Las Vegas Marathon course length

isn't there an a gradual downhill into the strip the first 10k and then it turns back uphill? seemed like thats how it was for the half (which would explain the positive splits). Houseworth went down at about 29:15 for the first 10k. The last 5k was at about 5:02 pace for the leaders in that race. Can someone pull up an elevation map?!

Stop trying to be logical and in your case, correct.

His Garmin is the gold standard. Especially since he runs tangents perfectly.

Stop trying to be funny and sarcastic. A Garmin is certainly not more accurate than a wheel, when utilized properly. It doesn't mean the course setup allowed the marathoners to run the exact distance as measured by the wheel.

The word "perfectly" was used to answer this specific question that was posted earlier in the thread: "Tell me, did you have like a map or something showing you the tangents and how to run them perfectly?" I don't need a map to show me where the tangents are, years of running races has provided me that experience.

The lanquage used in the posts ("like a map or something") suggests that most of the backlash is by those in their early 20's, so the lack of marathon experience can be one excuse for the ignorance.

Again, back to the point ... the marathon course (as it was run) in Las Vegas was certainly long.

More and more Competitor just puts on an "event" with the least attention paid to (ironically)competitive runners. They dont care about laying out a decent course, measuring it correctly, etc.. They seem to cater to those that want to check the race off a list and never run again. People that a) dont care about their time b) have run so little that they have no point of reference for what makes for a good race.

zwefsa wrote:

I heard they discovered 2 new black holes. I didn't know one was between your ears.

Burn is on you this time Z. His brain is infinitely massive! But guess that would be tough for you to comprehend.

The course is a true 26.2 miles. The 1/2 marathon split was placed at the wrong location.

Combined with the fact most run the last half slower than the first you get those results.

You did not run long.

grow up wrote:

The lanquage used in the posts ("like a map or something") suggests that most of the backlash is by those in their early 20's, so the lack of marathon experience can be one excuse for the ignorance.

Well I'm 50, have run 15 marathons and I think you are a goof so try again.

I ran the marathon. I don't think the merging was an issue for anyone who ran under 3 hours as the marathon started at 4pm and the half at 5:30. However if you weren't able to beat the start of the half it caused us to weave around sloweer runners for several miles. People stopped at water stations in the first few miles of the half, and from what I could tell alot of marathoners were wasting energy yelling and trying to get around the mess. My "garmin" also measured the course long, but it has never measured a course short. My second half was also way slower, but I blame it on all the walking the day of and day before the race, trying to plan nutrition to run at night, and poor pacing. I also will not do this race again because I don't think they are catering to runners, just participants.

zwefsa wrote:

the course WAS definitely long wrote:

I ran the tangents perfectly, or as best as a competitor could

Wow,talented guy. Perfectly eh?

I heard they discovered 2 new black holes. I didn't know one was between your ears.

Why so douchey?

Garmin!

Wow. What a great idea

Maybe I will pass on going to London to measure the Olympic Marathon & Racewalks. I'll just do it with Google Earth in the comfort of my living room.

I found this from August 2010, it is particular relevent because it was written by the Director of Operations for Competitor Group and he refers to the measurement of Las Vegas (at least for the previous course) and also to GPS-related figures that have been discussed in the previous posts (13.25 vs 13.1 and 26.5+ vs. 26.22 miles)....

GPS Readings on Certified Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon or Half Marathon Courses

Thank you for your comment and question about the length of the Rock ‘n’ Roll race you recently completed. Because we often receive questions about the course length compared to GPS readings, we have developed this standard response.

The course you ran was certified as accurately measured by USA Track and Field, the governing body for road running in this country. Courses are not measured by GPS, tape measure, surveying equipment, car, or by walking with a measuring wheel. All road race courses are measured by a standard bicycle fitted with a calibrated mechanical counter on the front wheel.

GPS readings on the course are almost always slightly longer than the distance measured with this mechanical counter. There are several reasons for these differences:

1) Courses are measured by the shortest-possible route available to runners on race day. This means that the measuring bicycle is ridden within a foot of the curb and turns are “straightened out” as much as possible. This method is used to ensure that no one runs shorter than the stated distance. With other runners on the course, however, this shortest route can be difficult to run exactly as measured.

2) All certified courses include a 1/10th of 1 percent (one-thousandth percent) "short course prevention factor." This is a small extra cushion to again make sure no one runs less than the stated distance. So, in other words, a certified 10 km (10,000 meters) road race is actually measured as 10,010 meters. For a full marathon, that means 42.1925 extra meters, or a little more than 135 feet. This extra cushion is spread out throughout the course, not simply added to the start and finish, and is present in ALL certified courses.

3) And, lastly, consumer GPS devices are not 100% accurate. We have found they are typically 1-to-2% off. GPS accuracy is affected by elevation, the number of turns, tree coverage, tall buildings, bridges and overpasses, and the quality and quantity of satellite reception. In a half marathon, a 1% difference is more than a tenth of a mile. So, readings of 13.25 miles or more for a 13.10938-mile certified half-marathon and 26.50 miles or more for a certified 26.21876-mile marathon are not unusual and are to be expected.

I realize this may be a long answer to a simple question, but we take course distance very seriously and all of our races are certified by experienced measurers, many with decades of experience. I am internationally-accredited and I have measured many of our courses (San Diego, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Seattle, and New Orleans, for example). When I measure a course with my mechanical counter, I also have a Garmin Edge 705 mounted on my handlebars for reference, elevation, and computer mapping. My Garmin reading is always longer than the distance measured with my mechanical counter. For example, I recently measured a half marathon, which is 13.109876 miles, and my GPS read 13.30 miles.

