Spine Race - Some Stats (2012-2025) - Updated following 2025 race.

This is an update to a post I originally published in 2023 and annually since.

Over the years there have been a number of stats published about the Spine races, usually focusing on finish percentages etc.  I decided to take a look and see whether I could do something different with the data.  I've focused purely on the Winter Spine Race and none of the other races in the series.

Some headline stats:

• 29 countries are represented in the finish results (increase of 1 as a result of 2025 event).
• There are 686 recorded finishes by 535 people
• Only 24 people have gone sub 100 hours (exc. 2015) - 8 of which occurred in 2025.  (There were actually 11 sub 100 hour finishers this year, but 3 had recorded a faster time in previous editions).

I've attached the spreadsheet I put together.  To explain it in a bit more detail take Jasmin Paris (row 7):

• She was the 230th recorded finisher
• The 185th individual to have ever finished the Spine
• The 6th fastest recorded time (includes people who have multiple finish times)
• The 6th fastest individual performance (i.e. it removes people who have finished more than once), but includes 2015 (which is discarded for record purposes)
• The 4th fastest ever individual performance (when discarding 2015).

Any surname highlighted in Green means it is a multiple finisher, and is their fastest performance.  Any name in Yellow is a multiple finisher, but not their fastest performance.  Anything highlighted in Orange means there is a faster time recorded, but this is their fastest time when excluding 2015.

Access to spreadsheet here:

Spine Stats 2012-2025

Some more general stats:

Q1 - means time of the 25th percent finisher, Q2 means 50th percentile (I.e. average), and Q3 means time of the 75th percent finisher.

The analysis shows that the event by and large is getting quicker and quicker compared to the long term average.  This is probably down to two factors :a) the event attracting a greater calibre of competitor, and b) there is a greater understanding of what it takes to finish the event compared to earlier years.

In terms of 2025 it was a bit of an odd one.  At the front end the top 25% of finishers were 8 hours 38 minutes quicker than last year.  However the average finisher was 2 hours 12 minutes slower and the 75th percent finisher was 5 hours 33 minutes slower.  Although obviously the first day was tricky due to the snow it clearly didn't affect the front end, but perhaps it had a greater long term affect on the rest of the field, perhaps demonstrated by the number of drop outs at Hebden Bridge?

Next question is the difference in Male and Female results since 2013:

A change to the average since last year when the typical female performance was slightly slower than males.  With the inclusion of 2025 data, the top quarter female performance is now almost 6 hours quicker.  The average time is 34 minutes quicker but broadly similar, whilst the 75% result is just over an hour slower than males.  There has been a theory that the longer the ultramarathon, there becomes a tipping point where female physiology is more advantageous.  There is definitely a hint of this here, but we need to be cautious as there are relatively few female finishers (75 compared to 613 male) so the averages can be skewed by having fewer numbers.  There is also a question about whether the distribution of ability is similar to males to make a meaningful comparison valid - perhaps some females may be put off from entering for various reasons.

Next up is the relative distribution of performances by year.  The dotted line below is the average distribution of times (excluding 2015).  I am not showing the lines for pre-2020 just to keep the graph uncluttered, although are included when calculating the average.  What is clear though is that on the whole performances have generally improved considerably since the early years which makes sense as more people enter, attracting of elite athletes, better understanding of strategy etc.

In most years the lines tend be consistently slower or faster compared to the long term average.  This year is an exception.  At the front end of the field it demonstrates the 2025 times were substantively quicker than any other year on record.  The mid-pack of the 2025 field were similar to 2024 and 2022.  The times for the bottom third of the field were much slower, being below the overall average and only slightly better than 2020.

Finally, a bit of fun analysis.  I took a look at whether there is any difference in performance between GB / IRL against the Rest of the World:

Contrary to what I was expecting (GBR & IRL performances to be better due to knowledge of conditions), the exact opposite is true regardless of whether you are a front end or back end finisher.  This may in part be explained by differing completion rates.  Whilst I haven't looked at all years, I did calculate the finish rate for 2024.  GB / IRL finish rate was 58%, whilst for the Rest of the World it was 45%.  The conclusion therefore is that GB / IRL competitors are more likely to finish,  but RoW athletes are more likely to finish faster.  However, 2025 data disproves by earlier theory with 52% of Rest of World finishing compared to 48% for GB / IRL.

Last year I said the following: What I think this means is that GB / IRL are more likely to finish by having a better understanding of conditions in the UK, but those from the Rest of the World may be of a slightly better calibre, perhaps attracting more serious ultra runners who have undertaken a variety of events prior to entering the Spine Race?  In contrast the UK contingent have a wider range of experience, and for many of whom the primary goal is simply to finish?  Having now seen the 2025 data I believe it still supports my theory that the race perhaps attracts more serious international ultra runners, compared to a lot of the UK contingent whose primary goal is to just finish.

Retirements

I have stayed away from looking at finish rates each year as there has been plenty of analysis in this regard undertaken by others.  What I haven't seen is an analysis on where retirements happen?  All things being equal, you would expect more retirements in the second or third quarter of the race as fatigue hits, accumulated injuries, getting timed out etc. all becomes a risk.  I would then perhaps expect fewer retirements in the last parts of the race as the finish line is almost in sight.

The graph below suggest a different picture...

The above does not mean all the retirements necessarily happened at Hebden Bridge, but that either people were successful in reaching the checkpoint and retired there or continued but were unsuccessful in reaching the following timing point.

What is clear though is that there is a significantly higher attrition rate in the earlier phases of the race - if you are going to retire there is a 40% chance that either people retire at or before CP1 or were unsuccessful in reaching Malham.  If you include checkpoint 2 at Hawes 66% of all retirements happen by then.  Or looking at it another way, 66% of retirements happen in the first 108 miles, but only 34% of retirements happen in the following 156 miles.  Statistically, once past Hawes the overwhelming odds is that you reach the finish.  Again, to reaffirm the graph does not mean that 40% of people will retire between the Start and CP1, but it does mean that if a retirement does happen, then there is a 40% chance it will happen at that location.

In terms of 2024, the analysis shows that it was more or less an average year in terms of the locations of where the retirements occurred.  There was a slightly higher percentage of drop outs at Torside, but offset by slightly lower numbers than usual at Hebden Bridge.  After that there are differences here and there but nothing that I would deem significant.  It is interesting to note the weather that hit a number of competitors between CP3 and CP4 didn't have any material effect on the location of drop outs.  Perhaps putting a hold on the race whilst the worst of the weather passed negated any potential impact it would have had.

2025

Clearly 2025 was complete carnage on Day 1 with the tricky conditions underfoot taking its toll on the field.  About 61% of the drop outs occurred either on the way to Hebden, at Hebden or failed to reach the following timing point at Malham.  After Hebden the proportion of dropouts at Hawes was similar to the long term average.  After this, relatively few people dropped out compared to previous years, perhaps demonstrating that conditions improved as the event progressed.  The data once again reaffirms that if you can somehow get beyond Hebden, the overwhelming odds are that you will finish.  Only 16% of non-finishers happened after Hawes this year.

Caveats:

Whilst I tried to sanitise the data and remove obvious errors in the published results, there are bound to be one or two issues.  For instance one common name I've kept as separate people in different years results, as I can't say for certain they are one and the same person.  Also there are quite a few people who clearly finished at the same time, but have been given slightly different times by a few seconds.  Anything within a minute I tended to group together, but there are bound to be errors.  However, it is going to be there or thereabouts.