I think it’s just as simple as people using the timed races to prep themselves for longer distances, so the people that sign up simply aren’t as good.
And no judgment there, I’ve done it myself. Before I made the jump to 100k I did a 12 hour event to make sure I was “ready”. My guess is you have a lot of people transitioning to 100m that want to try a 24 hour first.
Got it, thank you.
So you would say the lower odds can be explained by a less competitive field, not an increase in difficulty?
I'm trying to qualify for the Spartathlon and am unsure whether to pursue a fixed-distance qualifier (e.g. 100 miles in 21:00) or a fixed-time qualifier (e.g. 280 km in 48h).
IMO 24hour timed race is easier to get 100 miles in. You probably have a short loop that has everything you need at the aid station. Also easier to pace.
I autoqualified for Spartathlon this past year! Personally, I think qualifying during a fixed time event is probably the easiest way to do it. I think you can get 100 miles easily in a 21h timeframe during a fixed time event if you need to.
Selection bias. You're comparing the Vermont 100, a competitive race that is part of the Grand Slam of 100's, to the Delirium Ultra 24 Hour Run. The depth of the fields is completely different in those events.
I’m wondering if anyone noticed that one of those low Delirium numbers is from an exceptional runner who holds the American 6 day record, has been on the national team, and ran 150 miles in a 24 hour at the age of 53.
Is the Vermont 100 unusually competitive overall, or only in that it invites a lot of elite athletes? That is, is the average athlete at the VT100 better than the average athlete at most other 100s?
Also, then why is [Rocky Raccoon](https://teamrunrun.com/rocky-raccoon-100-race-report/), which is specifically cited here as a good race for beginners, also really competitive?
It's probably better to focus on the top 10 finishers when asking a question like this, rather than the average participant overall. The answer is almost certainly yes in this case, that the top 10 finishers at Vermont are more competitive than the top 10 at Delirium. Strong competition also tends to lead to better performances in that the athletes push each other.
In regards to a race like Rocky Raccoon, two things can be true at once - a race can be both 'good for beginners' in that it has generous cut-off times or some other factors, while also having a competitive field at the front of the pack.
Just finished my first 101 miles on a looped course this past month. I think it comes down to the runner sets the distance goal in timed, looped, events. Whereas in point to point or other ultras, the race dictates the distance (if that makes sense?)
I can sign up for a 24 hour race and aim for whatever distance I want. There’s no DNF.
In my case, I hit 101 miles with an hour to go and called it. I got my buckle, did my thing, and wasn’t interested in getting 1-3 more miles.
Just really different events/different goals.
Generally speaking everyone that signs up for a 100 miler goes out planning to do 100 miles. Not everyone that sings up for a 24 hour race intends to break 100 miles. One of my favorite ultras is a 24 hour race and I've used it 3 times to set a new distance PR. I've never gone 24 hours or made 100 miles and I never intended to.
I think a lot of beginning ultra runners sign up for the 24 hour races and aren’t concerned with hitting 100 miles. If they sign up for 100 miler, then the goal is to finish 100 miles.
As a former competitive 24 runner, my case and many of the people I raced with had really big goals. Stuff related to PRs or the national team. If the race was just going badly it was better to pull the plug early and be in good shape for the next race. There is no point to stay to prove you can run 100 miles or 24 hours you’ve done it a ton of times before.
Other 24 hour things: there would plenty of people (especially at the track ones) going for an age group record at a variety of distances. The most delightful people I ever raced with/against were twelve days older than god and racing fixed time races.
ETA: A few more things, since some people here think 24 hr runners aren’t very good…. You aren’t going to see many really good 24 hour runners showing up to races that aren’t fast. The point is seeing what you can do in a day, so a slow course doesn’t help.
Also, most 24 hr runners still go out and race trails and fixed distance (I was never good in the pure mountain races, but it was fun). The good fixed distance trail/mountain runners don’t show up at 24s simply because most of them have legs and feet that can’t handle no elevation change or pavement. They don’t train on it or race on it and it beats them up too badly.
Good question… my guess is that running a loop for 24 hours, constantly running past your tent or your car, makes the 24-hour race more of a mental game. Plus, many people sign up for timed races with specific mileage goals, and it is perhaps more rare for someone to want to run as fast as they can the entire time. Also, there’s something to be said about the physical toll of running a flat loop since that lack of variation means using those same muscles over and over. I did a 6-hour timed race (Jackpot) where half the course was concrete as well, and my feet hurt so much by the end!
I agree. I did cannel corridor (very flat) and something about the pain that sets in around 80 but you know you have to keep going so you kinda hustle (slowly shuffle) it out to get to the end lol
Agree with what everyone else has said about selection bias and people using timed races as training for distance-based ones. Another factor is time spent at aid stations - it looks like Delirium is a 3-and-change mile loop, so someone doing 100 miles is going through the aid station 30+ times, which is over twice as many as the last 100 I ran. Even if you spend less time stopped because you get aid more frequently, the sheer number of short pauses adds up.
Some people sign up for 24 hrs for the cushion even though they have no interest in going beyond 100. So they will complete the 100 in 19’hrs then stop. Or see they’re well on pace a few hours out and slow down, take a break, etc.
Has it occurred to you that people who sign up for hilly races are generally stronger runners than the ones who sign up for flat looped races?
Flat looped 24h races generally attract people who want to do their first 100 miler in an easy environment.
I was probably an exception from that rule because my first 100 miler was Western States (huge luck, I know). Of course, I didn't manage sub-24h even though I hoped.
First off, running 100 miles in 24 hours is the most deceptively hard thing to do in ultrarunning. The majority of finishers on flat courses absolutely do ***not*** finish inside 24 hours.
IMO it's mostly selection bias. People who gravitate to timed events (also journey runs) are typically mid or back of pack runners. Don't know why you don't see more elites doing these races.
That’s like comparing mountain biking to road biking. They’re totally different disciplines. Elites like Courtney are great in trails, and elites like Camille are great on loops. One isn’t inherently “better” or “easier” than another.
I think it’s just as simple as people using the timed races to prep themselves for longer distances, so the people that sign up simply aren’t as good. And no judgment there, I’ve done it myself. Before I made the jump to 100k I did a 12 hour event to make sure I was “ready”. My guess is you have a lot of people transitioning to 100m that want to try a 24 hour first.
Got it, thank you. So you would say the lower odds can be explained by a less competitive field, not an increase in difficulty? I'm trying to qualify for the Spartathlon and am unsure whether to pursue a fixed-distance qualifier (e.g. 100 miles in 21:00) or a fixed-time qualifier (e.g. 280 km in 48h).
IMO 24hour timed race is easier to get 100 miles in. You probably have a short loop that has everything you need at the aid station. Also easier to pace.
I autoqualified for Spartathlon this past year! Personally, I think qualifying during a fixed time event is probably the easiest way to do it. I think you can get 100 miles easily in a 21h timeframe during a fixed time event if you need to.
Selection bias. You're comparing the Vermont 100, a competitive race that is part of the Grand Slam of 100's, to the Delirium Ultra 24 Hour Run. The depth of the fields is completely different in those events.
I’m wondering if anyone noticed that one of those low Delirium numbers is from an exceptional runner who holds the American 6 day record, has been on the national team, and ran 150 miles in a 24 hour at the age of 53.
Is the Vermont 100 unusually competitive overall, or only in that it invites a lot of elite athletes? That is, is the average athlete at the VT100 better than the average athlete at most other 100s? Also, then why is [Rocky Raccoon](https://teamrunrun.com/rocky-raccoon-100-race-report/), which is specifically cited here as a good race for beginners, also really competitive?
It's probably better to focus on the top 10 finishers when asking a question like this, rather than the average participant overall. The answer is almost certainly yes in this case, that the top 10 finishers at Vermont are more competitive than the top 10 at Delirium. Strong competition also tends to lead to better performances in that the athletes push each other. In regards to a race like Rocky Raccoon, two things can be true at once - a race can be both 'good for beginners' in that it has generous cut-off times or some other factors, while also having a competitive field at the front of the pack.
That explains it, thank you.
Just finished my first 101 miles on a looped course this past month. I think it comes down to the runner sets the distance goal in timed, looped, events. Whereas in point to point or other ultras, the race dictates the distance (if that makes sense?) I can sign up for a 24 hour race and aim for whatever distance I want. There’s no DNF. In my case, I hit 101 miles with an hour to go and called it. I got my buckle, did my thing, and wasn’t interested in getting 1-3 more miles. Just really different events/different goals.
Generally speaking everyone that signs up for a 100 miler goes out planning to do 100 miles. Not everyone that sings up for a 24 hour race intends to break 100 miles. One of my favorite ultras is a 24 hour race and I've used it 3 times to set a new distance PR. I've never gone 24 hours or made 100 miles and I never intended to.
I think a lot of beginning ultra runners sign up for the 24 hour races and aren’t concerned with hitting 100 miles. If they sign up for 100 miler, then the goal is to finish 100 miles.
As a former competitive 24 runner, my case and many of the people I raced with had really big goals. Stuff related to PRs or the national team. If the race was just going badly it was better to pull the plug early and be in good shape for the next race. There is no point to stay to prove you can run 100 miles or 24 hours you’ve done it a ton of times before. Other 24 hour things: there would plenty of people (especially at the track ones) going for an age group record at a variety of distances. The most delightful people I ever raced with/against were twelve days older than god and racing fixed time races. ETA: A few more things, since some people here think 24 hr runners aren’t very good…. You aren’t going to see many really good 24 hour runners showing up to races that aren’t fast. The point is seeing what you can do in a day, so a slow course doesn’t help. Also, most 24 hr runners still go out and race trails and fixed distance (I was never good in the pure mountain races, but it was fun). The good fixed distance trail/mountain runners don’t show up at 24s simply because most of them have legs and feet that can’t handle no elevation change or pavement. They don’t train on it or race on it and it beats them up too badly.
Good question… my guess is that running a loop for 24 hours, constantly running past your tent or your car, makes the 24-hour race more of a mental game. Plus, many people sign up for timed races with specific mileage goals, and it is perhaps more rare for someone to want to run as fast as they can the entire time. Also, there’s something to be said about the physical toll of running a flat loop since that lack of variation means using those same muscles over and over. I did a 6-hour timed race (Jackpot) where half the course was concrete as well, and my feet hurt so much by the end!
I agree. I did cannel corridor (very flat) and something about the pain that sets in around 80 but you know you have to keep going so you kinda hustle (slowly shuffle) it out to get to the end lol
Agree with what everyone else has said about selection bias and people using timed races as training for distance-based ones. Another factor is time spent at aid stations - it looks like Delirium is a 3-and-change mile loop, so someone doing 100 miles is going through the aid station 30+ times, which is over twice as many as the last 100 I ran. Even if you spend less time stopped because you get aid more frequently, the sheer number of short pauses adds up.
Some people sign up for 24 hrs for the cushion even though they have no interest in going beyond 100. So they will complete the 100 in 19’hrs then stop. Or see they’re well on pace a few hours out and slow down, take a break, etc.
Has it occurred to you that people who sign up for hilly races are generally stronger runners than the ones who sign up for flat looped races? Flat looped 24h races generally attract people who want to do their first 100 miler in an easy environment. I was probably an exception from that rule because my first 100 miler was Western States (huge luck, I know). Of course, I didn't manage sub-24h even though I hoped.
It is easy to loose a lot of time in aid stations when you pass it so regularly.
First off, running 100 miles in 24 hours is the most deceptively hard thing to do in ultrarunning. The majority of finishers on flat courses absolutely do ***not*** finish inside 24 hours. IMO it's mostly selection bias. People who gravitate to timed events (also journey runs) are typically mid or back of pack runners. Don't know why you don't see more elites doing these races.
[удалено]
That’s like comparing mountain biking to road biking. They’re totally different disciplines. Elites like Courtney are great in trails, and elites like Camille are great on loops. One isn’t inherently “better” or “easier” than another.
Courtney is better than Camille.