Chicago Distance Classic - Course long?

At this point the folks at the marathon are making the adjustments. I think if you appeal to them you may get a break.

John

I know you may find this hard to believe, but some folks attempt marathons on even less training. So given the median MPW, Alex was probably well ahead of most of the crowd.

John Bingham wrote:

The course certifier is acknowledging that the turn around is off by 0.1668 miles. He is therefore marking the course at 13.2762 miles.

John

I appreciate the correction, but I'm still convinced the course was closer to 13.4 - 13.5 miles. Virtually every poster on this thread who was wearing a GPS device logged between 13.4 - 13.5 miles. Also, if you read the 9th post in the attached thread, this individual spelled out all the distance errors he encountered and he logged 13.5 miles.

Why not take the time and remeasure the course accurately instead of just saying, "OK, we found one mistake and fixed it. We're done." Isn't there any interest in determining the accurate course distance and fixing other possible distance errors? That .2 or .3 of a mile may not seem like much, but for those of us on the bubble, it could make a difference.

I don't know of it's being looked into, but if what I've read on here is true, then the .08 extension on the turnaround wasn't the only error. The 10th mile was also long and that was in no way affected by the turnaround. I think that this error also needs to be looked into because from what I've heard the course was more like 13.4 and not just 13.27.

Wow.

Check out that runnersworld thread. There is a guy on there that points out a bunch of errors on the course and all of them really make sense.

I hope they will look at all of them along with the most obvious one on the south end.

One word: Tangents.A Garmin will always show a slightly longer distance on any course unless perfect tangents are run.13.27 + .13(poor tangents) = 13.4 = very believable

South Side Runner wrote:

I appreciate the correction, but I'm still convinced the course was closer to 13.4 - 13.5 miles. Virtually every poster on this thread who was wearing a GPS device logged between 13.4 - 13.5 miles. Also, if you read the 9th post in the attached thread, this individual spelled out all the distance errors he encountered and he logged 13.5 miles.

http://forums.runnersworld.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/713106038/m/5421078325

Why not take the time and remeasure the course accurately instead of just saying, "OK, we found one mistake and fixed it. We're done." Isn't there any interest in determining the accurate course distance and fixing other possible distance errors? That .2 or .3 of a mile may not seem like much, but for those of us on the bubble, it could make a difference.

I would agree with the tangents argument if it weren't for the fact that there are seven discrepancies between the course map and what was run. That doesn't sound like tangents to me. For the course to be run so differently from what was shown on the map is ridiculous.

The course was not 13.27....you've made enough money off this race to go get your a.. and hire 5 or 6 other runners out there on that exact course with wheels, Garmins or measuring tape to see that the course was 13.39. I ran it again last night....average of 13.39 and 13.39 is not 13.27. Get you a.. out there and adjust the times accordingly.

The Garmin measures the chord from it's sample points recorded and not an actual curve taken by the runner. So, the Garmin should nearly always under-record mileage, especially for a runner on a curvy course that does not run the shortest distance.

You can't take a bike or measuring wheel on LSD.

I think Bingham thinks that he has fixed everything with this 13.27 announcement, but I think most of us who ran the race can agree that the course was a little more than that.

I would also state that mile 10 wads long my split on the mile 9 and mile 11 compared to mile 10 had a difference of about 30 seconds. which means that the turn around was not the only mistake...mile 10 was long too

letsrun.com + anonymous postings = mob mentality

I don't know about a mob, but I would at least like Bingham to address the other errors. It seems to me that the thinks he has done enough to satisfy the masses and is just going to sweep the rest under the rug. I would just like to see the full course remeasured, as it was run, or at least see that the course be acknowledged as more than 13.27. It's frustrating when you run a hard race effort and then have no idea what the true half marathon equivalent of your time was.

Thumperam wrote:

The Garmin measures the chord from it's sample points recorded and not an actual curve taken by the runner. So, the Garmin should nearly always under-record mileage, especially for a runner on a curvy course that does not run the shortest distance.

In practice, not true. I have never seen a report of a Garmin measuring shorter than the certified distance - always longer.

don't you?

PATHETIC COURSE ONCE AGAIN wrote:

I ran it again last night....

Did you? Was Lake Shore Drive again shut down to accommodate your long run schedule?

Did you like, run during rush hour and stuff? Or did you run on the shoulder?

Do tell how you negotiated the on ramp to LSD with traffic.

There were a total of 2300 finishers last Sunday that met the adjusted

qualification times. 1300 matched in our database. Of the 1300, 700 were

given a new assignment A - D. The adjustment based on the timee described

below allowed an additional 150 participants to achieve entry or move up in

the Start Corrals. They are being posted to the Confirmation page.

The adjusted Start Corral Qualification for the CDC is as follows:

-Top 100 Men < 1:12:00

-Top 100 Women < 1:22:00

-Corral A < 1:27:15

-Corral B < 1:37:30

-Corral C < 1:47:45

-Corral D < 1:53:00

This is based on the variance of 0.1668 of a mile noted by the race

certifier.

This would be an even better thread if Jeff Galloway or Dean Karnazes had been the course certifier.