Is CIM the Vaporfly 4% of Marathons?

Everyone mentioning the rolling hills seems to be forgetting that you go faster on downhills and can negate the loss of pace on the uphill. More downhills than uphills can make a big difference.

The first mile is fast. Nice flat downhill. The next 15 miles are rolling and next10 are mostly flat with some gentle rollers. Get a headwind and you are done.

CIM is not a super fast course. But one people go to run fast on. Look at the winning times. No one has broke 2:10.

---

vivalarepublica wrote:

Everyone mentioning the rolling hills seems to be forgetting that you go faster on downhills and can negate the loss of pace on the uphill. More downhills than uphills can make a big difference.

---

---

Jimmy21 wrote:

I wish i had known this. I thought the bag was just to put your trinkets from the expo in. I didn't bring it. I thought my ride would be at the finish, he wasnt. I had to wait an hout in 2" split shorts and a singlet for an hour while my body was having trouble regulating temperature from the race. That was about as brutal as the end of the race

---

---

OTQer wrote:

I ran an OTQ at CIM last year and this year chose another flat (legal) marathon. I had better workouts last year in my build up and worked in a pack the whole race. This year I soloed my fall marathon in much worse conditions and was about 2 minutes slower than last year at CIM. The course is no faster than any pancake flat marathon but a pack of 50 guys working together (competition, mental factor, and drafting) plus perfect weather is easily worth a few minutes. Same thing would happen if 150 US runners shooting for an OTQ showed up to Chicago next year and had perfect weather. Turns out CIM gives the best odds for the combination of fast course, perfect weather, and good competition. The drop is worth maybe a minute but the small climbs negate most if not all that gain. It's definitely not 4%.

P.S. The vaporfly's are not worth 4% either (I haven't raced in them though)

---

---

Rolling Hills wrote:

---

Jimmy21 wrote:

I wish i had known this. I thought the bag was just to put your trinkets from the expo in. I didn't bring it. I thought my ride would be at the finish, he wasnt. I had to wait an hout in 2" split shorts and a singlet for an hour while my body was having trouble regulating temperature from the race. That was about as brutal as the end of the race

---

They didn't give you a "space" blanket? I mean in Boston, they weren't prepared, made you walk a long ways to get one, but you still got one, eventually.

---

---

S. Canaday wrote:

I ran CIM in 2015. Missed an OTQ and ran a positive split 2:19:52 but placed pretty well (it wasn't a USATF champs year).
I think it had rained that night and the road was wet...the temp was okay but there might have been a little wind. I probably went out a little too fast (the OTQ standard was 2:18:00 at the time of the race). Thought it was a fair course.

I think the past 2 years you've got super fast times at CIM because of the USATF Champs depth (the big pack),
but also the weather was been darn near perfect. The temperatures looked really good (cool but not too cold).
Then the wind factor. Looking at the almanac from last year there was a 0-1mph wind during the race...essentially "no wind."
This year (and those there could correct me if I am wrong) there might have been a 2-3mph tailwind part of the way....so basically "no wind to favorable"

The rolling hills make it a "legit course" although it is certainly faster than Boston (in terms of the net downhill and how it plays out)...I think the main reason these courses aren't IAAF is because they are point-to-point and you can get a monster tailwind the whole way.

---

And every joker talking about how it’s a legit course probably has their 2-3 min pr in it

Plus the excuse of the US championships is dumb. When LA was the US champs did it produce the same extreme number of OTQs.

The fact that no one has broken 2:10 is not indicative of whether CIM is a fast course or not. Men US marathoning is just not competitive internationally (except Rupp).

I personally find the idea of a PR on a downhill (and potentially windy) point-to-point course disturbing. To me, it cannot count as a PR and indicating it as a PR may be a sign of low moral standards. Not as bad as doping, but already a red flag. Bigger than wearing than Vaporfly 4% (what I would personally not do).

To sum up, I think that downhill courses should be avoided by serious runners. Yes, even Boston.

---

OTQer wrote:

I ran an OTQ at CIM last year and this year chose another flat (legal) marathon. I had better workouts last year in my build up and worked in a pack the whole race. This year I soloed my fall marathon in much worse conditions and was about 2 minutes slower than last year at CIM. The course is no faster than any pancake flat marathon but a pack of 50 guys working together (competition, mental factor, and drafting) plus perfect weather is easily worth a few minutes. Same thing would happen if 150 US runners shooting for an OTQ showed up to Chicago next year and had perfect weather. Turns out CIM gives the best odds for the combination of fast course, perfect weather, and good competition. The drop is worth maybe a minute but the small climbs negate most if not all that gain. It's definitely not 4%.

