d2xccoach wrote:
To me, wheel out your XC course, get it as close as you reasonably can, then go race it. If it's 5000m or 4960 or 5050 who cares? As a coach it's always nice to know if a course was a little short or a little long, but unless we're talking 7500m for an "8k XC" course or hundreds of meters long I've never felt the need to know exactly.
Ditto
That's the best you can have with reasonable effort.
Pro Timer wrote:
d2xccoach wrote:To me, wheel out your XC course, get it as close as you reasonably can, then go race it. If it's 5000m or 4960 or 5050 who cares? As a coach it's always nice to know if a course was a little short or a little long, but unless we're talking 7500m for an "8k XC" course or hundreds of meters long I've never felt the need to know exactly.
Ditto
That's the best you can have with reasonable effort.
It's actually AGAINST the rules to have a course OVER 5000m for high school competition. Yet, some states make it illegal for coaches to challenge the length of the course, long or short.
Course length is just one of the many rules that are never enforced - like flag heights, and starting box widths...were much too busy checking out sports bras!
Pro Timer wrote:
FL baloney wrote:it was still a certified 5k course
Wrong. Cross country courses CAN NOT BE USATF CERTIFIED or MEASUREMENT CERTIFIED IN ANY OTHER LEGITIMATE WAY.
USATF Certification is for road courses only. As the method of measurement has only proven to be accurate and reliable for roads.
Best you can do for XC is measure with a wheel. It's margin of error is greater than a USATF measurement, but it is "good enough." It's not certified by anyone though.
Shesh.
Where is DiscoGary when we need him?
To clarify my comments, you want to put forth a good faith effort to make the course as accurate as possible.
However be aware a wheel measured XC course will never be as accurate as a correctly done jones-counter measured road course. You just have to live with that, which can be tough for measurement perfectionists.
Hill master wrote:
Isn't that just a steel tape?
Fiberglass cord, easier to go around corners. I should reiterate that link is something I found while looking for the cable at a survey supply site that looked like a viable alternative, not something I used.
The cable worked in a similar manner, but obviously couldn't do 90 degree corners since you'd kink it. What I thought was nice from a measurement standpoint was the length, and the loops on each end made using and tensioning very easy. It was a decade ago, so maybe they use fiberglass now. I would think you'd still need to tension it.
Steel tape has two big disadvantages in my book, you can break or kink it pretty easy if you're not careful and the longest I've been able to find is 100ft.
Now another poster is correct that USATF doesn't normally "certify" XC courses, but you can measure to USATF standards. Technically I believe you could certify any course that could be documented accurately enough that someone from "out of town" could come and measure the course using the map and instructions and get the same result using the measuring process prescribed. There also needs to be the ability for the course to be laid out as measured on race day. (A common mistake) If you meet that criteria I don't see why it couldn't be certified, but that's a pretty high bar on most XC courses. I've done a couple on a calibrated mountain bike and it's like pulling teeth to get two rides to match up because of the uneven surfaces. You sure as hell aren't going to do it with a wheel.
Pro Timer wrote:
To clarify my comments, you want to put forth a good faith effort to make the course as accurate as possible.
However be aware a wheel measured XC course will never be as accurate as a correctly done jones-counter measured road course. You just have to live with that, which can be tough for measurement perfectionists.
"Correctly done" is the key words here. The belief that the Jones Counter is this incredible tool is a fallacy. So many variables with that method and the equipment (bike) and rider, along with the math and conversions create as much error, if not more, than quality gps devices, or a quality wheel "used correctly".
Keith Stone wrote:
Hill master wrote:Isn't that just a steel tape?
Fiberglass cord, easier to go around corners. I should reiterate that link is something I found while looking for the cable at a survey supply site that looked like a viable alternative, not something I used.
The cable worked in a similar manner, but obviously couldn't do 90 degree corners since you'd kink it. What I thought was nice from a measurement standpoint was the length, and the loops on each end made using and tensioning very easy. It was a decade ago, so maybe they use fiberglass now. I would think you'd still need to tension it.
Steel tape has two big disadvantages in my book, you can break or kink it pretty easy if you're not careful and the longest I've been able to find is 100ft.
Now another poster is correct that USATF doesn't normally "certify" XC courses, but you can measure to USATF standards. Technically I believe you could certify any course that could be documented accurately enough that someone from "out of town" could come and measure the course using the map and instructions and get the same result using the measuring process prescribed. There also needs to be the ability for the course to be laid out as measured on race day. (A common mistake) If you meet that criteria I don't see why it couldn't be certified, but that's a pretty high bar on most XC courses. I've done a couple on a calibrated mountain bike and it's like pulling teeth to get two rides to match up because of the uneven surfaces. You sure as hell aren't going to do it with a wheel.
So on a bike, how close do you think you can get two measurements/rides of a 5k road course? Why do you feel you couldn't get two similarly close measurements with a wheel?
Hill master wrote:...Wouldn't the number of counts vary depending on the wheel size of the bike?
There are always 20 counts for each wheel revolution, and wheel size affects the total over distance.
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
The belief that the Jones Counter is this incredible tool is a fallacy. So many variables with that method and the equipment (bike) and rider, along with the math and conversions create as much error, if not more, than quality gps devices, or a quality wheel "used correctly".
No, that is nonsense.
Gps and wheels are not even close to being as accurate.
NFHS Official wrote:
Pro Timer wrote:Wrong. Cross country courses CAN NOT BE USATF CERTIFIED or MEASUREMENT CERTIFIED IN ANY OTHER LEGITIMATE WAY.
USATF Certification is for road courses only. As the method of measurement has only proven to be accurate and reliable for roads.
Best you can do for XC is measure with a wheel. It's margin of error is greater than a USATF measurement, but it is "good enough." It's not certified by anyone though.
Shesh.
Where is DiscoGary when we need him?
I'm right here when you need me, but you don't need me for this because I never said that any of these methods would certify a course to USATF standards. I just say that a steel tape is the most accurate way to measure a grass course.
J.R. wrote:
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:The belief that the Jones Counter is this incredible tool is a fallacy. So many variables with that method and the equipment (bike) and rider, along with the math and conversions create as much error, if not more, than quality gps devices, or a quality wheel "used correctly".
No, that is nonsense.
Gps and wheels are not even close to being as accurate.
Take your Jones Counter equipped bike to you local track and ride laps at the correct measurement from the inside lane, remember to take into consideration the rail or no rail calculation for that track. See how many units you get lap after lap of testing and at different speeds. Now use the same process with a quality survey wheel and see how much of difference there is between the two measuring devices.
Explain your findings when you have the time. Thanks!
I ran the first cross country race at Macalpine in 1978 and have run there most days ever since. Over the years the course has changed a lot. Hills have been added, trees removed, corners rounded, distances changed as the old 3 mile was changed to a 5k. A year ago, the city of Charlotte began adding a new sewer system right through the macalpine course. During the summer, the director of the south footlocker meet measured the course many times due to the work on the course. He added 70 meters just past the mile mark to make it an official 5000. He said the reason he had to add the meters were the changes on the corners and turns. While the course has always been suspiciously fast, keep in mind it is hard packed gravel, doesn't slow due to mud and only has one short steep hill. It is almost as fast and has the same feel as the old cinder tracks.
gwalkerruns wrote:
I ran the first cross country race at Macalpine in 1978 and have run there most days ever since. Over the years the course has changed a lot. Hills have been added, trees removed, corners rounded, distances changed as the old 3 mile was changed to a 5k. A year ago, the city of Charlotte began adding a new sewer system right through the macalpine course. During the summer, the director of the south footlocker meet measured the course many times due to the work on the course. He added 70 meters just past the mile mark to make it an official 5000. He said the reason he had to add the meters were the changes on the corners and turns. While the course has always been suspiciously fast, keep in mind it is hard packed gravel, doesn't slow due to mud and only has one short steep hill. It is almost as fast and has the same feel as the old cinder tracks.
Awesome info! I raced at foot locker last saturday and wondered why the 2nd mile was so slow for me compared to past years; it seems like you found the reason.
FL baloney wrote:
The rumors are confirmed that extra distance was added to the FL south course, 70 meters at that. Foot Locker stated in an email before the race that the trails had been widened but it was still a certified 5k course, then waited until today to say otherwise.
To put this in perspective, if these runners went the exact same average pace for the proper 5000 meters...
Weini Kelati would've run a 16:26
Drew Hunter would've run 14:14
https://twitter.com/milestatdotcom/status/671770003184754688
For the record, I measured McAlpine back 2006 and again 2010 or 2011, both times it was after a lot of talk about the course being short because of the fast times. I used a well calibrated pedometer and a bike, both of which are more accurate than a wheel for XC in my opinion. Both measurements came out as being short by an insignificant amount. A few points: First off. the course is fast and Charlotte has almost perfect weather in late November. McAlpine does have a decent sized hill, but the rest of the course is completely flat with compacted dirt. McAlpine also benefits from the fact that most southern schools get two weeks to train between their state meet and the FLSE. One possible issue with MCAlpine is if you are smart and scout the course really well, there are at least 2 places where the best line is not the well worn path and if you race one of the years where they don't have a lot of markers or Marshalls, you can game the course by about 20 meters.
I have never measured a XC course that was exactly 3.1 meters. Unless you use survey equipment, draw lines in the ground that match your survey and make sure runners proceed along that exact line, you will never get a perfectly measured course. Btw, the U.S. is the only place were people focus on exact XC measurements and times.
Thread Follower wrote:
So on a bike, how close do you think you can get two measurements/rides of a 5k road course? Why do you feel you couldn't get two similarly close measurements with a wheel?
On a bike every measurer that certifies a course gets two measurements of a road course within those tolerances, it''s how it's done. Considering it's .008 and I'm always under that I get two really close nearly every time.
I don't feel (and have dealt with this first hand) that a wheel maintains the same constant pressure on the surface that a bike does. Over 5K maintaining that pressure is much harder with a wheel than on a bike. Tensioned tape or cable (or electronic measurement) doesn't rely on ground friction and avoids that issue.
Weighted wheels are better obviously, and I've heard of people essentially using a Jones counter mounted on a fork as their wheel and getting good results. Part of the issue with a wheel is the fact you're walking, and it's a lot harder than you think to maintain a consistent line at that low speed.
An experienced biker on a calibrated bike can be amazingly accurate over distance, but that falls apart when you slow down and navigate turns. On a road course you're taught to slow and "scooter" your way around tight corners to maintain your line (and constant pressure on the wheel). That again is much harder to do consistently on an XC course both on a bike and with a wheel.
By comparison measuring a corner with a cable means driving a set of stakes around the corner, tensioning the cable, and driving another stake at the end. Rinse, repeat. Next to impossible to get two different measurements.
TrackCoach wrote:
I have never measured a XC course that was exactly 3.1 meters. Unless you use survey equipment, draw lines in the ground that match your survey and make sure runners proceed along that exact line, you will never get a perfectly measured course. Btw, the U.S. is the only place were people focus on exact XC measurements and times.
Even I in my gimpy old age could do a 3.1 meter XC course, so please measure one up for me. ;-)
I agree with your assumptions about McAlpine, and should add there are some significant straights too. I'd wager you do less turning than an equivalent 5K on a track. Match that with no real areas of bad footing and you've got yourself a lightning fast XC course.
Just some interesting stats that might speak to the South Regional course comparing times of female runners who ran both the 5k at New Balance Nationals Outdoor on the track the summer of 2014 and then later ran the Foot Locker South Regional 5k course that November:____________________NBNO____FL SouthRyen Frazier________17:15______16:27Savanah Carnahan__18:32______17:51Lily Anderson_______18:43______17:52Pretty dramatic cuts in time from a national championship 5k track run to a regional XC 5k course. Wouldn't one suspect that the south region course was short (although I don't think this had any bearing on correctly choosing the fine qualifiers for FL National).The exception I found was Erin Saunders who ran 17:50 at NBNO and 18:28 at FLS
Oh? wrote:
Your post assumes that it was 5k prior to this year, rather than 5k now. Is that a good assumption? It's always been a ridiculously fast course.
Stat Geek wrote:
Just some interesting stats that might speak to the South Regional course comparing times of female runners who ran both the 5k at New Balance Nationals Outdoor on the track the summer of 2014 and then later ran the Foot Locker South Regional 5k course that November:
____________________NBNO____FL South
Ryen Frazier________17:15______16:27
Savanah Carnahan__18:32______17:51
Lily Anderson_______18:43______17:52
Pretty dramatic cuts in time from a national championship 5k track run to a regional XC 5k course. Wouldn't one suspect that the south region course was short (although I don't think this had any bearing on correctly choosing the fine qualifiers for FL National).
The exception I found was Erin Saunders who ran 17:50 at NBNO and 18:28 at FLS
Oh? wrote:Your post assumes that it was 5k prior to this year, rather than 5k now. Is that a good assumption? It's always been a ridiculously fast course.
And then Ryen Frazier ran 16:11 or something that winter. People improve.
FL baloney wrote:
That's a very fair assumption. Foot locker did say it was a certified 5k course last year and that it's "remained the same" this year, so they had to
have measured wrong one of these two years.
There is no such thing as a certified cross country course.
I'm serious. Check the rules.
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
See how many units you get lap after lap of testing and at different speeds. Now use the same process with a quality survey wheel and see how much of difference there is between the two measuring devices
I have done something similar with a calibration course and it gave me confidence in the Jones Counter and distrust of wheel measurements.
1) I have a 400m calibration course by my home. I measured it properly using the steel tape method.
2) When I ride the calibration course with my Jones Counter my measurements are always within 1 count, which is a few cms difference. I'm shocked how repeatedly the Jones Counter measurements are.
3) I decided one day to wheel the calibration course with 2 different wheels. With each wheel I measured it 4 times. The average of one of the wheels was 396meters. The other wheel one was 403meters. One wheel was a Rolatape and the other a Lurkin from Home Depot.
So wheel from different manufacturess give different readings. Likely it's because of their weight or the surface they were calibrated on. Either way, I wasn't impressed. My jones counter is calibrated each time to my weight on the surface I choose (that mimics the race course as much as possible) at the temperature I choose.
You mentioned there can be errors in the jones counter calculations. I use an Excel template to minimize this. In addition, another benefit of the USATF certificate process is a 2nd or 3rd set of eyes reviews all the work. My state certifier seems to repeat all the math I do to make sure correct. My regional certifier reviews things too. He once caught an error where the east and west were transposed on the map.
The USATF road course certification is really quite good. Too bad there's nothing for XC and that can't easily change.