Here's your problem! wrote:
TrailRunner71 wrote:my wife picked me up near the turnaround.
Well maybe if she picked you up AT the turnaround instead of just near it, you would have been a little more accurate.
Did it cross your mind that the turnaround was not exactly accesible to cars?
I didn't see that question.
I don't know if the wheel was 100% accurate. It is used for all of my team's meets, and nobody has raised questions about the distances before. My measurement combined with the plethora of PRs leads me to believe it was short.
I have a friend that certifies courses, and he is willing to re-measure the race, so we'll see what happens.
TrailRunner71 wrote:
I don't know if the wheel was 100% accurate. It is used for all of my team's meets, and nobody has raised questions about the distances before. I have a friend that certifies courses, and he is willing to re-measure the race, so we'll see what happens.
You'd be smart to calibrate ANY measuring device before using. Just because somebody doesn't question a race distance doesn't mean it's accurate. The vast majority of courses aren't certified and they are likely short in 90% of the cases.
Have your certifier friend go over the course. By the way, what's the name of the race?
TrailRunner71 wrote:
Did it cross your mind that the turnaround was not exactly accesible to cars?
did you at least measure the whole thing.
TrailRunner71,
Ask your certifier friend if he has a calibration course near you. You could use that to see how accurate your wheel is.
I'm very impressed that you walked 13 miles with a measuring wheel, seriously. It sounds like you have both the time and the tolerance for tedium that are required to be a USATF course measurer. You should talk to your friend about it.
on a seperate issue:
what if you ran on a course that was USATF certified years ago, and seems to be innacurate now? I know you hate them but peoples GPS who ran the course had it all a quarter mile long and then I wheeled it and got it basically the same (390m). Wheels accurate as far as I know (measured 400m on the track to confirm-yes the correct distance out from the line).
I reported it to the race directors.
They insist since its USATF certified (years ago) it's accurate even though evidence (crazy last mile splits for example and the wheeling of the course) says otherwise.
Back to the question at hand...
If you ran a race that was not "as advertised" then you certainly can in good conscience ask for a refund. I have done so in the past when the course was not marked correctly. Sometimes I received a refund, sometimes not.
Was this course advertised as certified? Because if it wasn't I don't think it was off by enough to ask. Even if it was advertised as certified, I am not sure that you have convinced me that the course was wrong, but obviously you have convinced yourself. No harm in asking.
Here's what you do if you're so sure the course was short: contact the state certifier and provide your case evidence. Let him/her decide what to do about it. That scenario has been played out several times so far this year w/me as a state certifier. In the cases I've reviewed, GPS numbers were at work. Those were easy to resolve: GPS units aren't as accurate as the tools we use to measure courses. If a certified course was run as measured, there's no reason for me to think it was inaccurate.
idunno wrote:
on a seperate issue:
what if you ran on a course that was USATF certified years ago, and seems to be innacurate now?
Hopefully, the RRTC/USATF committee will come up w/a position statement soon regarding GPS units. There's a pile of anecdotal evidence to date that demonstrates the things are helpful but not as good a tool as a calibrated bike w/a Jones counter.
Garmen wrote:
Satellites baby. SAT TILL LIGHTS! It is all about the space technology. We rocket men more than a MILLION miles to the moon where they land, play golf and return with rocks, back a million miles all controlled by supercomputers on satellites. If they can do that, they can measure a marathon.
Awesome.
scotth wrote:
If a certified course was run as measured, there's no reason for me to think it was inaccurate.
idunno, this is the key. If the course is certified and seems to be 390m short or long, the most likely explanation is that the race is not being run on the course that was measured and certified. Look up the map on the USATF website. There will be details about where the start, finish, and any turn-arounds should be relative to permanent landmarks. Compare to where they actually were on race day.
http://www.usatf.org/events/courses/search/
A single GPS unit telling you a course is the wrong distance is not good evidence the race was inaccurate. Several GPS units all giving the same reading telling you a course is 390m wrong, is.
dukerdog wrote:
A single GPS unit telling you a course is the wrong distance is not good evidence the race was inaccurate. Several GPS units all giving the same reading telling you a course is 390m wrong, is.
several gps units giving the same reading doesn't imply anything about the course. precision is not the same as accuracy - who remembers the dart-board graphic with the multiple groups of darts from their high school physics book? what a classic moment in science education.
Some guy asks abot a refund (THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT) and instantly the measuring nerds come out of the woodwork.
1. No one asked the correct way to measure a course.
2. Because No one cares (accept dukerdog and scotth)
What were environmental conditions like? If the weather was perfect why not so many pr's--it happens sometimes. Did you PR?
how much did you pay, is it worth going out and walking the whole course
eee wrote:
several gps units giving the same reading doesn't imply anything about the course. precision is not the same as accuracy
For a GPS unit to be that far off, either it's not operating correctly or it's losing the satellite signal. Both tend to result in random, not systematic, error. So if several GPS units all tell you the course is 390m short, the course is probably short.
faulty logic wrote:
Some guy asks abot a refund (THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT) and instantly the measuring nerds come out of the woodwork.
1. No one asked the correct way to measure a course.
2. Because No one cares (accept dukerdog and scotth)
Friend, I see you supplied an answer to the question. Not. Geesh.
I replied as such because the original poster has not clearly demonstrated the course was short. Silly me. In any event, no, nobody gets a refund if a course is found short unless the organizers are feeling generous.
but if the course cuts through areas where there is a weak signal or no signal, then GPS measurements will always be off. having a bunch definitely helps, but only if you are sure that any errors are random.
well, which marathon?
It was the Northern Central Trail marathon in Maryland. Usually, a 3:00 (or faster) marathoner has done enough training to pretty much know his expected pace in ideal conditions. When you end up running 5-10 minutes faster than your expected pace, and you have several people doing that, something is suspicious.
I suspected so. A running buddy e-mailed me about the suspiciously quick times of many runners we know.