P.S. The vaporfly's are not worth 4% either (I haven't raced in them though)

---

---

Ghhhi wrote:

And every joker talking about how it’s a legit course probably has their 2-3 min pr in it

Plus the excuse of the US championships is dumb. When LA was the US champs did it produce the same extreme number of OTQs.

---

---

Blew up in 2015 wrote:

---

S. Canaday wrote:

I ran CIM in 2015. Missed an OTQ and ran a positive split 2:19:52 but placed pretty well (it wasn't a USATF champs year).
I think it had rained that night and the road was wet...the temp was okay but there might have been a little wind. I probably went out a little too fast (the OTQ standard was 2:18:00 at the time of the race). Thought it was a fair course.

I think the past 2 years you've got super fast times at CIM because of the USATF Champs depth (the big pack),
but also the weather was been darn near perfect. The temperatures looked really good (cool but not too cold).
Then the wind factor. Looking at the almanac from last year there was a 0-1mph wind during the race...essentially "no wind."
This year (and those there could correct me if I am wrong) there might have been a 2-3mph tailwind part of the way....so basically "no wind to favorable"

The rolling hills make it a "legit course" although it is certainly faster than Boston (in terms of the net downhill and how it plays out)...I think the main reason these courses aren't IAAF is because they are point-to-point and you can get a monster tailwind the whole way.

---

This. I also ran it in 2015 and can confirm it is was not at all as easy as I expected. You have to be wary of the first half and plan on a significant negative split to run it well. The climbs in the first half negate any advantage of the downhills. And the last 10-12 miles are essentially flat, not downhill. I tried to even-split it, but blew up and ran 6 min slower than I had at Grandmas, even though I went through halfway less than a minute faster.

---

---

CIM finisher wrote:

---

Rolling Hills wrote:

---

Jimmy21 wrote:

I wish i had known this. I thought the bag was just to put your trinkets from the expo in. I didn't bring it. I thought my ride would be at the finish, he wasnt. I had to wait an hout in 2" split shorts and a singlet for an hour while my body was having trouble regulating temperature from the race. That was about as brutal as the end of the race

---

They didn't give you a "space" blanket? I mean in Boston, they weren't prepared, made you walk a long ways to get one, but you still got one, eventually.

---

They gave out these oversized jackets of some cheap material that had about the same effectiveness as a space blanket. I was given one about 10 seconds after finishing. A swarm of volunteers descended on me and one of them had the jackets. I guess it's possible to slip through the cracks, unfortunately.

---

Hey guys,

OTQ'd yesterday. Previous poster who got the time pretty much already said this but since there still seems to be a lot of hate over the course, here's my 2 cents.

I've run 2:20 a few times at regional marathons, usually winning by 5 minutes and not having bottles/anybody to run with. Fun tempo efforts but kind of hard to push myself all alone. The biggest thing that led to my PR yesterday was running with a group of 20ish guys for almost the whole race. Went out with the "OTQ" group that was running a little too fast, 68:26 at the half. Every aid station guys would pass water, Maurten, etc. It was the first race I have ever done that felt more like a group effort than a "race" like Boston/NYC etc. When guys dropped off the pack, almost every time one of us would say "come on man, 5 miles, get back here with us!". I started to hit some mental low points and was able to maintain my pace by just forcing myself to stick with the group of guys I had shared about 20 miles with already. This was huge. Yeah the last 10k is awesome, but I averaged the same pace for the last 10k of Boston a few years ago.

When you get 100 guys who have been practicing trials pace for months (most former Division 1 athletes with low/sub 14 5k PRs), willing to go out at PR pace, and working together instead of against each other, yeah a bunch are going to run a good time in favorable weather. Find it kinda stupid in the same week we get threads like "why can't American marathoning be deep like it was in the 70s and 80s!" and then people upset a bunch of people ran good times.

Congratulations..! My only question ...would you run the course in the opposite direction..? I won’t wait for you to answer; NO would be your answer. The course runs down hill thus its an aided course. Again congratulations a lifetime best I bet and lifetime accomplishment.

