Why wasn't Boston course aided for the non-elites?

Derderian wrote:

Let me inject another consideration of the original question about Boston 2011 being aided for non-elites. Perhaps the results are skewed this year because a large percent of the better non-invited did not get in because of the entry procedure lockout?

I suppose one would have to look at a comparison of qualifying times entered this year compared to last year.

That makes sense. It will be interesting to look at the results in light of the tighter application standards.

Tom

ps (Malmo is right, but don't tell him I said that)

Can you find avg. finish time of Boston '09? Interested in comparing it to this year. Many whined of headwind that day.

Mid Pack wrote:

You obviously don't understand the following; running under three hours at 160 to 170 pounds, I feel subtle changes in the wind on my runs quicker than you possibly could ever have, runnning with I must assume was a tiny, thin frame.

You are dumb. Watch a bird in the wind and a hippo in the wind. Which one is affected to a greater extent?

Haha, no I'm not Malmo. I responded to a thread a few days ago about why the fat charity joggers weren't affected by the wind by using the hippo example. Imagine the wind you'd need to blow Oprah around.

Besides the disparity of elite fitness to the masses, I think another major factor is the nature of wind resistance.

For anyone running less than about 10.5mph, wind resistance is negligible, but resistance starts increasing exponentially at speeds faster than that. On a windless day, top level marathoners achieve their times while actually having to push through some air resistance, while the masses running much slower achieve their times without ever having to deal with it.

By removing nearly all the resistive force and actually providing some push from behind, an elite athlete will get a much greater benefit, whereas the sloggers will get virtually nothing.

Sunday 20 wrote:

Besides the disparity of elite fitness to the masses, I think another major factor is the nature of wind resistance.

For anyone running less than about 10.5mph, wind resistance is negligible, but resistance starts increasing exponentially at speeds faster than that. On a windless day, top level marathoners achieve their times while actually having to push through some air resistance, while the masses running much slower achieve their times without ever having to deal with it.

By removing nearly all the resistive force and actually providing some push from behind, an elite athlete will get a much greater benefit, whereas the sloggers will get virtually nothing.

Good point. Even taking away the butterball fitness effect,the effect of wind resistance is disproportionate.

2:10 marathon is running 12.1 miles per hour 37.9% faster

3:00 marathon is running 8.7 miles per hour

Since wind resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity, then a 2:10 marathoner has 1.379^2 = 1.90 or 90% more wind resistance to overcome by running 37.9% faster.

What a lot of people are forgetting about is the energy needed to dissipate heat. The longer you are on the course, the more this is going to affect you. Even though it was in the 50s, with the wind at your back, you are getting no cooling effect. Some of the advantage of the wind could have been negated by the lack of cooling over a longer period of time. In a shorter race, the slower runners might have gained more benefit from the wind.

That tailwind could have really been a disaster if it was a 70° day.

malmo wrote:

It's the fitness stupid!

No, it's the wind moron.

Mid Pack, can you post the average times for, say, the last 10 years? Then we might get a sense of how much natural variation there is year to year.

For all we know, the average time any given year might be slower or faster 5-10 minutes than the year before, for whatever reason. If this year's field just happened to be "slower" maybe they should have run 3:54 on a typical Boston day but they actually ran 3:49 with the wind.

You can't just compare 2 years and draw a conclusion, is what I'm getting at.

like on a treadmill wrote:

That tailwind could have really been a disaster if it was a 70° day.

That's exactly what happened in 1982.

Mid Pack wrote:

The elite results made me wish I had been there to take advantage of the conditions. I had to assume that regular Joes like me would have shared in the bounty.

I'm reading that the favorable conditions dropped what would have been a 2:06 to a 2:03, an advantage of 2.4 percent

The finishing times of those above three hours should've dropped by 4 to 6 minutes.

The average finishing time in 2010. 3:50:25

A 2.4 percent improvement in 2011 should be 3:44:52

Actual average finishing time in 2011. 3:49:54

What about the fact that someone running in a large group of mid-packers, e.g. 90% of the field, gets no assistance from the wind.

Tru Believer wrote:

What about the fact that someone running in a large group of mid-packers, e.g. 90% of the field, gets no assistance from the wind.

Ah, you beat me to it. Running a track race on a windy day you would always make sure that you tucked in when pressing against the wind. Conversely, if you've got a bunch of guys shielding the wind from helping you it, uh, won't help.

The elites don't have that type of hinderance, especially late in the race.

And I'm loving this discussion, a lot of intelligent input.

Tru Believer wrote:

What about the fact that someone running in a large group of mid-packers, e.g. 90% of the field, gets no assistance from the wind.

If a large group of swimmers are swimming down a river do the not get assistance from the river? Works the same way.

SomeCoach wrote: a lot of intelligent input.

