Is CIM the Vaporfly 4% of Marathons?

thexx wrote:

Using actual data wrote:

Strava's grade-adjusted pace puts CIM at about 10-25 seconds slower than a perfectly flat course based on the data from people who ran this year. That seems like the most objective way to evaluate this that I have seen so far.

This sounds reasonable, but I'm new to Strava -- where can I find this info?

10-25 seconds slower per mile, or overall?

I think the poster means "overall". I can't find the info on the Strava app; I have to use the Strava website on my laptop, and then look at something called "GAP", which gives the equivalent mile pace for each mile if you removed the elevation changes in that particular mile.

I did look at the GAP data for my CIM run and it was very close to the post above- about 45 sec slower than flat course (I am old and over 3 hours). It was a very similar result to what you obtain if you put the elevation changes into a calculator that shows the effect of the total elevation loss and gain on any course.

I think this thread will go on forever, because some people are committed to having the last word on this being a "ski slope" (whether for marketing, or jealousy). But notice this: the people saying it is ridiculously aided and fast don't offer any precise information, just anecdotes- and they never acknowledge that amount of gain matters. They just say things like, "everybody knows that having the hills in the first half is a big advantage", as if it is a proven scientific fact. Whereas, the people saying it is a fair course, despite the "net loss" (which is true), offer evidence and calculator links (runworks.com calculator, Strava references, or even the guy who showed the men's winner ran a bit slower than projected based on his half marathon on a FLAT course and good weather in early November) and solid data-based explanations (80% great weather, minimal loss due to turns and curves).

No doubt there will be someone after this post who says, "oh come on, everybody knows it is aided at about 4%, you know it and I know it, it is obvious". Maybe it is the same small number of person(s)- whatever. I think we have to give up on converting the non-data driven people. Let them live with great confidence in their "gut impressions".

His posts are clearly an attempt to drum up business for his coaching business.

ThonQuestion1 wrote:

Is CIM the Vaporfly 4% of Marathons

No. I used 4% for 5 races and set 7 PRs - each was a PR for the whole distance, 10K en route in a half and half en route to a full.

Ran CIM 2 times, 2015 and 2016 and neither was a PR. In 2016 I came 13 minutes slower than my PR of that time!

thexx wrote:

Using actual data wrote:

Strava's grade-adjusted pace puts CIM at about 10-25 seconds slower than a perfectly flat course based on the data from people who ran this year. That seems like the most objective way to evaluate this that I have seen so far.

This sounds reasonable, but I'm new to Strava -- where can I find this info?

10-25 seconds slower per mile, or overall?

As someone else mentioned, this is only available in the online version of Strava and not in the app. So if you access on a computer or in Safari then you'll see it. I've actually told Strava that I think that this is the biggest gap (no pun intended) in the app and that they should add this info to the phone view as well.

And that means 10-25 seconds slower overall (obviously not per mile...). It will vary a bit depending on who you look at. Someone running slower will be penalized more, but even looking at two 2:19:xx runners I got 14 and 23 seconds, so expanded a bit to give the 10-25 second range.

I really like the GAP on strava. It helps evaluate courses like this and even helps with planning your pacing. It's probably not perfect so someone can poke holes in it if they know more about it than I do, but it's at least close.

Sorry naive out-of-towner,

There is virtually no chance of a tailwind here as prevailing storms are always from the WEST. The 1987 CIM was run in horrible heavy rain with recorded 75 mph HEADWINDS on the ground and 125 mph aloft!

I have run NYC, Boston, Chicago, London, and Berlin and IMHO BERLIN is THE super fast and "record quality" course it deserves to be.

CIM is really a "crap shoot" in terms of a "fast course" as about 20% of the time there is a storm front and a HEADWIND. Yes, when the conditions are neutral, like 2017 and 2018, it is a good PR course, but as noted, it is NOT FLAT and it is ROLLING. There is also a little uphill at around 21-22 miles for the bridge over the American River.

CIM this year was SUPER FAST for everybody behind the two top finisher males as there were PACKS OF RUNNERS from place 3 on back who stayed together for almost ALL THE RACE! Here are some depth stats:

265 Women broke 3 hours

662 Men were under 3 hours

139 women were under 2:50 (NYC Marathon, 18 American)

433 total (men + women) under 2:45

61 men broke 2:20 (NYC Marathon, 8 American)

50th place woman was well under 2:43 !

This was THE BEST SHOWING of American men in terms of depth of field under 2:20 since about the 1984 Boston Marathon and it is absolutely THE BEST SHOWING overall depth of field for American Women (50th place time) perhaps EVER!

George 2:41 wrote:

This was THE BEST SHOWING of American men in terms of depth of field under 2:20 since about the 1984 Boston Marathon and it is absolutely THE BEST SHOWING overall depth of field for American Women (50th place time) perhaps EVER!

alright George, get out of here with your DATA and FACTS. nobody wants to hear it!

It's not the VF 4%, but it's the Flyknit Racer. Quite fast and most reliable.

And Tyler McCandless just ran where his legit PR lies, just under 2:15 and not mid-2:12.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BvaBWAJhMOe/

Sorry folks, your cheat code aided times from CIM don't hold up to make you real contenders against those who are too fast to ever run CIM. Mark it, no 2020 Olympian will have a PR from CIM.

don't h8

If CIM is the Vaporfly 4% of Marathons, than the Revel races could be the Vaporfly JetPacks. CIM doesn't have anything on any of the REVEL nine marathon, which average 4758ft elevation loss.

California International Marathon:

366ft to 26ft (340ft elevation loss)

REVEL Rockies:

https://www.runrevel.com/rdv

10510ft to 5802ft (4708 ft elevation loss)

Revel has no prize purse to speak of and will never host a US Championship. It's slobs desperate for a BQ or PR who flock to this über-aided course. Nobody really cares about someone's cheap mark scored there.