Anyone signed up?
Well, you can only run the route they provide for you, so what can you do?
I suppose some of the K markers might have been a little out, as I guess they can only attach it to the nearest tree.
But yes, that last K seemed very short. 1k is 2 and a half times round the track. We didn't do a full lap for the finish, so does anyone this the rest of the distance can be made up from the sign and through the car park? Not sure really
That was my first official 10K, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I do agree with Pete though, that last 1km was only about 500m long (according to my GPS watch!)
Great day though.
I agree the course was short. My Garmin measured it as 9.69km (6.02 miles), and that includes 20-25m to get to the start line. It's difficult to understand why it was so far out. The last km was short - the Garmin gives this as 746m.
I agree it would be nice to run a course that is accurately measured as 10K. But I'm not sure how accurate you can expect a cross-country course to be (I recall the Knole Park 10K earlier this year was also significantly short, also causing some runners there to be talking about their PBs). And you really wouldn't expect to get a PB on a cross-country course with its hills, obstacles / pinchpoints and stretches of single file running along narrow tracks. Better to run on one of the flattish, certified accurate road courses if you're after a PB.
On a minor point, I was puzzled by the failure to use the electronic timing to work out true race places. I thought chip timing would be a great idea given that with masses of runners on the track at the start, it would take many runners time simply to reach the start line after the gun (or whatever it was) went off. Chip timing would give them more accurate times (though we now know the distance wasn't quite 10K). But while the results do indeed show "chip times" as well as race times, the race places aren't based on the chip times. So in my case, for example, I was actually faster on chip timing than the two runners who finished immediately ahead of me (including one who sprinted past on the finish line!). Perhaps they'll get round to publishing race places based on chip times in due course.
These small points notwithstanding, many thanks must go to St Catherine's Hospice for organising an enjoyable event. I hope they have raised lots of money for their good work.
My Garmin measured 9.54K. I noticed it beeped at me for the first K well before the marker so I was a little suspicious early on. Last year was very hot and I did 49:50ish. This year I am a lot fitter but the difference was amazing, 42:44. I measured the course last year using the same watch and it was 10.07K. From what I remember, I don't think the course was any different. I have no idea about the technical aspects of GPS sysytems but I know mine (305) can be unreliable at times regardless of weather, trees etc. Is it possible that it if was out for 1 of us it would be out for all?
Still, it's a great course and a good day. Thank to the St Catherine's team. I really enjoyed it. We should all be pleased wih the PBs !! I love running past the grandstand I getting a ripple of applause. Makes you feel like a professional!
And no way can I be pleased with a PB over a course that was 9.7k or less - it makes no sense, as any future races you will not be able to beat it (fairly, all other things being even) if the race is a "true" 10k.
Anyway I have calmed down a bit now ! Got this back from the organisers:-
As the event is multi-terrain it doesn't need to be officially measured
by any of the governing bodies as a road race would have to be and it
doesn't need to be 100% accurate. Any off-road distance is only
approximate as it is impossible to measure uneven ground with the
special calibrations that course-measurers have to use.
Basically I go out around the route with a trundle wheel and measure the
course myself. We do try to make sure that we're as close as possible to
the distance but there will always be discrepancies.
For instance last year we were told by one or two runners with GPS that
we were about 300m over the 10k distance so when we altered the start of
the route this year we thought we would have those 300m to shave off
(presuming that GPS is more accurate way of measuring), but maybe it
appears he was wrong and we have taken too much off.
I hope this helps and sorry if it does come up short, but as I'm sure
you'll appreciate it is very hard to get a truly accurate multi-terrrain
I was just about to post the same thing as I got that response too! I'm glad they replied and hopefully they'll increase the distance a bit for next year.
It was a great 10k and well organised so i'm going to just enjoy the fact I did it!
I am not saying I didnt enjoy it - I am saying, I was upset that I can't claim a PB, and the distance was to blame for that. I wanted it clarified, if it was pretty much on 10k, then I would be very happy with 41m23s! As it is my previous road 10k is 42m17s - had this been a flat course then that "probably" would have been beaten, but who knows. I loved the course, dont get me wrong.
Now it is "officially" not 10k, I will still know my PB is 42m17s, and that has made me happier about the sunday race and time.
Hmm, an interesting reply.
But, I did South Downs Marathon in June, and thats pretty much all off road and there were no complaints about the distance being out there.
I'm just going to be glad to make it around quite frankly! Only been running 3 months and this is my first 10k.
Having said that I want to attempt a decent time and don't want to be stuck behinf walkers!
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |