It's a competition, people. Let one boy race another, and may the best one win. September cross country times are irrelevant. Knowing that you can beat the guy to the finish line next time is more relevant.
?? There are 200 people in each race from all over the SW USA, and 95% of them don’t know each other. Unless they’re in the top 10, a fast time is very important to each runner.
Return next year and the course won't be exactly the same.
Ive had the exact opposite experience, laps on a track are basically always shorter on mine and my athletes watches. besides that this years course seems to have less turns than last years since they changed to the longer straight away mile one.
It's likely the algorithms in the watches have changed/improved since my watches (a couple Suuntos and a Garmin) that always read consistently long on a track. But you saying that you see "always shorter" shows that they still have an issue with accuracy and bias on curves. It's possible that the algorithms recognize certain radius curves as being on a 400m track, and are tweaked that way, but have different biases with tighter curves like all the 90-degree one on this course. Even if it has fewer turns than last year, it still has two or three dozen turns depending on how you count them. I wouldn't trust the accuracy of GPS on a curvy course with confidence of better than around 5%.
So then you are claiming that the GPS watches new algorithms have changed to make them less accurate?
If last years course was wheeled three miles and so was this years course and one measures 2.98 and this year 3.09 by GPS watch you are saying that the GPS watch industry is significantly less accurate than it was a year ago.
Preposterous!
Not to mention the plethora of data points we have of runners crossing the line significantly slower than expected (30+ seconds for elite runners and closer to 45 seconds for the average runner)
just compare times to any historic course this year and see.
It's likely the algorithms in the watches have changed/improved since my watches (a couple Suuntos and a Garmin) that always read consistently long on a track. But you saying that you see "always shorter" shows that they still have an issue with accuracy and bias on curves. It's possible that the algorithms recognize certain radius curves as being on a 400m track, and are tweaked that way, but have different biases with tighter curves like all the 90-degree one on this course. Even if it has fewer turns than last year, it still has two or three dozen turns depending on how you count them. I wouldn't trust the accuracy of GPS on a curvy course with confidence of better than around 5%.
So then you are claiming that the GPS watches new algorithms have changed to make them less accurate?
If last years course was wheeled three miles and so was this years course and one measures 2.98 and this year 3.09 by GPS watch you are saying that the GPS watch industry is significantly less accurate than it was a year ago.
Preposterous!
Not to mention the plethora of data points we have of runners crossing the line significantly slower than expected (30+ seconds for elite runners and closer to 45 seconds for the average runner)
just compare times to any historic course this year and see.
"If last years course was wheeled three miles"... That information was not in this thread until you added it now. I'm just going off of what is in this thread and on the website. We aren't working off the same information, and I don't know what is fact, I don't know if or your wheel is calibrated last year or this year, etc.
People don't replace GPS watches yearly, so I bet many of those watches are the same as last year. I didn't say anything about GPS watches being more or less accurate than last year. I'd think they are exactly the same as last year. If the GPS watches are reading longer on average than last year, that tells me that the course is probably longer than last year, but it doesn't tell me how long either of the courses is or was.
My GPS observations on curves were absolutely true for my watches. I acknowledged that newer watches than mine probably work differently from both the older watches and that the newer watches are also not all the same, with different chipsets and algorithms. Not sure why you are obsessed with exact distance. You or someone else already said the course isn't even the same as last year, so who cares about any difference? Why compare the times as if there would be only one "course record" if they are different courses?
Ha, I will take apologizes now for all the hate I got when I said this years course was different and slower. I had no idea what the wheel or GPS was going to be, but there are 20+ 90 degree turns and 3+ 180 sweepers.
That said, it is cross-country, who cares if it is 30 seconds slower or faster. It is placing that matters. If it is officially wheeled close to 3.1, then they should call it a 5k just like they change short 5k's to 3.0 in Milesplit.
FYI my experience with GPS watches and hiking switchbacks etc is watches cut off sharp corners in the distance and don't add. So if kids are getting 3.09 with watches it might just be even a little longer than that.
Ran the course with the team yesterday morning. We all got between 2.94-2.97. If unable to run tangents in a crowded race and with all those turns will be long of 3 miles. Front runners will run significantly less.
Ran the course with the team yesterday morning. We all got between 2.94-2.97. If unable to run tangents in a crowded race and with all those turns will be long of 3 miles. Front runners will run significantly less.
ok what is going on? You have people on here saying they average 3.1 on their watches...
Ran the course with the team yesterday morning. We all got between 2.94-2.97. If unable to run tangents in a crowded race and with all those turns will be long of 3 miles. Front runners will run significantly less.
The course this year is definitely slower than last year by 45 seconds. It probably was long I just look at the place my runners got from last years race and that’s how I compare if they improved. Saturday will be a good indicator of how much slower the course is unless they change it overnight lol
definitely not 45 second difference, probably closer to 20 second difference.
Let's say the course is 3.09 this year, and it was 3.00 last year. For the 5 minute pace, that's 27 sec more. For the 6 minute pace, that's 32 sec more. For the 7 minute pace, that's 38 sec more.
I ran the course as a course run yesterday and it was over 3 on my watch (Garmin). I agree that GPS is not accurate but times don’t lie. If they wheel it and it’s long then they should change the official results to read whatever the new distance is. For those that say times don’t matter, you need to grow up and evolve. Times are what most are at the meet for.