---

vivalarepublica wrote:

---

Blew up in 2015 wrote:

---

S. Canaday wrote:

I ran CIM in 2015. Missed an OTQ and ran a positive split 2:19:52 but placed pretty well (it wasn't a USATF champs year).
I think it had rained that night and the road was wet...the temp was okay but there might have been a little wind. I probably went out a little too fast (the OTQ standard was 2:18:00 at the time of the race). Thought it was a fair course.

I think the past 2 years you've got super fast times at CIM because of the USATF Champs depth (the big pack),
but also the weather was been darn near perfect. The temperatures looked really good (cool but not too cold).
Then the wind factor. Looking at the almanac from last year there was a 0-1mph wind during the race...essentially "no wind."
This year (and those there could correct me if I am wrong) there might have been a 2-3mph tailwind part of the way....so basically "no wind to favorable"

The rolling hills make it a "legit course" although it is certainly faster than Boston (in terms of the net downhill and how it plays out)...I think the main reason these courses aren't IAAF is because they are point-to-point and you can get a monster tailwind the whole way.

---

This. I also ran it in 2015 and can confirm it is was not at all as easy as I expected. You have to be wary of the first half and plan on a significant negative split to run it well. The climbs in the first half negate any advantage of the downhills. And the last 10-12 miles are essentially flat, not downhill. I tried to even-split it, but blew up and ran 6 min slower than I had at Grandmas, even though I went through halfway less than a minute faster.

---

The last half of the race has almost 100 ft elevation loss. Barely noticeable to the naked eye, but it makes a difference during the toughest part of a marathon. I often look at the elevation data on my runs and it shows a clear pattern in pace based on gradual elevation changes that are barely noticeable. I don't know why people can't admit this.

---

---

OTQer wrote:

I ran an OTQ at CIM last year and this year chose another flat (legal) marathon. I had better workouts last year in my build up and worked in a pack the whole race. This year I soloed my fall marathon in much worse conditions and was about 2 minutes slower than last year at CIM. The course is no faster than any pancake flat marathon but a pack of 50 guys working together (competition, mental factor, and drafting) plus perfect weather is easily worth a few minutes. Same thing would happen if 150 US runners shooting for an OTQ showed up to Chicago next year and had perfect weather. Turns out CIM gives the best odds for the combination of fast course, perfect weather, and good competition. The drop is worth maybe a minute but the small climbs negate most if not all that gain. It's definitely not 4%.

P.S. The vaporfly's are not worth 4% either (I haven't raced in them though)

---

In response to your opposite direction question: Would I run a marathon with a net elevation gain of ~1000ft? Sure. I've run races with 16,000ft of climbing. Would it be a little slower? Yeah, duh. So all marathons must be either uphill or 100% flat to be non-aided? Let's just have the trials and every marathon in Nebraska, folks.

---

vivalarepublica wrote:

---

Blew up in 2015 wrote:

---

S. Canaday wrote:

I ran CIM in 2015. Missed an OTQ and ran a positive split 2:19:52 but placed pretty well (it wasn't a USATF champs year).
I think it had rained that night and the road was wet...the temp was okay but there might have been a little wind. I probably went out a little too fast (the OTQ standard was 2:18:00 at the time of the race). Thought it was a fair course.

I think the past 2 years you've got super fast times at CIM because of the USATF Champs depth (the big pack),
but also the weather was been darn near perfect. The temperatures looked really good (cool but not too cold).
Then the wind factor. Looking at the almanac from last year there was a 0-1mph wind during the race...essentially "no wind."
This year (and those there could correct me if I am wrong) there might have been a 2-3mph tailwind part of the way....so basically "no wind to favorable"

The rolling hills make it a "legit course" although it is certainly faster than Boston (in terms of the net downhill and how it plays out)...I think the main reason these courses aren't IAAF is because they are point-to-point and you can get a monster tailwind the whole way.

---

This. I also ran it in 2015 and can confirm it is was not at all as easy as I expected. You have to be wary of the first half and plan on a significant negative split to run it well. The climbs in the first half negate any advantage of the downhills. And the last 10-12 miles are essentially flat, not downhill. I tried to even-split it, but blew up and ran 6 min slower than I had at Grandmas, even though I went through halfway less than a minute faster.

---

The last half of the race has almost 100 ft elevation loss. Barely noticeable to the naked eye, but it makes a difference during the toughest part of a marathon. I often look at the elevation data on my runs and it shows a clear pattern in pace based on gradual elevation changes that are barely noticeable. I don't know why people can't admit this.

---