Holy hell the depth at CIM.

Anon wrote:

The course is not a joke. The first half really rolls. Not huge hills but consistent rolling. Weather was perfect today, which helped, no doubt.

For those debating the "speed" of the course. Look at Peter Bromka's result:

Peter Bromka

M 36Bib 231Portland, OR

64

64

5

5:29

min/mi

02:23:27

I will leave it to you to look up his previous, recent results.

I’d call a perfectly flat course a joke too but frankly you can’t call CIM rolling hills, period. It’s easier than Chicago. It’s easier than Grandma’s. Name an easier marathon course in the US.

CIM sillyness wrote:

better 3D example of the course profile so people understand why so many OTQ

https://i.imgur.com/jY15g8F.jpg

The key point here is the -0.2 overall gradient.

On this and the other profile charts shown in this thread, the vertical scale is an unstated, arbitrary fraction of the horizontal distance. You can make any chart look like a downhill ski hill if you exaggerate the vertical scale enough. You could make a marathon with a 10 ft total elevation drop look like a ski hill if you make the vertical scale 500 times the horizontal.

I took a minute to measure the vertical scale exaggeration on this other chart that was posted earlier, and the vertical scale is 50x the horizontal scale:

Almost ran Redwood wrote:

sloinnorcal wrote:

Yeah, it surprises me that the Humboldt Redwoods Marathon in October hasn't tried to recruit more 2:30-3:00 hour runners and faster. They have decent weather (predictable) as well as a neutral course profile. They barely get 300-500 for the marathon. That could be increased to 2000, maybe 3000 tops. Not huge, but with the dearth of good marathons, I'm just surprised.

Isn't a lot of Redwood on trails? That could be why.

No it's on the roads and it's a very good course. Problem is that it's fairly remote and the lodging options nearby are limited. A big race would overwhelm Garberville and Fortuna.

The Humboldt Redwoods Marathon has no trails. It's run along The Avenue of the Giants (a two lane road) shut off to traffic on race day. Flat and shaded. In '82 it was an out 'n back, but I heard they changed the course years ago to a double out 'n back like the Avenue of the Giants Marathon run in the spring. Humboldt is run in the fall. It's about a 6 hour drive North of San Francisco.

mebert wrote:

I live on the east coast. Serious question, how easy is it to fly into the Humboldt Redwoods Marathon? How close is the nearest major airport (SF, Sacramento, LAX, etc)?

It's not easy to get to which is why it's not a big race. The best option is to fly into sacramento, SF, or Oakland and drive 3.5 hrs north. But it's an incredible course if you don't like the big city feel. Almost the entire race is under big old redwood trees which makes for great weather since it's pretty protected.

Umm wrote:

You’ve never run this race wrote:

Obviously you’ve never run this race. The first mile is awesome. Then it’s rolling to 16 miles when it flattened out the rest of the way. It’s not any faster than any other race.

It’s not really an argument. Look at the elevation profile. The fact is this is a hugely downhill course and contains no major hills. It’s only “rolling” if your definition of rolling is 3x as downhill as uphill. This is a very, very fast marathon and if you took the field and ran it in NYC you’d see considerably slower times. I’m not sure who’d disagree with that.

No one is saying it's as tough as NYC, what's with all the comparisons to NYC?! Who cares about NYC? It's slow, costs way too much money, logistics suck along with New Yorkers and it's expensive (oh I already said that). But you fat ladies go ahead and run it and treasure your finisher medals and free NYC Marathon pens.

Houston is easier. As well as Chicago and LA.

This year's depth at CIM was not typical of the race. In 1983, the first year of the race, I ran 2:27:05 and was 37th. I ran the race about 10 times in the 2:27 - 2:40 range and always finished in the top 50, once as low as 18th. Today, the 2:27 would have placed in the 80s. Using this year's results to say that the course is unfairly fast would be like using the year when 2:05 was run at Boston to say that that course is unfairly fast.

Please look at the axis...

