Slow runners should pay more for races

Right, meanwhile you ignored the following:

Impact on Logistics: Race organizers must plan for the presence of runners on the course for an extended duration. This includes deploying personnel for longer shifts, providing additional supplies, and managing logistics for a more extended period. These additional logistical requirements incur extra costs, which could be distributed based on the duration of usage.

Fairness in Cost Allocation: Charging based on pace ensures that those who utilize more resources and infrastructure contribute proportionally to the overall costs of organizing the event. It's akin to paying for utilities based on usage—those who consume more pay more.
Incentive for Improvement: Implementing a pricing structure based on pace could serve as an incentive for runners to improve their performance. Knowing that they will incur higher costs for participating at a slower pace may motivate individuals to train harder and enhance their abilities, ultimately benefiting both themselves and the event as a whole.

Still waiting.

Well, those are certainly a lot of words in record time. You should be proud of yourself, both of you!

Fat people should pay more for their airline ticket.

The faster runners hit the roads with more force whereas the slow ones are walking most of the time, ergo road repairs should be paid by the faster runners.

Also, the fastest runners mean that aid stations further into the course need to be staffed much earlier. If everyone ran a 5 hour marathon, the 20 mile aid station staff could stay in bed a bit longer. The same argument applies to road closures, they could wait longer to close the roads further into the race as noone would reach them for hours if the pesky fast runners weren't running so fast. This inconvenience of early closures should be paid for by the faster runners.

Etc. etc.

It's typically the slower runners who bring family, spend more money and stay longer after a race.

I agree with really slow ones who drag on the race for hours more from even back of the packers add scales to the race budget. For instance, NYRR needs many of them to do 9+1 as possible. It's a very profitable enterprise for the officers of the club.

All the slow runners pay the same amount to race. Fast runners do not pay to race at all, instead being paid to race. Those in between usually get comped entry and just pay for travel.

That's the right answer.

This good stuff . I can get behind this .

If you are fast enough they do.. run fast enough and most your races get comped. Sounds like you are the one who is the slower runner

i hope you have a well-paying job, because your life is about to get real expensive.

All the big city races I do have pretty tight time cut-offs which effectively act in the same way. You can choose to finish your race if you fail to make the check point by the stated time but you will do so without road closures, without aid, without an official time and the race won't be liable after that time point. I can't recall any specifics but the last marathon I did had something like 5-6 hours as the cut-off with this projected backwards on the aid stations after half or so.

As long as the runners are informed of this before signing up and agree to it, no real complaint. If you know you risk not making the cut-off, pick a race that accommodates your abilities. Assigning penalties according to some expected vs actual finish time seems like an administrative issue and doesn't really address the problems you're talking about. If you say "roads up open a XX:XX, volunteers also leave at XX:XX" that solves the problem.

It's strange to me that someone would brag about not knowing who wins a race that they are participating in. Are you a fan of the sport? Why would you read this website?

To the OP and those that agree with him. That is an example of letsrun “elitism” right there. A bunch of runners who think they are fast, but in reality are nowhere near the true elite.
Oh to see their faces if the OP’s plan came to fruition, only for them to be told that they needed to pay more because they were so far behind the winner who was a fourth string Kenyan, that no one had ever heard of.

Get over yourselves. You think that you are somehow superior humans, just because you are slightly above average at your hobby…that no one, other than you and a few friends care about.

Without the slower runners, your “hobby” would be a “fringe” activity at best. So it might be mindful of you to give them a bit more respect, and actually appreciate the fact that their participation actually keeps the costs DOWN for everyone. Can you imagine the race entry fees if they had to close the roads, and set up for only a handful of runners, because stupid ideas like this had driven everyone else away?

In the big scheme of things you are slow as well....

I see a couple of problems with the logic. Depending on the size of the race, awards can be significant part of the cost. Those are won by the faster people. Though not to as great an extent, roads must be closed down earlier for faster people - meaning, if you have a marathon and you have a few guys going 2:20 and everyone else is 3:00 or slower, that's earlier you have to shut down the road at 20 miles, right?

For larger races, the actual difference in cost is pretty small when you spread it out over thousands of runners. I like the idea of people paying for what they use. Like, I wish health care costs were based on your health and your habits. It would encourage people to live a healthier lifestyle, but the practicality of measuring makes it logistically untenable. I think the same applies here.

Eat P00P r3tard

This thread has been done before and that OP was resoundly mocked as well.

I'm not the one who bragged, but I freely admit that I don't know or care who wins a race I'm participating in. Am I a fan of the sport? No I am not. I am a participant in the sport. I read this website because it is lets RUN dot com, not lets WATCH PEOPLE RUN dot com.