Had a good conversation with my running partners tonight about how far most Boston runners actually run during the Boston Marathon.
If you ran and used a garmin, post the actual distance you ran.
26.4 for me
Had a good conversation with my running partners tonight about how far most Boston runners actually run during the Boston Marathon.
If you ran and used a garmin, post the actual distance you ran.
26.4 for me
26.42 for me
25.98 for me... Odd.
Good thread. Does anyone actually email the course director and tell them the course is long (or short)? Love to hear it.
Not implying course was long, just wondering with the size of the field, how well were people able to, or not able to run the tangents
wheels are best wrote:
Good thread. Does anyone actually email the course director and tell them the course is long (or short)? Love to hear it.
I've read articles written by race directors that constantly deal with runners complaining their GPS came up with a longer distance. Apparently nobody ever complains that the course came up short.
If I was an RD, I'd be tempted to create an email filter to delete all emails containing "gps".
26.38
lets say you have a dead flat dead straight perfectly measured course of 42195 meters
BUT
the IAAF short course protection factor must be added
so you multiply the 42,195 by 0.001 and you end up being forced to adjust the course by adding 42.195 meters and voila you have a 42,237.195 meter marathon.
What next, Mrs. Landingham?
and the we have this gem taking remote measurement science to the nth degree
http://www.academia.edu/2056020/Photogrammetric_measurement_of_the_classic_Marathon_course
wheels are best wrote:
Good thread. Does anyone actually email the course director and tell them the course is long (or short)? Love to hear it.
Hopefully people aren't dumb enough to do this. GPS data is not 100% accurate and you can't run the tangents perfectly, so in most cases the data will show the course is long.
I actually emailed Garmin to tell them their GPS was defective when I didn't get exactly 26.2 miles. No response yet.
26.44 for me
mine came our at 28.4. Mind you the bus had to make a detour.
Lip Kitten wrote:
Mind you the bus had to make a detour.
Huh?
I don't know why runners think Garmin's can technically be 100% accurate. Upload to
Try running around a track then check the map. It may even out over several miles.
Check the plot points during a marathon. It sort of evens out during a longer run but if you plot the points their definitely not accurate.
I got 26.44 but I've found my Garmin consistently adds about .01 per mile so the extra .24 seems about right. Also agree about not being able to run the tangents the first 15-20 miles you basically have to just follow the pack unless you're in the top 100 or so because there are too many runners around you to be able to cut accross the road.
Has anyone used gmaps or another site to measure it? The cloud coverage also could have effected the gps recording.
26.33 . Garmin 620 (which I find is way more accurate than a 910XT). I ran the tangents...mile marker signs were right on the GPS mile splits the whole way. Of course the "error factor" has to be a tad long to make the course legit.
26.45 on mine, but I was unable to run tangents since I had to weave through a crowd the majority of the race. I'm sure it's a closer measurement for the elites who had an open road.
26.42
13.04 first 13 miles (99.7%)
13.38 last 13.22 miles (98.8%)
Garmin 220
26.39 and I did some weaving.
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34