CIM drops all of only 300ft the graph scale is all wrong.

45 degrees and no wind is unicorn weather in a marathon. There is a couple of minutes right there compared to your average American race. More common in Europe.

I've run around 10 CIM's and 8 Bostons. Thirty marathons total. For many years i chased sub 2:30 along with a group of my friends who were also from Nor Cal. My usual go to races each year were Cal in the fall and then Boston in the spring but i ran some SF marathons and several others. Overall my times were pretty similar on the two courses depending on conditions. CIM has a net drop, but as mentioned previously the hills in the first 1/2 don't allow you to just float through them. Boston has 16 miles of mostly down, followed by 5 miles of some pretty tough and ill placed climbs. I had a number of friends who ran Chicago several times, as well as CIM and Boston. It seemed from my perspective that Chicago ran a bit quicker than CIM back then, if they had good weather to work with. With all of this said, I was out there this morning. Conditions were PERFECT. It was cloudy last night and rained in the very early am hours. By 5am the sky was clear but the usual freezing temps that come with the clear skies weren't there because it had been cloudy all night. The blacktop was dry by race time and temps were absolutely ideal. I drove the course with the women's lead vehicle and there appeared to be No wind whatsoever. Today was a perfect storm of sorts. Amazing fields due to US championships, a fast course, and ideal conditions. With fewer gaps between groups, everyone seemed to run faster than usual. I must also add that SRA does a fantastic job of hosting and I hope the championships come back to Sac down the road.

OK I've defended CIM many times.

It isn't downhill it barely drops 500ft over 26.2 miles and climbs 250.

Most of the major drop is the first mile. You basically are running a flat marathon after the first 2-3 miles. It might drop 250 ft in 23 miles and you still climb 250 ft in those 23 miles.

It isn't uphill but 5-10 feet per mile of down and up is pretty flat.

We're talking about 250 ft ......not 2500 like st George.

St George drops in 1 mile all of CIM. And still has 2000ft more.

I drop loads bigger than 250

Energetically, it takes twice as much drop to make up for a climb (just as you need more tailwind to cancel out the effects of a headwind). So Cal comes out essentially dead even. It was the conditions, stupid!

I think these sorts of courses affect people differently. I'm more of a rhythm runner and run best when I can lock in an effort and try to maintain it. Lots of tiny uphills and downhills would be a lot tougher for me, personally, than putting them all together in one big up/down.

I just wish I was there running today. Unicorn conditions on a stellar course.

I'd be just fine with a pr' from CIM. Cheaper than flying to Berlin.

I hope those guys sleep well tonight your pr's are totally legit with me.

I surely wouldn't have wanted you as my defense lawyer any of those times.

This is false.

The course drops about 340 feet from start to finish, and while it's true that the opening mile includes among the steepest of the descents, this accounts for maybe 60' to 70'.

From 20K on, it's just a nice, even, very gradual downhill ride into Sacramento, although that bridge near 21 miles is always a pain for some reason.

Yep, and St. George isn't nearly as fast as a 26.2-mile free fall from outer space! We can have fun with this game all day.

It's funny to watch people just embarrass themselves with this crap. "Oh, it was the weather, unicorn day!" "Come on, the uphills take a toll too!" "Sometimes it gets windy and chilly!" Where's oldguy when you need him?

Mirabile Dictu wrote:

Anyone who so much as even THINKS "Yeah but there are uphills at CIM too" should be thrown in prison for at least 25 years to life. What kind of sad, pitiful candy-ass would even go there? Would you like the option of an escalator or a hot-air balloon for those horrible horrible climbs?

Wow the California snowflakes are getting OWNED in this thread! Prison hyperbole aside, 340 ft drop is a HUGE descent vs a flat marathon, I don't even need a chart to determine that.

Rollers trollers. There's a reason why people say rollers instead of hills or mountains: because they're neither! The fact is that it's way easier than a flat course, and rollers are insignificant. If you're crying because of that you're probably the type to drop out if a bug flew into your face.