Ran 2:48 in Boston on Monday, what would be an equivalent performance in a flat course with decent weather?

were you wearing a Kirui inspired parachute or were you tucking behind dudes equipped with one most of the time?

Tucking as much as I could, but still got hit with quite a bit of wind

An equivalent performance would be 2:48

e·quiv·a·lent

əˈkwiv(ə)lənt/

adjective

1. equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.

I’d give you a 2:36. It was brutal

I really think it depends on where you were seeded. I was in 1/8, and had friends seeded all over the place.

My estimate based on about 30 runners divided among Waves 1-3, plus watching elite race later:

Elite women's start - added 10-15 minutes to time.

Elite Men and early wave 1 - Added 10-15 minutes to time.

Late wave 1 - added 8-12 minutes to time

Wave 2 - added 6-8 minutes to time.

Wave 3 - added 4-6 minutes to time

If you ran Boston at OK splits (I.e. 1-3 minutes slower in the 2nd half) it was about 4 minutes slow IMO. If you had a huge positive split it could be more.

I ran 2:34:0x in Tokyo and was in about the same shape when I ran 2:39:42 on Monday. I was a little off on pacing though so I split 1:18+1:22. I definitely wasn't in shape for anything faster than 2:34.

AndyDufresne2 wrote:

If you ran Boston at OK splits (I.e. 1-3 minutes slower in the 2nd half) it was about 4 minutes slow IMO. If you had a huge positive split it could be more.

I ran 2:34:0x in Tokyo and was in about the same shape when I ran 2:39:42 on Monday. I was a little off on pacing though so I split 1:18+1:22. I definitely wasn't in shape for anything faster than 2:34.

agree. look at Kawauchi, he ran only 7min above his PR. admittedly, he might be able to cope better with these conditions than the average runner. on the other hand, he definitely was frontrunning more than necessary for a midpacker. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to pick one number.

2:02:56

darkwave wrote:

I really think it depends on where you were seeded. I was in 1/8, and had friends seeded all over the place.

My estimate based on about 30 runners divided among Waves 1-3, plus watching elite race later:

Elite women's start - added 10-15 minutes to time.

Elite Men and early wave 1 - Added 10-15 minutes to time.

Late wave 1 - added 8-12 minutes to time

Wave 2 - added 6-8 minutes to time.

Wave 3 - added 4-6 minutes to time

Why would the different waves have different time adjustments? Did the weather really change that much in like the one hour between finish times? And do you really think Yuki's run was worth 2:00-2:05?

I thought Boston was a DOWNHILL course!

So wouldn't your downhill into a headwind on Monday not actually BE the equivalent to a flat course with decent (i.e. no significant wind) weather?

Dill Dickleson wrote:

Why would the different waves have different time adjustments? Did the weather really change that much in like the one hour between finish times? And do you really think Yuki's run was worth 2:00-2:05?

Good point about Yuki - though I do think that was an absolutely amazing performance, it wasn't the equivalent of a WR.

My different adjustments for different times is based on anecdotal observation of about 30 people I knew running in the different waves, and how they performed versus my private estimates.

On a whole, I thought those I knew in wave 2 performed substantially better (relatively speaking) than those I knew in wave 1, and those at the back of wave 1 performed relatively better than those at the front of wave 1. The 2:3x guys I know in Wave 1 all struggled far more than the low 3 hour people.

There's one example that is particularly striking to me (and admittedly, it's only an anecdote): I know two guys who trained together and both ran 83 minute tune-up halves at the same race. Person A is a very experienced masters runner, with a lifetime PR of 2:3x, I believe (not sure if he ever broke 2:30) and has run Boston several times. Person B is a relatively new runner and this was his first Boston. Both were hoping for sub-3 if the weather had cooperated.

Person A started in 1/8. Ran a very smart and savvy race, left it all out there, finished in 3:11

Person B started in 2/1. Went out a bit too fast, crashed in the second half due to cramping and had to take several breaks to stretch stuff out. Despite all that, finished in 3:09 - 2 minutes faster than Person A.

My thinking is that the difference between the two waves was mostly because the more people you had in front of you, the more wind blocks. I also wonder if there might have been some slight differences in when the rain pounded or the wind gusted the worst between the waves, but I have no specific examples to give you.

