NXRSW- OVER 100 METERS LONG

Kid from somewhere wrote:

Looking at NXRSW posts on strava, its pretty clear that the course is long by at least 100 meters. I have seen no shorter than 3.16, and up to 3.25. I can't believe Nike could not properly measure the course. It became obvious early on from times the course was long. Typically the vast majority of Colorado runners pr, and it was a rarity in the early races, so I knew something was up.

The course is at least 20 seconds long. For some kids, when they need to hit X time to get recruited/scholarship etc, its a big deal when a course is off by this much.

Also, this means that Cheyenne Mountain ran about 15:00 average today. Impressive, but they obviously can't compete with Newbury Park.

GPS readings of 3.16-3.25 are what you should see from an actual 5000m course. It sounds to me like the course was measured accurately.

All XC courses should be over 100m long.

Kid from somewhere wrote:

Looking at NXRSW posts on strava

Um no. You lost credibility right there. Measure it with a wheel or GTFO

Kid from somewhere wrote:

The course is at least 20 seconds long. For some kids, when they need to hit X time to get recruited/scholarship etc, its a big deal when a course is off by this much.

No, its not a big deal that courses are off by that much. Its XC, times do not matter. Period. You still placed where you placed even if it was 100m long. Think about it: If your time is off my 100m, so is the guy that won. Do you really want to run for a coach that sees a region won 30 or 40 seconds slower than the others and his first assumption is just "man these kids all suck!". Trust me when I say schools aren't giving scholarships based on one XC time.

roller coaster wrote:

Kid from somewhere wrote:

Looking at NXRSW posts on strava

Um no. You lost credibility right there. Measure it with a wheel or GTFO

I have no idea how the course was or how you should really expect gps to compare to a wheeled distance, but I know that kids are used to their race distances on Strava coming in just under 3.12. A lot of 3.10, 3.09, etc. It is no surprise they see 3.2 and see it as proof the course is long.

Kid from somewhere wrote:

Looking at NXRSW posts on strava, its pretty clear that the course is long by at least 100 meters. I have seen no shorter than 3.16, and up to 3.25. I can't believe Nike could not properly measure the course. It became obvious early on from times the course was long. Typically the vast majority of Colorado runners pr, and it was a rarity in the early races, so I knew something was up.

The course is at least 20 seconds long. For some kids, when they need to hit X time to get recruited/scholarship etc, its a big deal when a course is off by this much.

Also, this means that Cheyenne Mountain ran about 15:00 average today. Impressive, but they obviously can't compete with Newbury Park.

I watched the championship races, and I thought it was horrible that the leaders had to run in a thick cloud of dust because the vehicle out front was so close. Lauren Ping actually waved her hands in front of her face a couple of times. It was awful.

kudos wrote:

roller coaster wrote:

Um no. You lost credibility right there. Measure it with a wheel or GTFO

I have no idea how the course was or how you should really expect gps to compare to a wheeled distance, but I know that kids are used to their race distances on Strava coming in just under 3.12. A lot of 3.10, 3.09, etc. It is no surprise they see 3.2 and see it as proof the course is long.

The courses that come up as 3.12 or less are actually short.

I ran it today and got absolutely dusted by the cart in front. My watch had 3.20 and said I went through 5k about 20 ish seconds faster than my “finishing time”. Most of the 5k races I’ve ran this year have registered at around 3.09-3.11

Also, using a wheel gives a laughable result on most courses.

Wheels work on flat smooth surfaces and with users who are extremely diligent and patient, who go slow (so the wheel is not free-wheeling) over bumps, roots, rocks, etc, and follow the shortest possible route (which may not be the smoothest route), and repeat the measurement several times.

Bottom line: Measuring most XC courses is a fraught process. There is no easy or reliable method. Most do not have the patience or diligence needed and even those that do, get the wrong answer.

Kid from somewhere wrote:

Looking at NXRSW posts on strava, its pretty clear that the course is long by at least 100 meters. I have seen no shorter than 3.16, and up to 3.25. I can't believe Nike could not properly measure the course. It became obvious early on from times the course was long. Typically the vast majority of Colorado runners pr, and it was a rarity in the early races, so I knew something was up.

The course is at least 20 seconds long. For some kids, when they need to hit X time to get recruited/scholarship etc, its a big deal when a course is off by this much.

Also, this means that Cheyenne Mountain ran about 15:00 average today. Impressive, but they obviously can't compete with Newbury Park.

Of the guys you spoke with that had these long strava marks, where did they place? Were they all in the front and could run clean tangents, or further back and possibly ran wide on some/many of the turns? That could easily be the difference on a course with a lot of turns but doesn't impact the top guys as much. Also, gps is far less accurate on courses with a lot of turns.

Based on my junior high school, high school and college XC experiences, who cares how long the course actually is. Before XC races, I tried to figure out location of 300m to go and 700m to go. As long as I know where to empty the tank, that is all that matters.

I was third in championship boys and registered 3.20

shewdog wrote:

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

Of the guys you spoke with that had these long strava marks, where did they place? Were they all in the front and could run clean tangents, or further back and possibly ran wide on some/many of the turns? That could easily be the difference on a course with a lot of turns but doesn't impact the top guys as much. Also, gps is far less accurate on courses with a lot of turns.

I was third in championship boys and registered 3.20

Congrats!

How much slower was your time than the majority of your courses that you believe were accurate?

Will you run Foot Locker/Eastbay Regional?

Hard to say because I’ve ran at altitude most of the season. I had one sea level race but didn’t wear a watch.

shewdog wrote:

Hard to say because I’ve ran at altitude most of the season. I had one sea level race but didn’t wear a watch.

run

ran

have run

I'm guessing you are Rendon and have ran a bunch of 15 lows and mids...you should definitely do FL/Eastbay.

Looks like you had a great season and certainly should be recruited by some great schools!

When will you all learn that NIKE and Runnerspace are a joke?

You think that is slow, try running the course on the NE regional.