SiS Dunsfold 10KHere's how RW members rated this race in the past (169 votes). | The big picture (169 votes) | | Overall score | | 77% | | How many would do it again? | | 89% | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 61% | | PB potential | | 85% | | Atmosphere | | 62% | | Organisation | | 78% | | Value | | 63% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 74% |
|
|
2012 race reviewed by: Shelagh Lee
 | | Overall score | | 100% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 100% | | Organisation | | 100% | | Value | | 100% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: a great race, left me buzzing
In full: will definately do it again next year
Date of review: May 13, 2012
|
2011 race reviewed by: James Bell 12
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 100% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Good, flat, fast circuit - well, it would've been without that wind!
In full: A good circuit and ideally suited for running a PB (if it wasn't so windy). However, it was a bit dull although the goody bag helped. I'd do it again - and go for a fast time - but I wouldn't expect too much else.
Date of review: June 13, 2011
|
2011 race reviewed by: Striker JC
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 100% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Fast flat course, though so windy on the day that it wasn't as fast as it could have been. Nice goody bag. A good race for people looking to set a PB.
Date of review: June 12, 2011
|
2011 race reviewed by: Amy77
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 40% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Flat but so windy not really a race
In full: Would be a good course with no wind, but so exposed that with the 20mph wind it was very hard work and very slow.
Date of review: May 30, 2011
|
2011 race reviewed by: HRF
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Yes it is flat, but the wind ......
In full: Well organised, nice goody bag, but a bit bleak ,and it is very exposed
Date of review: May 30, 2011
|
2010 race reviewed by: Liliaicha
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 20% | | PB potential | | 100% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 60% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: I did this race purely to smash my PB - I did, job done!
Date of review: August 23, 2010
|
2010 race reviewed by: bill neely
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 20% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 20% | | Organisation | | 40% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Utterly charmless- the atmosphere of a nuclear test site.
In full: I tried this in April 2008 when the snow fell and the marshalls and organizers couldn't give a toss. One or two of the marshalls haven't changed their attitude ("that'll be five pounds please!" scowled one when I was stupid enough to lose my chip). 2;09 really need to send a few to charm school. The problem they can't solve is the course. Yes its flat.So is the atmosphere. It has NOTHING going for it. Don't believe the website when it boasts a great atmosphere etc. Its utterly charmless- think Soviet labour camp. Its good for a PB as long as the wind isn't up- then you're finished as there's no shelter. The famous chips all seemed to be 2 or 3 seconds out- even the front runners who crossed instantly have a discrepancy. No, sorry. Don't do this. 214 did- that's a pretty poor show for a 10K. There's a reason.
Date of review: August 23, 2010
|
2010 race reviewed by: Rickstie
| | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 40% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Fast but a bit dull
In full: Distinct lack of atmosphere given the vastness/bleakness of the course. Very spreadout and quiet on the second lap. Can't fault the technology present or the organisation though. Do it if you are feeling up for smashing your PB.
Date of review: August 23, 2010
|
2010 race reviewed by: Percy Veerance
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 100% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 100% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 80% |
In short: Well organised, but not inspiring
In full: I could not fault the organisation - good signposting to find event, excellent parking, enough loos, started on time, distance markers every 1K (and appeared accurate), chip timing, instant results near finish. The course is virtually flat and on tarmac so PB potential - but exposed to any wind there is.
But running round an airfield seemed stange, as was the start time of 6pm. If this was an experiment to get more participants it was not a great sucess - 214 finishers - and it felt a bit spread out on the second lap. Scenery not quite as bland as expected for an airfield, with trees etc ouside the perimeter, and a few within it - but hardly inspiring.
With more people it might have had more atmosphere, but difficult to get that in the wide open spaces of an airfield.
Date of review: August 23, 2010
|
2010 race reviewed by: chalkit
| | Overall score | | 80% | | Would you do it again? | | Yes | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 100% | | Atmosphere | | 60% | | Organisation | | 80% | | Value | | 80% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
Date of review: August 23, 2010
|
| |
denotes Subscriber-only content | 
