In short: pity about the weather In full: first time on the fells will never forget it. Everybody was fantastic from the girls on the refreshments to the marshals,will be back next year. Date of review: May 30, 2005
In short: Good race and PB for me. Challenging hill! In full: Enjoyed this one very much and managed a PB. Good atmosphere and well marshalled throughout. Great small race. A challenging hill run twice, as it's a two lap course! Date of review: May 30, 2005
In short: Again I used the start time on the entry form In full: If I hadn't have been on holiday with plenty of alcohol the week previous then a definate PB cousre, but I struggled misrably. Will try again next year. Date of review: May 30, 2005
In short: Nice Day Out In full: Nice Day Out, the stairs section was killing. nice T-shirts available (a pity you had to pay another £7.00, not most other races they are free if you complete the race such as the Muddy Woody). Race was nice and challenging with stair section (yet not as tough as the Beacon race in Malvern), other than that no major climb. A word of warning run close to front in the first section, as I heard some people get delayed 45 seconds or longer on the first set of gates.
In short: big field, hectic start., great crowds, fun night. In full: enjoyable race and great local support. It took us an hour to get to helensburgh in the car from the west side of glasgow though, so just arrived in time for start but no time to collect t-shirt. As most people seem to travel from Glasgow, may be Clydebank could be the first series race. Will get the train next time! Date of review: May 30, 2005
In short: Undulating but good practice for other races In full: The bridge what more do I have to say, most of the marshalls were excellent but at the end i was very disappointed, I would have welcomed some encouragement but they were in a group too busy chatting. Date of review: May 30, 2005
In short: A well organised and friendly race In full: My only gripe is that bridge just before 1k that causes a bottle neck for the slower runners every year. Why can't the route be reversed so that we're all strung out by the time we reach it? Date of review: May 30, 2005
In short: very hard in places also easy in others In full: an excellent challenge very rewarding didnt do it in as slow time as i though i would have. t shirt could have been better.very enjoyable. Date of review: May 29, 2005
In short: A run around Barking Park & the town-centre. In full: The course changed slightly this year, didn't make much difference though. The police were excellent at stopping traffic (you cross quite a few roads, however the 'organisers' and Police Community Support Officer's were less helpful. The occassional water station turned out to be one at the end of the race (though that had run out of water when I got there having finished in 52 min). There were not that many people taking part, maybe they should drop the 4km run that also takes place as newcomers may be tempted to do that rather than twice the distance (there's also a 2km fun run). As Barking Park is part of the run and an obvious spectator point why was the boating lake and associated refreshment point closed? My family were looking forward to a bite to eat and buying some nuts for the squirrels! Overall I feel this event has not moved on, if anything it has dropped back. Date of review: May 29, 2005
In short: A lovely day - although the hills were quite a challenge! Would do it again! In full: This was my first 10k. So difficult to compare with any others. But there will be others, so that must be a good sign!
In short: Well organised without any fuss. Plenty of water stops and sponge stations. In full: Brilliant cartoon map of the course. That would make an excellent T shirt. Village hall and playing field made an excellent finishing area. I took the start time details from my entry form and not the Runners World Web site.
From a personal point of view I prefer an early start especially on hotter days.
Many thanks to all the very friendly marshals and water station staff. Date of review: May 29, 2005