Repeating the measurement with the same tool and getting 2 different results, certainly does not prove that the correct distance is somewhere in the middle.
Repeating the measurement with the same tool and getting 2 different results, certainly does not prove that the correct distance is somewhere in the middle.
lucy the unbanned wrote:
Repeating the measurement with the same tool and getting 2 different results, certainly does not prove that the correct distance is somewhere in the middle.
I never said that.
"In cross country terms that's more than accurate enough. Could be 15 short could be 15 long."
Sorry, maybe I misread. And I do agree that XC does not require measurement with much precision or accuracy.
coachy wrote:
OK about 15 meters. In cross country terms that's more than accurate enough. Could be 15 short could be 15 long.
As for Jones Counter there are many pages in this thread that cover why that won't work.
No. The minimum accuracy error is 15 meters. Its possible the that actual length of the course is outside the range of these two measurements. Others have wheeled the course much shorter so we're not sure where the real number is. We won't know until someone measures with a tape. Or someone does the Jones counter bike, which is better, but not as good.
Only trolls have wheeled it shorter.
not a name wrote:
Only trolls have wheeled it shorter.
LOL. So the race director measured it to 15 long or short. The course builder measured it and it’s good. But now someone else is going to measure it and everyone is going to believe this person. LOL OK. It still won’t be good enough or someone will be sure it’s wrong, etc, etc.
Seems like a Jones counter on a bike calibrated over a 2-300m strait stretch of the course measured by steel tape would be good enough and not too difficult to do.
Maybe it needs to be a mountain bike with lower psi for best results. More tire surface area at the ground contact patch.
Jones anyone wrote:
Seems like a Jones counter on a bike calibrated over a 2-300m strait stretch of the course measured by steel tape would be good enough and not too difficult to do.
Maybe it needs to be a mountain bike with lower psi for best results. More tire surface area at the ground contact patch.
Have you ever used a Jones Counter?
Even if the split was a 2.1 mile split, that would put the leaders at about 9:25 @ 2 mile, still making the final 1.1 mile in 4:38 or roughly 4:13 final mile. Sounds a little quick or is the course that much of a massive downhill?? Hard to buy off on this one, although it would be exciting to think we have a big crop of talent developing. Just don't think it's accurate. The NP guys, and several others are talented regardless.
not a name wrote:
"Allan adds that Eric Enchelmayer of Huntsville Parks and Recreation, who helped construct the course in 2018 and 2019, has measured the course “dozens if not hundreds of times,” though Enchelmayer did not respond to an interview request from LetsRun.com."
“All of the measurements I have ever seen have been within the margin of error,” Allan says, noting that “none of those measurements were calibrated via steel tape on a known calibration course, most likely because it is a very time consuming process.”
Does anyone else see the contradiction in these two paragraphs?! The course was measured "dozens if not hundreds of times" doesn't match up with "none of those measurements were calibrated via steel tape... because it is a very time consuming process?"
Maybe they should have considered measuring with a steel tape to begin with and they would have saved time vs. wheeling it "hundreds" of times.
No. They probably wheel it frequently to ensure that it never changes.
The course should be independently measured. The times in the two years this race was run on the course are ridiculous. Assurances from people affiliated with the course have no real credibility given these circumstances. Let's have it measured once and for all and find out.
Feel free to foot the bill and post about it.
I was thinking about it earlier.
I’m the history of XC no one has ever required such proof of a course length. Each and every person involved in XC has accepted the advertised distance of courses with much less proof then what has already been provided for this course. Dozens of GPS and several wheels have show it to be accurate but all of a sudden that is now not enough.
Two words:
Ritz and Tuohy.
blue man wrote:
Two words:
Ritz and Tuohy.
Name any all time great and now their “times” don’t count anymore because the distance is random. And yes times do matter in XC or we wouldn’t be talking about this at all.
coachy wrote:
I was thinking about it earlier.
I’m the history of XC no one has ever required such proof of a course length. Each and every person involved in XC has accepted the advertised distance of courses with much less proof then what has already been provided for this course. Dozens of GPS and several wheels have show it to be accurate but all of a sudden that is now not enough.
In the history of xc no course has been faster or has had more PRs set on the same day.
not a duck wrote:
coachy wrote:
I was thinking about it earlier.
I’m the history of XC no one has ever required such proof of a course length. Each and every person involved in XC has accepted the advertised distance of courses with much less proof then what has already been provided for this course. Dozens of GPS and several wheels have show it to be accurate but all of a sudden that is now not enough.
In the history of xc no course has been faster or has had more PRs set on the same day.
There have been many “records” over the decades. So you have figured out that this is the most PRs ever set in one day?
How can you compare 2 XC courses? You simply cannot.
If I take two in my club league. One is partially on a football field with 2 hills on it. The other is UK farmland with most of it going round the outside of fields which may or may not have been ploughed that week and has some pretty big up and down hills.
Then you go to the ground- running over compacted manicured grass to the point its a running track will allow people to run at more or less full pace over the ground.
Running over water logged, soggy ground and rough grass with tufts here and there will not allow for someone to run fast.
XC can only be compared to that year it is ran so a national record is laughable. You are competing against those that are around you only.
As for measuring given the nature of the course many will never track right on GPS. Out and backs will kill that.
If it was roughly 5k or 10k or 12k (UK) it's good enough. As you are racing only those around you.
It is a double lined course and mowed. Running outside of the lines is a DQ and in longer grass.