Is CIM the Vaporfly 4% of Marathons?

In Recovery wrote:

ZachO wrote:

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.

Um, I asked if you’d run “the course”, CIM in the opposite direction...my unspoken question was..would you expect the same result..? To answer your question or statement about up or down courses..ever heard of a loop course..? CIM is aided by its elevation loss; the course would never be legal for world’s best records comparison. No need to get all worked up...

Would t it be great if you could estimate effects of different elevation profiles? You can!

1) flat CIM would be fastest

2) current course is about 30 seconds slower than flat course

3) running CIM in opposite direction would cost about 2:10 compared to flat (for runners in the 2:13:00 range).

Let’s use the men’s winner to validate this. He recently ran 62:39 in great weather and flat course at Indy. Daniels VDOT says equivalent marathon would be 2:11:17. Add 30 sec for the elevation profile of CIM, and you get a projection of 2:11:47. He actually ran 2:12:38 (but with very fast finish which suggests he could have run a bit faster.) That makes sense.

This used the runworks calculator. Google it.

Humorous Hypothetical Situation:

2020 Trials have some freak weather incidident (hurricane, perhaps?) that really slow the race down. Some guy comes out of nowhere to place in the top 3 and presumably get his shot at the Olympics. He got his 2:19 standard at CIM though...

Because the 2:19 standard is based off the IOC qualification standard, and its not an eligible course, does he not go? Can he “chase the standard” after? I thought USATF changed the rules for track where you have to have the time going into the trials.

This was great to hear, and watching CIM was also amazing to witness. I've run the OTQ in the distant past and have run CIM twice; once when it wasn't the US champs, and last year. I can assure anyone that hasn't run in a pack of dudes that when everyone is excited and confident about hitting an OTQ, amazing things happen. Add perfect weather and a great course (yes, call it aided, call it a net downhill, because it is, call it whatever, it's still Trials eligible) and you'll get a slew of guys/gals to qualify.

The bigger question now! Will any/many of those runners that raced CIM run Boston or Chicago next year? Even if half of them did, that would produce some great performances at a major US marathon. I heard the US Marathon Champs are in Atlanta for 2019, will that produce a decent fraction of OTQs? I really don't think it will, as a March marathon might be too soon after CIM. But if a lot of those runners signed up for Boston, we could have some impress performances!

I would like to see another 100-200 people attempt to qualify or run fast times at Boston and Chicago next year. Good Luck and great race ZachO!

Thanks! That's a good question. I'm not sure how next Fall will play out because I really don't know what the "appropriate" distance is between marathons. The Trials are Feb 29, 2020.

I'll obviously consult my coach, but interested to hear what you all think about ideal race schedule for next Spring/Fall to have a good peak in Feb. February is not usually a time we plan on peaking... I'd love to do Chicago as I'm in metro-Detroit and it's a short trip. So Oct race, two weeks downtime, then Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb cycle seems plenty, right?

Side note- I ran a "road" 50miler with 5k climbing 8 weeks before CIM so I'm not too worried about distance between races, but I imagine those shooting for top 10 at the trials will have to seriously plan their next big races! I'll be happy with top 30/40

ZachO wrote:

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.

Did you get your panties in a twist there "Zach"?

No one is suggesting that CIM is illegal or the results should be thrown out. No one is suggesting that all marathons need to be on a flat criterion course. But we are just looking for people to acknowledge the obvious.

I'm sorry, "the there was a lot of people to run with excuse is BS." Lots of larger races have lots of people in the 2:20 range.

I ran the USATF champs in LA in 2015....got 8th place in 2:20:02. LA is a way harder course (also net downhill), but the times were generally slower there because it was like 70 degrees and the pollution sucked.. There also wasn't the same competitive depth and not much incentive for OTQ guys. Part of that was the timing...it was exactly a year before the trials and most guys had already qualified. That was a much better performance and race than my 2:19:52 at CIM later that year for sure (which I didn't pace as well and didn't train for as well). Boston (despite having the same drop) is for sure a tougher elevation profile because of the nature of the Newton Hills and where they are from miles 16-20. I believe ZachO was also in Boston with me in 2015 and it was nasty because of a headwind as well (temp was nice and cool though!). You can also really find yourself totally in "no mans land" at Boston, Houston, etc. when running only 2:18:xx pace. Even at Chicago one year I was in "no mans land" for the last 10km running 2:19:18. People are focusing on the elevation profile....I'd say the reality is it was mainly the weather (past 2 years at CIM have been perfect) and the huge depth of packs of runners going right around OTQ pace. CIM is definitely probably the fastest course out there that is legal for an OTQ though (in the US that is)...I'd say if you loaded Chicago on a perfect weather day it might get close though. The issue with Chicago is that it is not point to point and you can still get a little wind here and there (even swirling downtown between the buildings!). At CIM they might have had a 2-3 mph tailwind part of the way this year....and definitely no headwind (always key). I forget what year it was, but one year at Grandma's Marathon (similar course) it was lightening fast because the weather was cool and there was a tailwind. Grandma's is a fast course because of the net downhill as well, although the weather (with humidity and wind) is generally more of a risk. In the 2012 Trials in Houston we had a flat loop course and also nearly perfect weather...plus 100 or so really good runners. I was like 44th place in 2:18:20. So with the relative competitive depth you can get a lot of guys under 2:19:00 in one race (even all Americans!). Congrats to all who qualified.

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.

ThonQuestion1 wrote:

Seems like it runs ridiculously fast, to say the least - and is 3-4 minutes faster than a typical marathon

most of the dumb comments on this thread are from people who have never run the race.

