33 replies to this topic

[LastCardLouis]

Hi
Following is the text of a letter to "The Organiser" C2S. If anyone knows who he/she is, or anybody in charge there, I would appreciate it.

To The Organiser
City to Surf

Re:- Against Red/Green bib qualifying time reductions

Dear Organiser

I hear from my good friend Bob Sully, one of the C2S "Legends", that you plan to reduce the qualifying times for the red and green group starts. For some of us, this is an important and emotional issue. I write this, my strong objection, in the hope that after my 37 runs a real person, one with some authority not a computer, might read and respond to this.

You are being ageist and disloyal. Your most loyal supporters, those who have done 10, 20, 30 or more runs, are of course getting older and finding it ever harder to qualify. It was a major shock when the front group was split in two a few years ago. To further reduce the times discriminates against the older runners. See the postscript.

There are five ways to limit a scarce resource.
Pricing - the most efficient way, and the one I would suggest.
Rationing - That equates to the early closing strategy.
Licensing - That equates to the qualifying time strategy.
Queuing - That was the old way. First to arrive got prime position. Not recommended.
Lottery - Some do it that way. London marathon is an example. A possibility.

My own recommendations are either early closing, or pricing.

Early closing. Continue to do what you do now - close off a group once full. The keen runners, those for whom a red or green bib is important, will make the effort to enrol early.

Pricing - Surcharge or discount. Either way make it slightly more expensive to get a preferred start. I suggest $10 more for Red, $5 for Green. If it is a surcharge you can justify it by the extra cost of providing recognition to the first three in each age, gender, family, affiliation, team, etc. division. A special medal for them for example. If it were a discount, then you could say that it is compensation for being nice enough to make room for others. I think you would be surprised what a big difference a small price differential would make.

What about some democracy? Get the runners themselves to suggest and vote how you should control numbers.

Worst Possible Timing. Think of those who have trained hard over the last few months, and busted themselves in the race, only to find that the time they targeted to for a preferred start has been changed against them. If you really must change those times, then you need to give at least one years notice by announcing now something like "75 minutes this year (2011) will qualify you for a 2012 red-bib start. For 2013 and after you will need to be under 72minutes."

With timing tags, do you really need to split the first group? The red/green split was introduced before timing tags. Now that runners can hang back for a late start there is no longer such a crush to start at the front. (It would be even less of a crush if you only published tag times, not gun times as at present.)

Save yourself embarrassment and hassle. If entries were togo down in a few years time you would be under pressure to put the qualifying times back up. So today's decision would look silly.

Yours hopefully

Alex Rosser

P.S.
The WMA publishes age-grading factors. From those one can deduce that:-
A 50-year old man who runs a sub-75minute C2S is equivalent to sub-66m when young. For a 70yo it equates to sub-55m. To run sub-70m, is like a sub-62 for the 50yo, sub-52 for the 70yo.

It is tougher for women. Equivalent times are
50yo sub-75m = sub-67m; 70yo sub-75m = sub-50m
50yo sub-70m = sub-62m; 70yo sub-70m = sub-47m (close to C2S record)

The point being that it is pretty tough for older runners to qualify. Why make it tougher still?
  
Hear's hoping

Edited by LastCardLouis, 07 August 2011 - 09:30 PM.

[UnfitnessFanatic]

Why make it tougher?  Simple.

If you have a 70yo running that slowly they will get hurt by simply being in the way of faster runners behind.  It's about safety.  Unfortunately with the innability of people to SELF SEED an event needs to take precautionary steps to ensure the safety of people who don't understand this.

[CountryMuzz]

I would support the idea of 12 months notice on the qualifying times. My wife has been running for three years now, and ran her first C2S not long after she started. When lining up in the yellow pack, she looked at the red pack and was struck by the fact that, as a runner, you compete in the only sport where you can line up with elite athletes, and compete on the same track. With this in mind, she aspired to one day earn a spot in the red group.

So, with a yellow start, she ran 86min. So she earned a start in green. The following year, she trained hard, with a 75min goal. The training earned her a hip strain - and she could only achieve 78min, and limped for weeks after, and took about three months off. But, she realized she was getting closer - maybe next year. But the increased training, "next year" (being last year) brought a stress fracture - and no C2S.

So this year - recovery from the stress fracture, a careful build up, plenty of hard work, and I reckon she has a sub-75 in the bag. But 2 weeks before the race she finds out that the goal posts have moved.

I have no problem with qualifying times for groups, and actually disagree with the OP regarding different qualifying times for age or sex, and agree with the second post about seeding runners based on pace in order to improve safety and fun for all.

My point is that there are runners out there that have been working for a long time toward a goal (I am sure that Anna is just one of many stories out there) knowing full well that you have to run a certain pace to achieve on outcome for the following year. It would seem to make sense to tell everybody this year, that you will have to run a certain time next year, so that you can chase that time - and if you don't achieve it, then so be it. But to change the target without the time available to train and chase it is a bit rough, and somewhat demotivating.

I know that we are just mediocre runners out to have some fun - but we love our sport, and hope that the organizers can see that their run has inspired thousands of people to improve their health and fitness, and love the character of their race. Make the change that needs to be made - but don't rush it just because it is getting popular. Give it the time that it needs to keep the participants inspired.

[Pom]

Regarding the issue of it "de-motivating" runners, as they're going into the 2011 C2S knowing they are unlikely to qualify for the next group up, I disagree.  I ran my first C2S last year in 79 minutes, not even knowing about pre-qualifying for Red/Green groups.  It was only at the finish a friend mentioned I had missed out on the Red group by 4 minutes.  

I read that the organisers would accept times from other events to qualify, and this motivated me greatly at the start of this year, to find a race and finish under my goal time to qualify for the Red group.  I became very motivated in my running, and I got what I wanted.

It doesn't have to be all about running well on the day at the C2S. There are plenty of other events that can be used to qualify.

[HillsAths1]

I am surprised that the posters think that this is an event put on by runners for runners.


It ceased to be a run for runners a number of years ago, it is now all about increasing entry fees, advertising and Newspaper sales.

When they started reducing the number of categories as the entries were going up, it should have been clear that there were going to be further issues.

Cant wait to see how the baggage is looked after this year.

[clanrunner]

CountryMuzz, on 08 August 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

I have no problem with qualifying times for groups, and actually disagree with the OP regarding different qualifying times for age or sex, and agree with the second post about seeding runners based on pace in order to improve safety and fun for all.

Ditto. Yes, it's harder for older people to qualify for these groups. But a 70yo running a 75min C2S, despite being arguably a greater achievement than a 25yo doing it in 60 minutes, still impedes the 25yo if starting ahead of them. I've not done the C2S for about 10 years now as I've lived overseas, but I remember back then (when it was just A Red, B Blue and Yellow/Back of the Pack) thinking that it'd be a good idea to split the A Red Group, with either 70 or 75 minutes as the cut-off. Why? Because the front of the A group were the runners who got there early and stood and waited, who tended to be over 90 minutes, and behind them were the runners who joined the group later because they were warming up beforehand, and they tended to be quicker. In some cases, 3 minutes per km or more quicker, a more than substantial pace difference. I remember starting somewhere in the middle of the A group (managed to weave my way up a bit before the start) and didn't start running freely at my desired pace until about 3-4km. Until then I had to wait for gaps in between the slower runners ahead of me. Maybe some of these runners were quite a bit older than me and with age considered were going better than I was. But they still impeded my run. If you're talking about qualifying times for guaranteed entry in a race that is hard to get into eg London Marathon, then fair enough to consider age. But having 3:45 marathoners start ahead of sub 3 hour marathoners isn't a great idea, something London Marathon didn't realise when I did it a few years ago.

