Chicago Distance Classic - Course long?

I didn't run it, but I also heard that it was long (anywhere from 13.3 - 13.4). Times were fairly slow compared to last year, and the weather this year was 10000000 times better.

The markers on the far south end of the course where we turned were off. 7 was short and 8 was long, but a couple more splits seemed weird too.

I heard a couple people claiming it was long after, but I thought it was more the fact that the wind made it seem a tougher second half. Maybe it was long, it wouldn't surprise me with all the little turns we made.

How could anyone prove this? Garmins don't count though.

Numerous people in my running club were wearing GPS units and they all said that the course was just under 13.5 miles. I wouldn't have paid much attention if one or two people made that claim, but when half a dozen all say it was longer and they are all within a tenth of a mile or so I begin to wonder. On top of that, as we were leaving I heard a handful of other runners make the same claim. There must have been something off as far as I can tell.

I ran the Chicago Distance Classic and overheard that the race director had measured the course from the quickest point instead of measuring from the middle of the street/path

Mile 7 was about .2-.25 long. That split was over a minute off from the rest. Everyone I talked to indicated the same, including a few of the top 10 guys that know how to run tangents.

Considering how gimmicky the cours and turnaround were, it's not surprising the Penguin screwed it up.

I agree, it had to have been long by at least 2 or 3 tenths. I was going out to trying to run 1:30, and went from 30 or 40 seconds ahead of pace at mile 5 to nearly a minute behind at mile 7 without feeling any change in pace, if anything I might have been going faster. While I don't ever claim a gps to be exact, it gave fairly even splits as compared to the inconsistent markers on the course. I ended up having a strong final few miles to come in at just over 1:29, but I felt like I ran well enough that I should have been closer to 1:27:30 or so, which is roughly what the gps had me at.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. That wind along the lakefront was brutal.

Yeah, I figured when my split was about a minute slow the next would be fast, didn't happen!

Haha me too. I waited the whole race for a fast split after the 7th mile and all I got was another slow one at ten.

I was certainly wondering...running ~5:38-5:48s for the first 6, make a quick detour to the restroom, and have my next split (7th mile) read 6:52! Glad I decided to go bandit rather than pay $75...

Was mile 10 slow, too? It was another relatively major outlier for me, but I couldn't tell if it was long or just the headwind and not having the pacing help from before I took my little stop.

Check out the course map from the website, specifically the turn-around point at about 6.5 miles. The map has the turn-around at the beginning of the beach, but I think they had the runners go to the end of the beach before turning. This means that the split taken was right where the 7 mile marker should have been.

Disappointed wrote:

Check out the course map from the website, specifically the turn-around point at about 6.5 miles. The map has the turn-around at the beginning of the beach, but I think they had the runners go to the end of the beach before turning. This means that the split taken was right where the 7 mile marker should have been.

I think you just nailed it. I thought it was kind of funny we had to make that hairpin turn on that slippery sandy corner.

The temperature was ideal, but the wind coming back after the turn around made it very tough. The splits were off various miles. I was hoping some miles would get fast, but they never did.

Finish to the race was much better.

My Polar is calibrated correctly, but yet the end result today said 13.95- I know I probably weaved a lot, but come on, not over a half miles worth. Also, my friend and I crossed together at the halfway point, but yet she was 40 seconds faster than me? I asked around after the race and mostly everyone agreed that between miles 9 and 10, it seemed way over that.

I think the results have been a little funky, too. When I checked the leaderboard earlier, Costello was not listed as the winner, but now he is in there.

Also, why would they use google maps to map the official distance? It can't be that hard to get someone to wheel the course, or at least bike it.

Agreed wrote:

Haha me too. I waited the whole race for a fast split after the 7th mile and all I got was another slow one at ten.

Ha! Same exact thing for me...I thought I was eating a serious sh!t burger on the tenth, and then back on pace again for the next one.

7 was about 1:00 long for me and the eventual winner recorded a 6:16 for mile 7 if that tells you anything. 10 was long as well. garmins were consistently reading over 13.4, and were long on miles 7 and 10, so that pretty much was the issue. kind of frustrating, but what can you do?

Gosh, this is disappointing! Has anyone else noticed that the times posted are gun times and not chip/net times?? It is for me, anyway! So much for that new timing system?