Not really.

malmo wrote:

SomeCoach wrote: a lot of intelligent input.

Not really.

Ah, it's relative Malmo ... more than the other threads dealing with this topic.

I was at Boston 1982. Standing right at the 23 mile mark as Salazar and Beardsley passed. I think back to that hot ass day, with those two hammering out what may have been the very best either produced, ever, and how anyone can't see how a 50 degree day with a 20 mph wind doesn't help SIGNIFICANTLY is beyond me.

I wouldn't call it a 'hot ass day'. The high temp during the race was 68º. It was relatively warm due to the fact that Boston started at noon and the Sun was directly overhead. The mitigating factors, once again, ruled the day. Had it not been dry and a 11 mph tailwind, the time wouldn't have been near as fast as it was in 1982.

I think that the sun exposure was huge that day; I was damn hot that day and wasn't running. I'm trusting that it was 68 because you are deadly accurate with your facts. It didn't seem like 68 that day. Salazar's body temperature at the end of the race would claim the same.

good points by Malmo. those of you who think they are pushing their way to a sub 3:00-3:30 marathon may think they are training hard to the limits of human performance...but they are not. Sure, most work full-time jobs and don't have the time, talent or durability to put in the 100mpw+ it takes to be an elite marathoner. You hurt and hit the wall in the race and you think you know what pain is?

The elites are finely tuned athletic machines. They deal with real physical pain and competition that has developed through years of racing, 100mpw+ and grueling workouts. It is a totally different level, requires a different mindset, and has far higher demands. Everyone tries "hard" in the race...many of the undertrained sloggers look horrible and end up in the hospital because they are not trained well enough to run a full 26.2 miles. It is a matter of fitness, life experience, talent and some attitude.

As far as the weather goes (temperature and wind). Well, it is all exponential...

No doubt it felt hot, because 68 IS hot when the Sun is straight overhead. I've said this many times before. temperature isn't a fungible commodity, what kid of temperature is what matters.

My memory matches the actual weather report. The further west you were the cooler it was. Out in Hopkinton it probably never got over 60º for the duration of the race. In Boston the hig during the race was 68º, the high for the day was 70º. In fact almost immediately after the race the winds picked up and the temps dropped fast.

Also the further you went west that day the cooler it was. I watched at Nike Welly. I wore a down parka that morning becasue it was very cool and windy. I never felt warm until after the runners were long past Wellesley.

April 19, 1982 Start time 12 Noon

Wooster Mass 10 miles west of the start

10:00 AM 51.1 °F 26.1 °F 38% 30.19 in 40.0 miles WNW 16.1 mph - N/A Clear

11:00 AM 54.0 °F 28.0 °F 37% 30.19 in 40.0 miles WNW 15.0 mph - N/A Clear

12:00 PM 57.9 °F 30.0 °F 35% 30.17 in 40.0 miles West 13.8 mph - N/A Clear

1:00 PM 60.1 °F 28.0 °F 30% 30.15 in 40.0 miles West 11.5 mph - N/A Clear

2:00 PM 61.0 °F 27.0 °F 27% 30.13 in 40.0 miles West 11.5 mph - N/A Clear

3:00 PM 63.0 °F 27.0 °F 26% 30.12 in 40.0 miles WSW 10.4 mph - N/A Clear

Norwood 10 miles South of Wellesley

10:00 AM 54.0 °F 32.0 °F 43% 30.22 in 15.0 miles West 6.9 mph - N/A Clear

11:00 AM 57.0 °F 32.0 °F 39% 30.20 in 15.0 miles WNW 9.2 mph - N/A Clear

12:00 PM 57.9 °F 32.0 °F 37% 30.18 in 15.0 miles WNW 9.2 mph - N/A Clear

1:00 PM 62.1 °F 32.0 °F 32% 30.16 in 15.0 miles WNW 9.2 mph - N/A Clear

2:00 PM 64.9 °F 32.0 °F 29% 30.13 in 15.0 miles West 9.2 mph - N/A Clear

Boston Mass

10:00 AM 57.0 °F 24.1 °F 28% 30.18 in 15.0 miles West 11.5 mph - N/A Clear

11:00 AM 59.0 °F 27.0 °F 29% 30.16 in 15.0 miles West 12.7 mph - N/A Clear

12:00 PM 61.0 °F 28.9 °F 30% 30.14 in 15.0 miles West 11.5 mph - N/A Clear

1:00 PM 64.0 °F 30.0 °F 28% 30.13 in 15.0 miles WSW 12.7 mph 21.9 mph N/A Partly Cloudy

2:00 PM 68.0 °F 30.9 °F 25% 30.11 in 15.0 miles SW 11.5 mph - N/A Partly Cloudy

3:00 PM 70.0 °F 30.0 °F 23% 30.09 in 15.0 miles West 13.8 mph - N/A Clear