As for qualifying times being made public knowledge a year in advance, an organiser might be able to say whether or not this is logistically feasible. As most C2S runners use previous C2S times rather than other race results to qualify, it helps the runner to know what they need for the following year.

[Paul Every]

LastCardLouis, on 07 August 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Pricing - Surcharge or discount. Either way make it slightly more expensive to get a preferred start. I suggest $10 more for Red, $5 for Green. If it is a surcharge you can justify it by the extra cost of providing recognition to the first three in each age, gender, family, affiliation, team, etc. division. A special medal for them for example. If it were a discount, then you could say that it is compensation for being nice enough to make room for others. I think you would be surprised what a big difference a small price differential would make.

Oh yes, suggest to the organisers another avenue to gouge some more dollars out of regular runners.  

And where do think that will lead? Preferred starts to those most willing to pay, rather than the fastest. Like that will really fascilitate a smooth start to the event.

It's been a while since I have run, but aren't age and team categories still recognised? Surely that recognition should be factored into the general cost of running any large event, not it be a case of "If faster runners want awards, you will have buy them."

As someone who has earned preferred starts when about 52 minutes was required, I don't understand the concept of training for a specific time to move up a group. Just train to run the best race that you can, you will then be allocated the appopriate group based your ability. Train, race and the start allocation will take care of itself.  

[Paul Every]

LastCardLouis, on 07 August 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

What about some democracy? Get the runners themselves to suggest and vote how you should control numbers.

Not a sound suggestion. The vast majority of City to Surfers known nothing about organising a local fun run, let alone staging an event as big as this.

I suspect that of many who would be inclined to vote, would do so based on what suits them the most. e.g. A mass of 75 minute runners would want to change a 70 minute delineation between groups based not on consdering what was the most effective demographic split to produce a smooth start, but rather whether they could move up a group next year.

If the organisers needed advice to work this out, they would be best to recruit 2 or 3 statistically minded runners who are familiar with the event.

Look how 6 Foot organises its waves with Hatless's analysis. Can you imagine that going nearly as well if decided by popular vote?

[Jimmy4990]

The City2Surf 2008 was my 1st FunRun. I was on a high for weeks even though my body was sore for a similar period of time. I was instantly hooked on fun running, I love the atmosphere, the company of like minded people, the excitment & the purpose it gives to my training. As a result The C2S holds a special place for me & I am very excited about next Sunday BUT one thing that I have learned in the last 3 yrs is that some of the smaller community based fun runs are much, much better. Better in just about every way. Some will now even give your online results same day instead of making you hang out or buy a paper. Prizes for kids, trophies for 3rd in Age Group, photo in the paper Age Group Win, Free T-Shirts, 5 minute baggage pick up, $25 dollar entry fee, hassle free entry transfer...the list goes on.  The "Big Atmosphere" & the big bragging rights that go with it are great but,............ What I am trying to say is, if the negatives of the event really irritate you, the negatives outweigh the positives DONT DO IT TO YOURSELF. Find another event to focus on. No event organiser at this level can afford to understand the individual. The C2S probably has more non runners than runners. It is an event. Not a foot race. On the Sunday following the C2S The Mittagaong Pre-School is holding it's annual fundraiser FunRun. My Wife and I also celebrate our birthday on that day. I TURN 40. Come & celebrate with us. You will have a blast. If you want a preferred start FORGET IT. You cant even buy one.

[flyingemu]

While I have slowly improved my times over recent years to be well in the middle of the red group, and this was a milestone, I still want to get faster for the sake of the challenge to myself. There will always be people you have to dodge and weave - that's part of the appeal - but running with people 30 secs/km faster or slower than yourself is totally different to trying to run a 4:00 first km but being caught behind a pack of people doing 6:30. The different start times will simply be a matter of dividing the field into managable numbers. Maybe there are so many people sub 75 now that there are significant sub 75 runners having to go into the next group. Better to have the 70-75 min runners in that group than 60-70 min runners who didn't enter quickly enough.

