27.2 marathon. Idiots measure course wrong

Awwwww. Struck a nerve huh?

chub wrote:2. I don't hear a lot of racers complaining when they know the course is short. In fact, many justify why it was tough and a PR anyway. Yes, I know many of us are exceptions, but we all know these people I speak of.

1337hax0r wrote:

I heard he came through 26.2 in 2:11, but was totally spent.

hilarious

london calling wrote:

People will snap if a course was short. With a long course, at least you know your time was legitimate on some level. You ran a marathon in there somewhere. You didn't stop short at 41.8 km.

Are you English {london calling}? It could be a cultural difference. There are many hard core racers here in the U.S. that would snap if the course was short, and rightfully so. However, there are just as many, including decent racers that would find a reason why it "balances out" and still call it accurate. Say a course is short or a point-to-point downhill and watch all the rationalizations that come flooding in why it is still legit. If that is not the case for the English, then you have that much more respect from me.

Furthermore, I'd say 4 in 5 uncertified courses are short. This is a telling stat since only about 25% or less of all courses are certified.

scotth wrote:

Furthermore, I'd say 4 in 5 uncertified courses are short. This is a telling stat since only about 25% or less of all courses are certified.

Scott, What is done in the uncertified measuring of courses that makes 4 of 5 short? What am potentially doing wrong when I use a calibrated measuring wheel? I am not disagreeing with you at all, just curious.

chub wrote:

Scott, What is done in the uncertified measuring of courses that makes 4 of 5 short? What am potentially doing wrong when I use a calibrated measuring wheel? I am not disagreeing with you at all, just curious.

I measured a course once that the guy had carefully walked, with his wheel, twice. Followed the center line the whole way. Off by over 200 meters. The reason? Didn't do the tangents.

Also, walking the course and following the tangents are a LOT harder than it seems. Walkers tent to zig-zag a bit, where a bike's speed will keep you straighter. Every zig-zag makes the course a little shorter.

People often measure using uncalibrated bike computers, which get you close, but combined with the fact they don't use a short course prevention factor makes them shorter.

People don't certify because they don't want to hassle with paperwork and a map. It's the paperwork and a map that catches errors. Without a map the course is often put in a different place each year, normally that makes it shorter, but occationally long courses come from it too.

Per uncertified courses: they are measured lots of different ways including some I don't want to know about (car, bike computer, GPS, etc). Whether using a calibrated or uncalibrated measuring wheel (from a reputable comp), the main problem is following the shortest possible route. I've watched how people push those things (and I'd probably do the same thing) and they wander from a straight line. Over the course of a mile, you lose distance, how much varies on the line taken. Also, those things bounce which affects things in both directions...adding and subtracting distance.

I suppose w/practice, a lot of practice, somebody using a measuring wheel could get quite accurate. Using a Jones counter-mounted bike is so much quicker, accurate and safe! All you need is a calibration course and the counter, a calculator, pen and paper and you'll be done in less than half the time it takes to push a wheel. The accuracy and safety aspects can't be stressed enough.

A measuring wheel is better than a car (the way most uncertified courses are measured), but it is

A. extremely difficult (as well as tiring) to wheel a course without having it wobble, thus measure long and making the course short.

B. Know that the wheel is exactly the distance (1m, 3ft, whatever) it is supposed to be. Unless you calibrate it on a steel-taped course, or at least a track, you won't know - you'd be surprised how much some of these wheels can be off, and multiply that by thousands of revolutions - well, you get the picture.

Also, even assuming everything is accurate and your wheeling technique is good, many (I'd say most) people have no concept of measuring the shortest possible course - i.e. cutting the tangents (which is fairly easy to grasp) or the rule of measuring 30 cm off the curb. When I've had new measurers accompany me on a ride, their first comment is invariably, "wow, I didn't realize how close you had to ride."

It's not limited to the average runner, either - I've seen many elites fail to follow the SPR in big races.

JimG wrote:

It's not limited to the average runner, either - I've seen many elites fail to follow the SPR in big races.

'Many' elites Jim ... ha-ha, c'mon, you mean 'every' elite fails to follow the SPR. They're too busy being busy up front to think about shaving distance.

Neat to see 3 of us jumping all over this topic!

Thanks guys! After reading your instructions, I feel confident I do as good a job as possible with a wheel. I walk incredibly slow to minimize bouncing & stay within 18-24" of the curb. Most of the courses I wheel were once certified and I try to double check that nothing has inadvertantly changed. One more question. What is a "calibration course" that Scott mentioned as needed. Is that simply a course map with specifics of how it was measured? Thanks for everyone's input.

How were the miles marked on the course? Was there a point where everyone ran two miles but the markers only indicated one mile? If so where was this, early, middle or late? Just curious...

chub wrote:

One more question. What is a "calibration course" that Scott mentioned as needed. Is that simply a course map with specifics of how it was measured? Thanks for everyone's input.

A calibration course is a straight course, 300m minimum, that is laid out by measuring with a steel tape or laser transit so that its distance is known very accurately. Both ends are marked permanently, and before and after every measurement ride you ride your bike over the cal course 4 times, noting the counts for each ride. You average those counts, divide by the length of the cal course to get your constant/m, then multiply by 1.001 for a Short Course Prevention Factor. This is the figure you use when measuring the race course.

It's all detailed in the Course Measurement Handbook, which is available online (both htm and downloadable PDF versions) at

CO-Runner wrote:

... but now all of the runners get to call themselves "Ultra Runners" ;-)

Always look on the bright side of life.

This is all over the radio now here in Chicago. There's going to be a story about it on ABC news at 5pm today 6/3/05. Chicagoland has some of the best organized and highest quality races anywhere in the world. This race makes us look like rubes! Thanks Mark!

For the record, CARA MTP is a group run program, that allows individuals to CHOOSE their pace to train at. I trained for my 1st marathon with them and ran a 3:26 (female). Not to shabby for a "don't run too fast" program!

Informer should become informed on CARA and their programs, and realize that CARA offers the athlete to choose their own limits. Informer's comment is more a testament of running for the masses -many runners do not realize their potential. It is a shame that marathoners strive for 10:00 pace, but there are 100's of CARA members that are pushing for Boston Qualifiers and competitive starts. Come on the trail at 6:00 Saturday or Sundays and you could see that.

I'm curious, were you in the half marathon group last week running 4 across on the path, then cutting across the path without looking to a water fountain? Did you instruct them on this particular technique?

Yes, there are groups in CARA that end up NOT following instructions and running 4 wide (2 wide is repeatedly mentioned) and not paying attention, BUT there are many more that DO.

Don't fault the organization for assembling runners, fault the oblivious runners themselves!