Discussion: One-Man Relay

I have seen references to a "one-man relay" in an orienteering context - can anyone explain to me what this is, how it works? I presume it is different from a normal relay with the same person running all three legs.
Thanks

Yes it is much like a regular relay, except that the runner exchanges maps each time he passes through a central point. There may be 2, 3 or more different loops visiting different control points each loop. Often this is a mass start event, but competitors do the loops in different orders to break up following (although the final loop is often identical for a head-to-head finish).

Within one-man relays, two formats called motala and farsta are used. Motala is simpler to set up, where competitors run the loops in different orders, but within each loop have the same sequence of controls. Farsta is more complex, with additional forking within each loop. At the end of the race you have run all the same legs as everyone else, but not necessarily in the same order.

Here is a detailed description of farsta and motala events

I beleive there also was an earlier attackpoint thread on this topic which someone might be able to link...

Relays...
http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me...

Thanks, I had actually read that thread (which is about how to set a high quality orienteering relay). But unless I am mistaken it does not answer my question - what is a *one-man* relay?

mikeminium's explanation is really useful (thank you), however I still can't figure out why there is a need for a special name for it. The term appears in OCAD 9 Course Setting and (I think) in PurplePen. From course-setting point-of-view a relay is just a series of legs with runners mass starting or starting sequentially, and each leg has a mandated sequence of controls. The control sequence could be anything, for example gaffling, farsta or motola, but it is just a sequence of controls. So why does OCAD distinguish between normal and one-man?

I'll ask the question a different way: mikeminnum said "Yes it is much like a regular relay, except that the runner exchanges maps each time he passes through a central point.". If that was three people running in sequence as opposed to one person changing maps twice, then would it be a "normal" relay or a "one-man" relay"?

I would expect that the name is distinguished to make imports of course data more compatible with other software such as for electronic punching (you want to know if one person is running 3 legs with one SI card as opposed to 3 different runners, each with their own card). There may be other reasons as well.

In a "normal" relay, the 3 or 4 or more runners on a team do their courses in sequence. In theory, they could all do identical courses, but usually the courses are different.

Apart from the obvious, here are two important differences between a normal relay & a one-man relay:

1. There is only one start and finish for a one-man relay.
2. The results will be handled and published differently.

Am I correct in thinking that a one-man relay is the same a Butterfly?

Martin

Martin, I think a butterfly could be described as a mini-relay inside a standard course.

Athlete A runs 1-2-3-4-5-3-6-7-3-8.
Athlete B runs 1-2-3-6-7-3-4-5-3-8.

All identical legs with presumably less following and more separation, although control 3 will have high traffic and needs 6 interesting routes to and from it.

A simple one-man relay would be 1-2-3-4-1-5-6-7-1.

In southern Ontario, we call it O-Cross. (Just to add more names to the mix.)

I suppose you could think of the Motala-style event as a big Butterfly where the start/finish is the central control.

And here's the biggest butterfly. :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N-lLFhD7bxE/S8OpOiRco7I/...

Another important difference is that while all the legs on a regular relay are similar, often sharing controls, in a one-man relay the courses should go to very different places with limited control sharing. The conflict you have to address is:

1/ Runners shouldn't have to face the same navigational challenge three times over.
2/ If you mass-start, you don't want three packs forming, one on each loop, with results depending on which group goes fastest.

Probably what Mike calls "farsta" is best for mass-start, "motala" for interval starts. (I've always called it Hagaby)

How much information does an athlete need to know about the race's structure?

So why does OCAD distinguish between normal and one-man?

My guess is that if it is a normal relay, control numbering starts anew at each leg, whereas for one-man's version the numbering is through.

Nev is bang on with this. I'd rather not tell athletes what they are getting (what system of forking) and if there is even forking at all. The unknown makes it more interesting. Is it is or isn't it forked and what system do they use. Heck, do they even need to know how many loops they are going to get? Its all about the head-to-head racing and first across the line.

"How much information does an athlete need to know about the race's structure?"
None. But the guy who is designing the course needs to know a lot about it…

I think Tundra/Desert has got it - in a normal relay the control numbering starts from 1 for each leg. In a one-man relay the control numbering continues from where the previous leg left off. However I can't prove this yet, I need to spend some time playing with OCAD 10CS.

Heck, do they even need to know how many loops they are going to get?

Well... maybe. The athletes at least need to know what the race distance is in order to properly pace themselves. And since not everybody can correctly assess how much distance they've covered, knowing how many loops there are allows them to know, at the end of each loop, whether they are to be using up whatever energy they have left for a final sprint, or if they should expect to have to pick up another map and head out again. Having that be a mystery doesn't sound like a really great idea. It's bad enough that you can't anticipate what the remaining loop will be like in terms of climb, technical complexity, etc. You shouldn't have to be in the dark as to whether there even is a next loop.

If you are using electronic punching, whoever sets up the event on the computer may need to know the details in advance as well. All too often, I've been told about an unusual race structure at the last minute. The course planners need to confirm with the epunch crew that the software can handle unusual formats.

Would that give someone an advantage in the race over someone who doesn't know the number of loops?

In general yes. But may I tell you about a series of park races in which surprise is part of the challenge. In view of busy lives of orienteers, climate change, and most of all limited volunteer resources we're trying to develop "close to home" orienteering. How can we use the same urban parks over and over again? Answer, surprise elements in the courses.

The basic format is a two-loop butterfly with the central control in full view of the start. Allows 4 starters at once (we accept running both ways round the loops.) Onto that basic structure we add extra "loops" which might involve eg leaving out any two controls, controls in any order, maze with dummy controls, etc etc. After a dozen years new ideas still keep coming. Competitive orienteers keep coming too.

(terminology used in this message: a relay course has more than one lap and each lap has many legs. A lap might have one or more loops).

I asked OCAD why there are two types of course in OCAD-CS, "Relay" and "One-man Relay". They replied that the only difference is that in a one-man relay the length shown in the control descriptions is the total for the entire course, not just the current lap.

In either format the numbers do not continue from where they left off from the previous lap, they always restart.

So if I am planning a normal relay with multi-person teams and course length shown per course I would select "one-man relay". If I am planning a motola/farsta/vännäs/hagaby relay with single person teams and course length shown per lap then I would select "relay".

(vännäs: I haven't a clue what it means, I found a reference to it on the OS2003 website).

Some orienteering countries use the term "one-man relay" to describe a single-person relay with motola/farsta/vännäs/hagaby laps, but this is different to the OCAD meaning. Neither meaning is wrong, it's just confusing. But I'm happy now; I understand what one-man relay means - at last I can get a good night's sleep...

Vannas is described in an IOF manual on relays as ''part course exchange - the principle of this method is the same as that of the Motala method. By the splitting of all of the courses into two parts, a much greater number of course combinations is possible". For a three person relay, you have 6 courses, A, B, C and X, Y, Z, so each runner has one of the combinations AX, BY etc, and overall the team runs an A, B, C and an X, Y, Z.

An excellent relay method.