Tangents/Blueline Chicago Marathon

They do paint the line every year - some of it is visible year round if you're in the area. I wouldn't say the line is the exact distance of the course or the tangents, however. It's more of a guide that approximates tangents. If your goal is to run the minimum distance, stick to what you visually see as the tangent instead of the blue line.

I think you'll be better served by finding a small group going your pace and sitting with them, though, not worrying about adding a tiny bit of distance. I'm guessing this is your first marathon? Don't worry about small stuff like this.

I ran it last year and honestly never even noticed the blue line.

Obviously, running the tangents is almost always the best approach in a race, but there are so many long straights on the course that I don't think it is as big a deal here as it might otherwise be.

The suggestion to use visual spotting of the next turn is a good one in theory, but the turns are so far off that you usually won't see them the way that you might in a twisty race.

In short, I really wouldn't worry about it much given the course. I managed a top 100 finish without worrying about it at all.

Related question: I will also be starting in coral B. I put in 3:10 when I signed up but I am in better shape now (~3hr shape). The 3:00/3:05 pacers are in coral A. Is it possible to line up near the front of coral B and catch up to the pacers in the first few miles? Or will it be too crowded at the start??

I also thought about trying to line up at the front of corral b.. I am aiming for just under 3 hours.. I've ran a (10k) at the back of the first corral where I was basically stuck in a traffic jam.. I'm guessing this shouldn't be a huge deal over the marathon distance (especially trying for a conservative first few miles) but it would be a bummer to get stuck in traffic? Also wonder about the water stops?

I think you are right - within the first few miles you should be able to move upto find the pacer.

One bit of caution: If you are relying on a Garmin or similar watch to help you with pace, the first mile presents some real challenges because you don't get good reception because of some underpasses. I thought I was being conservative, and my Garmin supported that, but I got out wayyyyy too fast last year. I honestly thought that the first mile marker was at the wrong place or that the clock started late.

After the first mile, my watch was pretty locked in,.

Smoove wrote:

I think you are right - within the first few miles you should be able to move upto find the pacer.

One bit of caution: If you are relying on a Garmin or similar watch to help you with pace, the first mile presents some real challenges because you don't get good reception because of some underpasses. I thought I was being conservative, and my Garmin supported that, but I got out wayyyyy too fast last year. I honestly thought that the first mile marker was at the wrong place or that the clock started late.

After the first mile, my watch was pretty locked in,.

Stuff like this cracks me up. Do people believe that a race like the Chicago Marathon will have mile / KM markers at the wrong place? If there's interference then why not just wear your old Ironman watch and know that the splits are reliable? I know I wouldn't want to screw around and run too fast at the beginning of a marathon...

If you line up front once they take barriers out you can make your way up to pace groups that are in a.

Honestly, I knew on some level that the clock was in the right place and had started at the right time, but it was tough to reconcile a nearly 5:10 1st mile given that I was trying to run 5:40 pace.

The old-school watch would not have made a difference as I subjectively thought I was running at the appropriate pace. I was also running with someone who was shooting for the same time as me and also felt good to the 1st mile.

The part that I am embarrassed about, however, is that someone else had previously warned me that I would have trouble getting reception on my watch. I just thought that the fact that the watch was connected meant that he was getting accurate information to me. That was not the case. I thought it worth sharing that fact with others who are trying to achieve a specific pace.

the Garmin reception sucks anywhere in the vicinity of the skyscrapers downtown. I'd say don't rely on it and definitely turn off auto lap and take manual splits

the blue line does reflect the exact distance of the course. The course has way too many turns so, depending on how well you know the course, the blue line could be very helpful.

A LRC thread was started right after the Chicago Marathon last year on this topic and the garmans/interference, etc. Recommend checking there, too.

Smoove: Thanks for the tip. Sounds like it would be wise to do manual splits for the first few miles.

Reader: is this the thread you are refering to?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=6793873&id=6797018#6797018

It would suck to have GPS off by 2mi at the end...

BKMKE: Hopefully we won't get too traffic jammed... maybe see you at the front of coral B!

If the blue line represents the shortest distance, shouldn't it follow the tangents?

It was mostly the first mile. At about mile 16 or 17, I did a mania lap on my watch to bring it into synch with the mile markers. At that point, it was a :40 differential (my watch had me hit mile 17 :40 prior to hitting the marker). Most of that was in the first mile.

It does follow the tangents-

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/Shortest-Chicago-Marathon-Route-Follows-the-Dashed-Blue-Line--330297811.html

I've raced Chicago quite a few times and after trial and error discovered my best option was using two watches: used my stopwatch from the start and started my Garmin at the 3 mile mark one I was outside the high rises/tunnel. Overkill? Yes.

slo-twitch wrote:

the Garmin reception sucks anywhere in the vicinity of the skyscrapers downtown. I'd say don't rely on it and definitely turn off auto lap and take manual splits.