corrections might have been warranted.)
Control 4: Up and over. Brain drained and I veered right toward the wrong set of trees. Imagine my surprise when I crested the ridge.
Control 5: Except for the initial slog, nice running terrain into 5, an example of what can be nice O at Briones. As at 4, optimum route would be coming in from above and a dogleg situation. (USOF 23.1, IOF Appendix2, 3.5.4)
Control 6: Route choice on this one depending on how much climb you could stomach. My problem was no good attack point and came in to the left. Nice downhill forest running but navigation simplified by line feature. Description said “lower end of re-entrant.”
Alternative: Perhaps the top of the smaller re-entrant to the NW would be more technical.
Control 7: The only other significant route choice leg but neither very appetizing. I don’t mind a little climb but this was near my limit. Seeing Hannu on a slow plod up the straight choice, I opted for what the map indicates to be a conservative choice climb-wise but the super-steep side hill with loose footing made it difficult to stand let alone climb. (I neglected to map my half contour slide.) Though not unique at Briones, I think the north end of this ridge deserves a descriptive moniker, though the “Hillside of Death” is taken. Again, I’m not sure the control was a distinct point. (IOF Appendix 2, 3.5.6)
Alternatives: Keeping in mind that orienteering is a running sport (IOF Appendix 2, 3.11.6,) there might have been opportunity to reposition controls 5 and 6 to keep to the west side of the ridge for runabilty, reduced climb, enhanced navigation and perhaps a contouring choice to #7.
Control 8: A lot of running and not much route choice, sometimes a necessary evil. Unusual detailed area at the finish but fine map reading not needed as the flag was visible almost as soon as I entered the trees. A little disappointing after the long trail run (USOF3.5.3, IOF Appendix 2.) This small re-entrant was a good example of the re-entrant itself as a point feature.
Alternative: Lower flag placement. I noticed several flags hanging on branches above the stands. With a good map, description and well planned leg, there is no reason to raise the flag on an advanced course (IOF Appendix 2, 3.5.3.)
Control 9: Maybe my favorite leg, meter for meter. Nearly missed the flag as it was tucked under some foliage.
Control 10: There might have been a better point to increase the navigational challenge and avoid the dog leg
Control 11: Through some of the nicest terrain in Briones that could have provided an excellent contouring and navigational leg with a control somewhere on this hillside. But the only real challenge was maintaining elevation to stay above the saddle. Flag placement an excellent example for negative feature as the gully was visible on approach but the flag was visible only upon reaching the point. Well described.
Finish: Wow, a finish banner but I wonder why not at the assembly area with a spectator control.
SUMMARY
Great fun, great exercise, very tired. Dealing with the steep courses like this is a fact of life in the Bay Area where the 4% rule (IOF 3.11.6) is most often not realistic. Over the years it seems that at about 7% folks start to talk a little (which in the orienteering world means it’s serious.) Climb can be unpleasant in strong doses without a little contouring and navigation to go along with it. You don’t want to reach the point where the only mental challenge is maintaining the will to live. Besides climb control, some important subjects for course-setters to watch for: start setup, dog legs, route choice (IOF Appendix 2, 3.8.) and flag visibility. All easier said than done.
The fact that most of the Bay Area terrain is steep and relatively simple makes setting technically challenging and runnable advanced courses a very difficult job indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment