Chicago Distance Classic - Course long?

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

I suspect you are seeing tangent (shortest route) error, and/or GPS accuracy error, but that's pretty small.

The way the Garmin measures is a straight line from sample point to sample point. There is no shorter distance.

Here is a sample from a track workout I did a few months ago:

Lap 1: .24 miles / ~386 meters

Lap 2: .25 miles

Lap 3: .24 miles

Lap 4: .25 miles

Lap 6: .23 miles

Lap 9: .22 miles

Why is everyone flipping out about the course being long? If the course was a little longer than it should have been - who cares?!? You get to spend more time out there and really get your money's worth. You should all be happy for the extra couple of minutes you got to spend enjoying running. Maybe if you weren't so concerned with "splits" or "racing" then John (aka the MAN) wouldn't have to come on here and respond to your ridiculous accusations.

-Penguin for LIFE

yes EXACTLY! I had my fanny pack with me and during the race I gallow-walked with other health-minded competitors and we simply had a BLAST!!! When the race was finally over we were all extremely disappointed. The fact it was slightly longer than it should have been does provide some solace.

Please take this somewhere else. It's fine to choose not to care about your time in a race, but this thread is for those who do.

Thumperama wrote:

Please take this somewhere else. It's fine to choose not to care about your time in a race, but this thread is for those who do.

SARCASM

Hey folks,

I think I've done all I can here. Thanks for your passion for running. Thanks for helping me make the race better for everyone.

All the best.

John

This is wrong. The course was longer than you are giving people credit for. Re-measure the entire course!

Not facing the facts and running away from this is REALLY going to hurt the credibility of this race. (Not that it had any to begin with after last year's hidden maze finish and a new course every frickin year.)

Talk about the kiss of death for a race...change the course every year!!!

I think the only acceptable solution now will be to re-measure the course as it was run.

It WAS AT LEAST 13.4 not 13.27! For sure miles 7 and 10 were both off.

With his last post I have lost all respect for John Bingham. He has not done all he can and he knows exactly what is left to do. Re-measure the course as it was run. The turnaround was not the only error!

Seriously now wrote:

Not facing the facts and running away from this is REALLY going to hurt the credibility of this race. (Not that it had any to begin with after last year's hidden maze finish and a new course every frickin year.)

Talk about the kiss of death for a race...change the course every year!!!

I think the only acceptable solution now will be to re-measure the course as it was run.

It WAS AT LEAST 13.4 not 13.27! For sure miles 7 and 10 were both off.

Well, I think I do a good job of running the tagents, and I ended up with 13.36 for the course. I heard a couple people in the top 25 who had 13.39. So it was probably not 13.4. For those who are curious, this is what I got for each mile:

1 - 1.01

2 - 1.02

3 - 1.00

4 - 1.00

5 - 1.02

6 - 0.97

7 - 1.19

8 - 1.01

9 - 0.99

10 - 1.08

11 - 0.94

12 - 1.00

13 - 1.02

.1 - 0.12

I highly doubt anyone that finished in the top 25 ran with a garmin watch. Please provide names of these people you "heard" had 13.39

CDC Runner wrote:

Well, I think I do a good job of running the tagents, and I ended up with 13.36 for the course. I heard a couple people in the top 25 who had 13.39. So it was probably not 13.4. For those who are curious, this is what I got for each mile:

1 - 1.01

2 - 1.02

3 - 1.00

4 - 1.00

5 - 1.02

6 - 0.97

7 - 1.19

8 - 1.01

9 - 0.99

10 - 1.08

11 - 0.94

12 - 1.00

13 - 1.02

.1 - 0.12

So mile 10 was long and 11 was short. clearly.

Friend's garmin

1 1.02

2 1.03

3 .99

4 1.01

5 1.02

6 .99

7 1.21

8 .99

9 1.00

10 1.07

11 .95

12 1.00

13 1.14 (+ finish)

13.41 total.

Sister's Garmin 13.47

MarathonMind wrote:

So mile 10 was long and 11 was short. clearly.

It was, looking back that is. That whole run north after that now infamous turn at the south end of the course was pretty bizarre. You felt yourself giving the effort into a pretty stiff headwind, yet you looked at your splits and couldn't figure out what the hell was going on. Just when you were getting into a groove after the "long mile" you hit 10 and got screwed up again.

Then you got near the finish and it seemed different than what you imagined looking at the course map.

I hope they are going to look at the whole course again, because if he thinks that one turn was the only problem, he's wrong.

I don't feel strongly about the Penguin one way or the other, but people need to stop FREAKING out. The guy got on this message board here and owned up to the obvious mistake that was made in course measurement. The Letsrun.com message board is not John Bingham's element but he made numerous posts, obviously listened to/read the complaints of the runners posting here and addressed the issue. Now, it may not be a perfect solution in everyone's mind but a solution none the less. He talked to his certifier, the timer, the Chicago Marathon orgaizers and tried to solve the problem. He can't go back in time and fix the course. If you ran and extra couple tenths of a mile, so be it. What can you do about it now? If you're upset because you didn't hit your corral qualifying time for Chicago, don't be. Fair adjustments seem to have been made by the marathon to accomodate the long course. So for crying out loud, quit your crying. I've run more than a few races, and from time to time, the courses are off. Human error. Shit happens. It's not a perfect world. The good news is you can always run another race, and no one will force you to run the CDC next year if you don't want to. And if you do, hopefully the course will be accurate. But there are just no guarantees. I can understand a certain amount of frustration here, I've been there, but what can you do about it now? Say Bingham remeasures every last inch of the course, what does it change? Put your frickin' Garmins down and stop crucifying the guy. What does it help after he has seemingly done all he can be expected to do at this point?

terrible lies wrote:

I highly doubt anyone that finished in the top 25 ran with a garmin watch. Please provide names of these people you "heard" had 13.39

Actually, I do know one runner in the top 25 who did wear a Garmin. I only know him from a running blog he keeps and I read on occasion. I don't know him personally, so I don't feel comfortable giving his name, but he said his Garmin came out ~ 13.4 miles as well.

Uh, wouldn't the faster runners be wearing Garmins? Why would slower runners put $200 into a gadget that tells them their pace? I mean, why would it matter for them? "You are running slower than shit in January right now." "Oh, really? Great. Thanks, Garmin." Sorry, I kid around.

JimG wrote:

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.

Jim.....you are absolutey correct. And these Garmins are not all that accurate.

I find they are not that much better than a car odometer.

I ran with a Garmin and finished 17th. In the finish area after the race I was talking with several of the runners who finished ahead of me and they were already talking about others coming up with 13.39.

terrible lies wrote:

I highly doubt anyone that finished in the top 25 ran with a garmin watch. Please provide names of these people you "heard" had 13.39

CDC Runner wrote:

Well, I think I do a good job of running the tagents, and I ended up with 13.36 for the course. I heard a couple people in the top 25 who had 13.39. So it was probably not 13.4. For those who are curious, this is what I got for each mile:

1 - 1.01

2 - 1.02

3 - 1.00

4 - 1.00

5 - 1.02

6 - 0.97

7 - 1.19

8 - 1.01

9 - 0.99

10 - 1.08

11 - 0.94

12 - 1.00

13 - 1.02

.1 - 0.12