That said, I hope I can run another pb this year, and go under 65 for the first time - just in case they change the red group to sub 65 in 2013

[HillsAths1]

People will continue to enter this event as it is an Iconic event in running terms.

But as is clear from the results from the last few years, more and more of the runners in the 41 to 60 minute category are staying away. The total numbers have increased, but there is a drop in the quantity in the number in the sub 60 category, this is despite the group starts, seeding, preferred etc that are designed to give a quicker run to the finish line.

I know many people who are in the sub 60 category, but just could not be bothered and will be doing a training run somewhere else.

[langswm]

HillsAths1, on 08 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

I know many people who are in the sub 60 category, but just could not be bothered and will be doing a training run somewhere else.

...yep....I'm going skiing instead!

[clanrunner]

HillsAths1, on 08 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

But as is clear from the results from the last few years, more and more of the runners in the 41 to 60 minute category are staying away. The total numbers have increased, but there is a drop in the quantity in the number in the sub 60 category

The results from the past 2 years compared with results from 10 years ago show the times of the 500th placed runner and 1000th placed runner to be much the same (around 56 flat for 500th, and 59:xx for 1000th), suggesting little to no change to this category. The total numbers have increased by over 60% in this time though.

I loved the atmosphere of the C2S and the history of the event, you're right about it being iconic. I hope it doesn't follow the London Marathon and sell it's soul to charities.

[MiddleChild]

LastCardLouis, on 07 August 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

It would be even less of a crush if you only published tag times, not gun times as at present.)

To be honest, there is a lot of debate generated form this post, but this is the one point that I completely agree with!!!

[MiddleChild]

clanrunner, on 08 August 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:

The results from the past 2 years compared with results from 10 years ago show the times of the 500th placed runner and 1000th placed runner to be much the same...The total numbers have increased by over 60% in this time though.

And the average overall time for all entrants has increased by about 15 minutes. If you want to raise money it's not the pointy end to target. The elites and red bibbers are the inspiration for the B.O.T.P.

[renuka]

As UFF said, it makes no logical sense to put a slower person ahead of a faster one if you're interested in efficient traffic flow. I think the organisers are being generous enough in allowing girls a slower time - perhaps too generous, even if I benefit from this. Bridge to Brisbane has a time cut-off for starting zones that apply equally to both sexes. At the gold coast half I ran, for e.g., I was happy to let men in the preferred start get ahead of me once the barrier between the seeded/preferred zones was removed - I knew they'd likely be quicker anyway.

It's interesting to note that if you go back to earlier posts in the 'Preferred start' thread, once the preferred group had filled up, quite a few posters were suggesting tightening the qualifying times since they thought it was unfair to advertise a certain qualifying time and then not accommodate runners who made it. Now that the organisers have done this... (:

Some of the protests seem rather antithetical to racing - why hold back faster runners and progress rather than celebrate that more runners are running quicker and want to be part of a well-organised, safely executed run?

[Quinkin]

Last couple of years I had a target of qualifying as a preferred runner as an old codger. At 55:00 minutes I had a chance, now at 49 years of age, with 52:30 the qualifying it's highly unlikely, but I'll keep trying. In the 1980s the preferred was 52:00 minutes, and I was well under that. Now I am older and slower, but I love running as much, and lining up in the red group doesn't bother me much.

For me, City to Surf is more of a fun run, rather than a serious race. When I couldn't run for twenty years, this was the race I dreamt about running. So returning to the City to Surf each year signifies this running dream come true. It also takes me back to great memories when my parents were alive and they would come out to support me. 1984 is a great memory.

This is now my third as an old codger. That is what I am most interested now, making another City to Surf. Making up for all those lost races.

[Perseus]

MiddleChild, on 08 August 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

Quote

It would be even less of a crush if you only published tag times, not gun times as at present.)

To be honest, there is a lot of debate generated form this post, but this is the one point that I completely agree with!!!

How would you know who finished 1st, 10th, 100th? How would know who won an age category? C2S is a race, not a time trial.

[cattycatty]

CountryMuzz, on 08 August 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

I would support the idea of 12 months notice on the qualifying times.

Thanks to the original poster for taking the time to write to the organisers and also to start a debate on this.

I have to say I agree with CountryMuzz.  The green change time change this year is for me a bit crushing.  I still made green but now worry about next year.  Advanced warning would change my training if they squeeze the times again.

[0psi]

The times aren't there to make qualification difficult, they're there to ensure that those participating can have an enjoyable run and not be impeded by traffic. As such they are set by the organisers to reflect demand.

They aren't going to turn around and make the prefered start a sub 45min 'just to make it diffcult', close to 5000 people ran the 2010 C2S in under 70min so I think it's safe to say the demand is there.

If you want the qualifiying times to stay as they are perhaps a polite letter to the other participants asking them to run a little slower would be your best plan of attack

[superflake]

0psi, on 09 August 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

The times aren't there to make qualification difficult, they're there to ensure that those participating can have an enjoyable run and not be impeded by traffic. As such they are set by the organisers to reflect demand.

They aren't going to turn around and make the prefered start a sub 45min 'just to make it diffcult', close to 5000 people ran the 2010 C2S in under 70min so I think it's safe to say the demand is there.

If you want the qualifiying times to stay as they are perhaps a polite letter to the other participants asking them to run a little slower would be your best plan of attack

But lopping the preferred times from sub 55 males to sub 52 males, and from sub 60 females to sub 56 females will drop the preferred/seeded numbers for next year from 500 to 200. That is a big cut in %.

[Jimmy4990]

superflake, on 09 August 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

But lopping the preferred times from sub 55 males to sub 52 males, and from sub 60 females to sub 56 females will drop the preferred/seeded numbers for next year from 500 to 200. That is a big cut in %.

Who care's. You have a whole 4 days to get ready. You can do it superflake 3.43 pace might give you a second or two to spare.. Have you ever ran that fast before??? I have done 3.47, what's 4 sec's . If I can, you can & I can

[aDrain]

Am I being cynical to suggest that maybe one reason for cutting the qualifying time for red is so they'll have more space for people to buy (aka fundraise) their way into the red zone?

That is my worry this year, not that someone might run 1 min/km slower than me, but we'll be back to that situation where people are walking before the Kings Cross Tunnell

[Wedgetail]

I put this pos in another of the C2S threads but it may be more appropriate here.

I  did a 10K run in London earlier this year. It was run by the same group as London Marathon so they were used to big events.

Every entrant was asked to nominate an expected run time on the form. (The organizers didn't require these times to be verified but it would probably be a good idea for the faster groups.). When the bibs were issued there were the colour groups similar to C2S but within each colour group the bibs were marked A B C D etc based on expected finish times.

At the start there were clearly marked bays for each colour/ letter group. Worked well for them.

C2S organisers could allow a 6 week window for entry in which participants can give a verified time for previous C2S or other event. At the end of that entry window the fastest so many get preferred, the next so may get Red A, then Red B and so on. Depending on entry numbers the ranking may need to continue back into colour groups that are presently not ranked for time but this would be safer. This would avoid the current problem of red filling in a few days then having a bunch of potentially very fast runners at the front of green or blue.

The slower runners, late entries or those with unconfirmed times could still be asked to give estimated times to allow ranking all the way to the back of the back.

The current system of' first in' is a legacy of when bib allocation was done manually. For a big race such as C2S where bibs are computer allocated a better system should be easy.

[Paul Every]

A queston for those running around 75 minutes and aiming to move into the red group.

Is there much difference or advantage between starting at the back of a faster red group as opposed to starting at the front of the slower green group? For those on the cusp, from which group are they likely to run a better time?

I would assume the red would give you a relatively slow start with intitial congestion. I'm guessing the green would give a faster start but you would be running through clusters of red bibs further down the road.  

Is the attainment of a red bib about prestige of "moving up" or are you likely to have a faster run from the red group?

[Jimboy]

It is a FUN RUN after all is said and done,with one fine objective,among others,of raising huge amounts of money for worthy charities.If you want fast times find another race.
Who gives a stuff what time we do.
Apart from the first fifty or so the rest of us are mugs having a go,just enjoy it and forget the ego.

[HillsAths1]

Paul Every, on 09 August 2011 - 12:43 PM, said:

A queston for those running around 75 minutes and aiming to move into the red group.

Is there much difference or advantage between starting at the back of a faster red group as opposed to starting at the front of the slower green group? For those on the cusp, from which group are they likely to run a better time?

I would assume the red would give you a relatively slow start with intitial congestion. I'm guessing the green would give a faster start but you would be running through clusters of red bibs further down the road.  

Is the attainment of a red bib about prestige of "moving up" or are you likely to have a faster run from the red group?

Paul at least two of my athletes who are reasonably quick ran from the green group last year, it did take them a long time to get through the back markers of the red group. In addition if you are running with others who are of a similar pace then you are more likely to be pulled along in a pack, than if you are the one who is continually doing the chasing.

I would suggest that as a quicker runner that you would be better off to start in a quicker group than to start in a slower group and try and get through the previous group. There is also the point that if you did start in the next group back, there is no guarantee that you would be at the front of the group you could be next to Spongebob and the rest of his pals at the back?

[aDrain]

Starting at the back of the reds means you don't have to get there as early

[halfwaydown]

aDrain, on 09 August 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

Am I being cynical to suggest that maybe one reason for cutting the qualifying time for red is so they'll have more space for people to buy (aka fundraise) their way into the red zone?

The following is some number crunching based on last years results:
82,134 entrants : 67,939 participants + 14,000 dns (17%)
Red Bib spaces were 8000
There were Sub 75min = 6,313 : assuming 17% DNS = a projection of 7,633 sub 75min had everyone shown up.  ie sub 75min was about right qualifying time to accommodate 8,000 runners.

There are 500 gold charity spaces - they are currently not yet filled.
Each minute taken off ie sub74, sub73 etc is equivalent to freeing up 500 places that could be taken by gold charity spaces.

My view is that they will review the amount of gold charity places they can seriously expect to fill, my guess is that would be 1,000. My hope would be they then round the red qualifying time down no more than neccessary to maintain a projected 8,000 red bib spaces. My money is on next year's qualifiying time to be sub73min for red or if they are being conservative sub72min.

I haven't looked at green - my head hurts even thinking about it.

(if you ignore gold charity spaces, then 'crudely' cutting sub75min down to sub70min would be equivalent to making space for an additional 2,000 red bib qualifiers = an average 120,000 entries compared to last year - 50% increase)

Qualifier: I am not a statatician. (If I were, I could spell it correctly)

Edited by halfwaydown, 09 August 2011 - 02:25 PM.

[Lynde]

Well if they do reduce the times you will see only 30 women amongst 215 men in the seeded/preferred group. Doesn't quite seem fair does it!

[Rabbits]

Jimboy, on 09 August 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

It is a FUN RUN after all is said and done,with one fine objective,among others,of raising huge amounts of money for worthy charities.If you want fast times find another race.
Who gives a stuff what time we do.
Apart from the first fifty or so the rest of us are mugs having a go,just enjoy it and forget the ego.

Exactly!!! It's a fun run that caters for 80,000 people to have a great day and a few beers at Bondi, seems pretty good to me. They do a pretty decent job of getting everyone there safely from what I can tell. If you can't make a particular start group on time, then that means you shouldn't be in that group. Run from where you need to and do your best. If you don't want to stand around in the cold at the start or battle the crowds, which I can completely understand, then focus your training on energy on one of the countless other events around town.

People really should appreciate that the main start of the C2S is not a safe place to be if you're not capable of running like a madman for a couple of hundred metres. I'm sure any decisions about preferred qualifying times for men and women are made with safety rather than 'fairness' in mind. Even when I once had the privilege of running as a seeded runner I felt quite anxious with the mass of humanity looming behind me and wouldn't like to see anyone, male or female, with a sub 60 in mind risk their welfare by starting right at the front.

Summary: HAVE FUN, it's the world's best FUN RUN.

[CountryMuzz]

0psi, on 09 August 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

close to 5000 people ran the 2010 C2S in under 70min so I think it's safe to say the demand is there.

But there are 8000 places in the red group. So what is the plan? Make the red group smaller? Sell 3,000 places to people who want to pay extra? Or possibly try to encourage people to run in another SMH event as a qualifier (so get two entry fees) by allowing people in on a relatively soft 10k time. I am guessing it is not so much about the "safety and enjoyment of all runners" - especially given that selling gold passes to the red group just puts a bunch of slower runners at the front (which is exactly what has been suggested they are trying to avoid for safety reasons). It seems to be more about the $$$ - but then, would any of us be surprised by that!!

Edited by CountryMuzz, 09 August 2011 - 07:29 PM.

[Davinator]

CountryMuzz, on 09 August 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

But there are 8000 places in the red group. So what is the plan? Make the red group smaller? Sell 3,000 places to people who want to pay extra? ...It seems to be more about the $$$ - but then, would any of us be surprised by that!!

I was told by C2S it was more like 17 000 runners squeezing into the 8000 spots. Presumably this is people with a qualifying time from 2009 and 2010 (5000 places posted by another).

I'm currently a sub 60 runner, have run a sub 52 and a number of sub 55s. This will be my 18th run since 1990.
Normally wait until early bird about to close- have never had a problem getting into red since early bird introduced.
If knew it would be a rush this year (updates, anyone?)wouldn't have delayed trying to enquire about teams.
Got nowhere with them. Loyalty, schmoyalty.
Did hold then in the vice-like grip of my unshakeable logic for awhile (5 years organising versus a highly motivated runner of the event since over 20 years ago). So maybe I was only Fairfaxed in a points decision.

I like Wedgetail's idea of allocating the bibs based on qualifying time after eg 6 weeks from time paid.
However, perhaps some people would be miffed if they ran sub 75 oops 70min, paid and entered, only to find they are in the green start.

Not really sure what the solution is concerning the older runners with great WMA/ age adjusted times.
Start in red but on the left?
C2S tells me I'm going to have a smooth start in Green. Maybe consider going on chip time for age categories from a certain age.
A bit harder to race particular people than in club or even ANSW events.

Hopefully the 10min gap means the numbers have thinned a bit and do get a clear run.

BTW Will be interesting to see how the request not to get into start area more than 30 min pre run goes.
Goes a bit against tradition and human behaviour.
The last baggage trucks leave at 730am. A bit of a wait for Blue (830) Westpac Yellow (905) and Orange Back of Pack(930)

The "ego" comments are interesting.
The posters have invested a lot of time and energy towards their goal.
The entry fee of $60 means it's not, for me anyway, a spur of the moment decision to enter.
"Just a fun run" or is it a business?
Isn't telling others what to think, rather than presenting logical arguments, egotistic behaviour?

I wish everyone a great day!

[moondog]

After having run many c2s, and despite only just being outside preferred start times for years, i believe this is brilliantly organised for such a mass participation event.

from the back half of red group, only lining up for 10-20mins before the start, i was able to run at a decent pace 20m after the starting mats.  all up, ran my own race, never felt like i was in serious danger of tripping up compared to years gone by with self seeding etc despite 70,000+ ducking and darting around me in the wet, and was able to get my bag at the end within 30secs (went straight there from the drinks area).

considering finish at bondi, socialising and beers a plenty, this is a fantastic community event for a city as large as sydney.  bring on 2012.

ps. if you find pb running in the c2s frustrating, then wait an hour in line at the start and you'll be right. otherwise enjoy the day for what it is.