AndyDufresne2 wrote:

If you ran Boston at OK splits (I.e. 1-3 minutes slower in the 2nd half) it was about 4 minutes slow IMO. If you had a huge positive split it could be more.

I ran 2:34:0x in Tokyo and was in about the same shape when I ran 2:39:42 on Monday. I was a little off on pacing though so I split 1:18+1:22. I definitely wasn't in shape for anything faster than 2:34.

I was apparently running next to Dufresne (split 77mid, 2:39mid finish). I had been hoping to run 2:33ish (PR of 2:32, fitness about the same recently) and with the weather I adjusted to 2:35-2:36ish as a goal. I didn't run a good race and wasn't giving it a full effort in the final 10k.

I think he'd agree that we were fairly protected from the wind before Newton hills if you were in a pack, and I think I'd maybe have been only 30-45 seconds faster in better weather (for the first half). Once the packs broke apart you faced more wind and I think that cost me another 90 seconds or so in the back half. So total maybe 2 minutes due to the wind and cold (if you dressed well - I wasn't cold and also not wearing much so no extra weight).

darkwave who posted earlier is insane...there's no way that wind cost ANYBODY 15 minutes. Yeah, the elites ran slow. But guess what, they weren't exactly time trialing like the 30,000 people behind them are. They were there to compete.

Desi ran 2:39:50s, and yeah she was probably in 2:23-2:25 shape but that doesn't mean the conditions cost her 16 minutes. There are other factors at play.

anyway...I'm sure others will disagree because they wanted to run 2:59 and blew up to a 3:18.

Was in wave 1/1. Ran 2:41. Very diligent about tucking in. I think it was more like a 2–3 minute penalty, w most of that in the last 10 Miles when the packs fell apart and it was every man for himself.

reed wrote:

darkwave who posted earlier is insane...there's no way that wind cost ANYBODY 15 minutes. Yeah, the elites ran slow. But guess what, they weren't exactly time trialing like the 30,000 people behind them are. They were there to compete.

Desi ran 2:39:50s, and yeah she was probably in 2:23-2:25 shape but that doesn't mean the conditions cost her 16 minutes. There are other factors at play.

anyway...I'm sure others will disagree because they wanted to run 2:59 and blew up to a 3:18.

Fair enough. And I'm probably insane for other reasons :)

In full disclosure, I ran about 7 minutes off of what I thought I was going to run, with a two and a half minute positive split. And some of my problems were due not directly to the cold/wind, but indirectly (bonked because I couldn't take enough nutrition because my hands weren't working).

I do stand by my general theory that the conditions were much more of a factor for the elite women than the front of wave 1, that it was significantly easier the further back in wave 1 you were, and that wave 2 also had it a bit easier.

angryjohnny wrote:

Was in wave 1/1. Ran 2:41. Very diligent about tucking in. I think it was more like a 2–3 minute penalty, w most of that in the last 10 Miles when the packs fell apart and it was every man for himself.

I agree. I drafted for the first 15 miles easily, but often didn't notice any difference. Elites had it the worst. I guess about a 8 to 10 minute penalty for me.

Yuki spoilt things for everyone. He proved the direct weather effect was barely 7 minutes. Sorry ladies you were all pathetic, even lucky Desi.

Most elites/sub-elites were not physically beaten by the weather, they basically gave up when they saw others doing the same. Save it for a better day.

So if you ran hard the weather factor gives you 2:41. Flat? Meh maybe 2:38.

boston_wet wrote:

Just wondering...

That's a fantastic result. Looking through the performances of people I know that ran under 3 hours, I don't feel like it would have been drastically different.

You started at 10:00, and were done by 12:48. The conditions worsened throughout the race, and running faster meant you were out of it faster.

1) The conditions were far, far worse for the later waves. Much more rain, and that meant they'd been sitting outside for a while in the morning.

2) Boston is still a downhill course. Headwinds maybe negated the benefit of the downhill so we'll call it flat.

3) Taking out the rain, the temperature wouldn't have been that bad for racing.

I'd say 2-4 minutes faster on good day/"fast" course

I'm going to say sub 237-39

whoops....237-39