CIM vs Chicago..

If you just compare the two courses, and hold EVERYTHING else constant, I think Chicago is the faster course.

Where CIM gets the advantage is that it reliably has good weather, while Chicago does not. The weather that Chicago had on Sunday is what CIM regularly gets.

CIM also has much easier logistics for non-world class runners. Being able to sit on a heated bus before the start really does make a difference.

darkwave wrote:

If you just compare the two courses, and hold EVERYTHING else constant, I think Chicago is the faster course.

Where CIM gets the advantage is that it reliably has good weather, while Chicago does not. The weather that Chicago had on Sunday is what CIM regularly gets.

CIM also has much easier logistics for non-world class runners. Being able to sit on a heated bus before the start really does make a difference.

LOL reliably good weather at CIM. The every other year of freeze or horizontal rain don't count I guess. I agree Chicago is an easier course since it's dead flat while CIM has some rollers the first half.

Facts are worthless wrote:

darkwave wrote:

If you just compare the two courses, and hold EVERYTHING else constant, I think Chicago is the faster course.

Where CIM gets the advantage is that it reliably has good weather, while Chicago does not. The weather that Chicago had on Sunday is what CIM regularly gets.

CIM also has much easier logistics for non-world class runners. Being able to sit on a heated bus before the start really does make a difference.

LOL reliably good weather at CIM. The every other year of freeze or horizontal rain don't count I guess. I agree Chicago is an easier course since it's dead flat while CIM has some rollers the first half.

I have never run either, but CIM has a fairly significant net downhill (340 feet) and I would presume is easier than a flat course like Chicago.

Ackley wrote:

Facts are worthless wrote:

LOL reliably good weather at CIM. The every other year of freeze or horizontal rain don't count I guess. I agree Chicago is an easier course since it's dead flat while CIM has some rollers the first half.

I have never run either, but CIM has a fairly significant net downhill (340 feet) and I would presume is easier than a flat course like Chicago.

That's why people that have never run either shouldn't comment when asking about the courses.

Well, who do we know that has run both courses?

Emma Bates and Parker Stinson pop out. They would suggest Chicago is faster. Has Matt Llano run Chicago? I'm sure there are a slew of others.

Facts are worthless wrote:

darkwave wrote:

If you just compare the two courses, and hold EVERYTHING else constant, I think Chicago is the faster course.

Where CIM gets the advantage is that it reliably has good weather, while Chicago does not. The weather that Chicago had on Sunday is what CIM regularly gets.

CIM also has much easier logistics for non-world class runners. Being able to sit on a heated bus before the start really does make a difference.

LOL reliably good weather at CIM. The every other year of freeze or horizontal rain don't count I guess. I agree Chicago is an easier course since it's dead flat while CIM has some rollers the first half.

Sacramento in december averages 1 day with rain out of every 3 (9.9 days per december). Average rain is a half inch and is about half the day. So roughly a 1/6 chance of a rainy CIM.

The other 5/6 years will average 40F start temps and about 48F finish temps. The real wild card can be wind. Between rains, usually significant wind is present.

So you're looking at 1/6 miserable rain, 1/6 years dry but windy, and 4/6 years dry and calm. So that is pretty good weather usually, but yeah, not super consistent compared to somewhere like L.A.

Chicago in October averages 10.2 rainfall days, so roughly the same. But the average rainfall is below 1/3 inch, so less than CIM. Chicago average start temp is about 48F with average finish temp around 55F. With all the large buildings, wind is damped down quite a bit.

So chicago is looking at 1/6 years light rain, 5/6 years dry and still with ideal temperatures.

Looks like chicago actually wins on average weather. As a california native, I'm a bit disappointed after bringing some data into the conversation.

I've run both. I've done Chicago five times (2:28, 2:32, 2:38, 2:22, 2:20) and CIM once (2:21). Chicago is the faster course. However, in any given year, one is likely to run faster at CIM because Chicago's weather is a complete crapshoot. CIM has much more consistently good marathon weather than Chicago, so it often results in a faster race. If you look at the times I've posted in Chicago, you can easily guess which two years had temps above 80 degrees and which years were cool. CIM really doesn't have this issue. This has a compounding effect, as good athletes know CIM is likely to have good weather, so they all go there looking for fast times. When you get a bunch of good athletes in the same race looking to run fast, fast times are usually the result. So CIM tends to be the faster race despite having a more difficult course, in my opinion.

As a Chicago resident, I must tell you that you can't use averages to glean any useful information with regard to Chicago weather in October. Our weather is characterized by extremes this time of year (much like our spring), so while averages might look great, the inputs are often quite unfavorable. A year of 30 degrees and a year of 80 degrees average out to 55, but 80 is horrible for everyone, and 30 is only good for a select group of people in a marathon.

itdepends wrote:

Well, who do we know that has run both courses?

Emma Bates and Parker Stinson pop out. They would suggest Chicago is faster. Has Matt Llano run Chicago? I'm sure there are a slew of others.

I have run both and that's why I commented.

I think weather anywhere worth running a Marathon in December is always going to have off days. That's why I wouldn't said "reliably" good weather.