CIM is such a great place to run a marathon. Definitely not 3-4 minutes faster. Maybe 60-90 seconds. The weather is generally perfect, like this Sunday, and that helps people at any marathon run faster.

Aside from great, cool and dependable weather conditions, there's nice rolling hills, good volunteers, great ending location in downtown sacramento, and competitive fields.

i've run CIM, chicago, Boston, Grandma's and Berli, and CIM is my favorite atmosphere by far.

why doesn't everyone just come run it next year instead of commenting on it without any clue of what it is actually like?!

CIM used to statistically be the fastest American course for elite performances according to the ARRS, providing an 'average' year-to-year boost of -25.9 seconds.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110710065753/http://www.arrs.net/TB_Mara.htm

Then, they had some rough years with the weather, which skewed the race time bias. The ARRS website is now defunct. Searching the archives, Houston is statistically and consistently the fastest American course now, with a race time bias of -48.9 seconds.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171003214529/http://www.arrs.net:80/TB_Mara.htm

CIM is probably most comparable to Boston, in that some years could be really fast like Boston 2011 (~tailwind, power of the pack)... and other years are really slow like Boston in the heat (2012) or rain/wind (2018). Marathonguide.com keeps a list of the best "Boston qualifier" courses every year. The website isn't available right now. It will be interesting to see where CIM ranks after yesterday.

typical speculation on Letsrun wrote:

ThonQuestion1 wrote:

Seems like it runs ridiculously fast, to say the least - and is 3-4 minutes faster than a typical marathon

most of the dumb comments on this thread are from people who have never run the race.

CIM is such a great place to run a marathon. Definitely not 3-4 minutes faster. Maybe 60-90 seconds. The weather is generally perfect, like this Sunday, and that helps people at any marathon run faster.

Aside from great, cool and dependable weather conditions, there's nice rolling hills, good volunteers, great ending location in downtown sacramento, and competitive fields.

i've run CIM, chicago, Boston, Grandma's and Berli, and CIM is my favorite atmosphere by far.

why doesn't everyone just come run it next year instead of commenting on it without any clue of what it is actually like?!

Thanks for the perspective of someone who has run it.

To clarify- 60-90 seconds “faster” than what?

Any good coach knows that running in a well-paced pack is worth at least 10 sec/mile, sometimes more. That is 4-5 min in the marathon. It is one of the main reasons why Kenyans and Japanese can get so many guys consistently fast. They are very used to and connected to group running.

The same thing happens in meets like the distance events at Dempsey indoors. Sure the track is fast, but it's mostly having a ton of other people, all trying to run PRs, to hang on to the whole way. So many Americans fail to understand this, I think it comes from the tendency to train and race alone, and the juvenile attitude that will power will overcome everything, we can run our best as lone wolves out in front.

Hell, even having one encouraging teammate can be a game-changer. Look at Amy and Shalane in the 2016 Trials.

YMMV wrote:

Any good coach knows that running in a well-paced pack is worth at least 10 sec/mile, sometimes more. That is 4-5 min in the marathon. .

This is BS

FindMyMarathon.com has the % of Boston Qualifiers at CIM this year at 27% - new BQ standard. Under the old times it would have been 32%. And has the 4th most qualifiers behind Boston, Chicago, NY.

For comparison, last year CIM was at 18% and 23, 22, and 22 the years before that.

This year looks to be an anomaly in terms of Boston percentage.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Any good coach knows that running in a well-paced pack is worth at least 10 sec/mile, sometimes more. That is 4-5 min in the marathon. .

This is BS

Time/Energy savings with the drafting effect is highly dependent on running velocity (and pack size/formation).

Camille: have you run both CIM and Boston (and Houston for that matter)? In terms of how the elevation profile goes Boston is definitely harder than CIM! Houston is more or less flat but you can get some headwind (since it is basically a loop course)...the half at Houston definitely runs faster than the full IMO.

According to JK's rule of thumb, ~325 feet of elevation loss provides 58 seconds of assistance.

Sad to see no one has asked the obvious follow up question:-

If CIM is the Vaporfly of Marathons, then what's the overall gain running CIM wearing Vaporfly 4%??

Milton Friedman wrote:

According to JK's rule of thumb, ~325 feet of elevation loss provides 58 seconds of assistance.

and what was JK's rule of thumb about the amount of elevation gain? Certainly JK was too smart to say that only the "net" change mattered. So what was his rule for the loss for the elevation gain of a course?

ZachO wrote:

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.

Fyi, Somebody is already on the fast marathons in Nebraska idea.

typical speculation on Letsrun wrote:

ThonQuestion1 wrote:

Seems like it runs ridiculously fast, to say the least - and is 3-4 minutes faster than a typical marathon

most of the dumb comments on this thread are from people who have never run the race.

CIM is such a great place to run a marathon. Definitely not 3-4 minutes faster. Maybe 60-90 seconds. The weather is generally perfect, like this Sunday, and that helps people at any marathon run faster.

Aside from great, cool and dependable weather conditions, there's nice rolling hills, good volunteers, great ending location in downtown sacramento, and competitive fields.

i've run CIM, chicago, Boston, Grandma's and Berli, and CIM is my favorite atmosphere by far.

why doesn't everyone just come run it next year instead of commenting on it without any clue of what it is actually like?!

This post highlights the stupidity of the whole thread. Weather is a factor in races, but it's entirely unpredictable. Despite that CIM has consistently fast times - which you attribute to an unpredictable factor. Many, Many races have had near perfect conditions - yet how many of those races have produced 60+ sub 2:20s in one race? or 100+ sub 2:45s for women?

You think the only reason is weather? It's clear it's the course profile, the course has advertised the fact for YEARS.