The GPS is a useful and informative training device. I use a Garmin when training and racing. I have come to understand and accept that the information it provides me about distance, pace-per-mile, average pace, elevation, etc., though very close, is not 100% accurate. I do trust the stopwatch function, of course, but I know the distance feature will almost always give me a reading that is “too long” when I race on a certified course. (Consequently, the "pace per mile" or "average pace" functions are too fast.)

If you want to learn more about how courses are measured, visit the “Course Certification” area in the “Products and Services” section of the USA Track and Field website (http://www.usatf.org/events/courses/certification/). If you have any questions, contact me directly at

dthurston@competitorgroup.com

or by phone at 858-228-3763.

Thanks for your participation and best wishes for your training and racing.

Doug Thurston

Director, Operations

The Competitor Group

Organizers of the Rock 'N' Roll Marathon Series

9477 Waples St., Suite 150, San Diego, CA 92121

dthurston@competitorgroup.com

http://www.competitor.com

Office (858) 228-3763

David Katz wrote:

Garmin!

Wow. What a great idea

Maybe I will pass on going to London to measure the Olympic Marathon & Racewalks. I'll just do it with Google Earth in the comfort of my living room.

Well David you know they didn't use a temperature corrected chain so the measurement could be suspect. If they're not willing to pound a stake into the asphalt every 100 meters or so and stretch that thing with a scale they might as well use a Garmin.

And I pointed this this 2010 'generic response' out, because the course MEASUREMENT is not the issue.

The issue is only in the Rock n' Roll Las Vegas race officials not providing runners access to what Doug deemed the "shortest-possible route available to runners on race day". Which is incidently part of the course measurement. So there is a missing piece of the puzzle.

Whether by sheer accident or by poor design, it doesn't matter. It caused competitive runners to run an unacceptable additional length of at least a quarter-mile, which at WR pace is still over a minute and substantial. For the average Rock n Roll participant, it would be over 2 minutes.

Nobody is saying that a professional course measurer is less accurate than a GPS-enabled device during the race.

Very good response by Doug & RnR

I covered the half-marathon from the men's lead vehicle. Our vehicle passed both the men's and women's leaders in the full marathon, and I got a particularly good view of the women's leader, Zsofia Erdelyi. She was walking when I saw her, at around 25 km, and she was holding her right side, clearly trying to rub out a stitch.

Later, when I saw her finish, I was really surprised she hadn't dropped out. Her finish time makes sense given how she was struggling.

David Monti, Editor & Publisher

Race Results Weekly

generic response wrote:Nobody is saying that a professional course measurer is less accurate than a GPS-enabled device during the race.

Yes they are, and that's my point. Despite my good natured jab at David with the chain comment there was a general tone that due to "traffic problems" course layout and measurement is hap-hazard in the US. I don't feel that's the case.

When I measure or layout a course I take that serious. I might run that course. I don't know course measurers that think otherwise. While I may kid other measurers about their level of dedication to their task I never doubt their desire to deliver an accurate course. Knowing what you've run is fundamental. That's why those of us that measure courses do it.

I used GPS devices when they were (old) cell phone size. Why? Because I thought it would help delivering an accurately documented course. I nearly always run or bike with a Garmin today. I love those gadgets.

However being the geek I also know that I can do the same bike course a couple dozen times a year and get 32 to 34 miles out of it. I've also been Garmin clocked at over 100 MPH on foot for a half mile, which I unfortunately wasn't to reproduce in competition.

I have seen way more than my share of courses laid out wrong on race day. That's not fair to the runner or the measurer. Now it could be the measurer's fault if the map is done wrong, and we've seen that one and a while when someone says a point is 200 feet north of a post when it's 200 feet south. Most of those are caught by the region certifiers when documentation is submitted.

So now we have someone claiming the course is long because a) the 2nd half was run slower by a lot of people, which happens all the time and that b) both halves of and out and each weren't run the same which also happens all the time. This is saying that since someone read in the National Inquirer that Elvis ran the marathon that we should adjust the splits because he was already stiff at the start.

IT WAS THE WIND.

All you have to do is go to weatherunderground to see the 11-12 mph wind was at their backs on the way out for the marathon and against them on the way in. While that isn't a strong wind, the 20+mph difference could easily be worth 10-15 seconds per mile between the first and last half.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KLAS/2011/12/4/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Since most runners go out too fast anyway, the wind conditions made them pay even more than they usually would.

As for the half, it was run more east-west so the wind wouldn't have made much difference but again most runners generally go out too fast.

Keith, I don't doubt you take your work seriously. I would venture you are very good at it.

Unfortunately, the quality of the course measurement is once again NOT the issue.

As is the case with many marathons, runners were not on the path the course was measured.

I'm adament on this point, because I feel its equally important that race officials allow runners to run the distance as measured.

It is my experience that events in the US have trouble with this. It is my experience that events in Europe are better at it. Just my experience. However, I think if you asked 10 experienced marathoners if they had been forced to run long because of traffic control, crowding, construction, or because of simultaneous events, 9 of them would give you multiple examples.

In Las Vegas, this was the case.

And because competitors are not running with a calibrated wheel with them on race day ... most have to rely somewhat on the feedback their GPS-enabled watches give them.

I don't particularly like the GPS trend. But I do like the potential resulting trend that race officials be held accountable for the actual distance competitors are asked to run (especially in a marathon).

Besides, you wouldn't have needed a GPS to tell you where you ran long in Vegas. It was not a trivial amount of additional distance.

And yes, the last few miles back up the Strip were more difficult because of wind, uphill, etc.... still NOT the point.