Race Report

shinypenny said:

Daniel said:

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

Thanks!

Yeah, maybe sub-30 before March: turns out I was coming down with a
nasty cold! I've gone through a box of kleenex since late last
night... or the effort of the 5K wiped out any last shred of
immunity... ugh, I hate colds... oh well, my DH also came down with
the same cold too, so we're taking the day off work today together,
and napping as much as possible.

Quoted message said:

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course.

The course made a square, basically: straight up one road for about a
mile, turn right for about 1/5 mile, back down another road for 1
mile, then another turn to come back to the start.

Quoted message said:

On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns.

So do I, but they wouldn't let us run on the crown. We ran the whole
thing - except for one short stretch - on the right side of the road
in the gutter, i.e., the inner part of the square. So if the course
had been officially measured using the center of the road, wouldn't
running in the right gutter make the mileage shorter?

When I mapped using mapmyrun, I tried to draw the line as close to the
right gutter as possible. I could try mapping down the center of the
street, but I think it'll come out even farther than 3.18 miles.

My hunch is that at one point someone did measure it out correctly,
but originally it was intended to have a different start and finish
line, instead of starting and finishing on the same line. Especially
since before the race started, I overheard someone saying that the
course was supposed to end in this park area - but that's not where
they ended it this year.

jen

Your description of the route sounds incredibly familiar. I think I
ran the same one last year. I'm reluctant to say which one because I
don't want to reveal information that you may not want to be revealed.
But it was the same weekend and in our general area so I bet it is the
same race.

I was a little disappointed with my time but when talking to others it
was clear a lot of people were disappointed as well. Somebody
mentioned the exact same thing about having the stop and start at the
same point in front of the club meant the route was a little long. So
I went home and checked the route on-line and got 3.2 miles as well
(it was one of those uncertified races that measured wrong that I
mentioned in an earlier post).

So you probably did run 3.2 (or 3.18 or whatever) and your time was
better than the "official" results suggest. Plus your i-Pod seems
remarkably accurate.

shinypenny said:

Daniel said:

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

Thanks!

Yeah, maybe sub-30 before March: turns out I was coming down with a
nasty cold! I've gone through a box of kleenex since late last
night... or the effort of the 5K wiped out any last shred of
immunity... ugh, I hate colds... oh well, my DH also came down with
the same cold too, so we're taking the day off work today together,
and napping as much as possible.

Quoted message said:

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course.

The course made a square, basically: straight up one road for about a
mile, turn right for about 1/5 mile, back down another road for 1
mile, then another turn to come back to the start.

Quoted message said:

On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns.

So do I, but they wouldn't let us run on the crown. We ran the whole
thing - except for one short stretch - on the right side of the road
in the gutter, i.e., the inner part of the square. So if the course
had been officially measured using the center of the road, wouldn't
running in the right gutter make the mileage shorter?

When I mapped using mapmyrun, I tried to draw the line as close to the
right gutter as possible. I could try mapping down the center of the
street, but I think it'll come out even farther than 3.18 miles.

My hunch is that at one point someone did measure it out correctly,
but originally it was intended to have a different start and finish
line, instead of starting and finishing on the same line. Especially
since before the race started, I overheard someone saying that the
course was supposed to end in this park area - but that's not where
they ended it this year.

jen

Your description of the route sounds incredibly familiar. I think I
ran the same one last year. I'm reluctant to say which one because I
don't want to reveal information that you may not want to be revealed.
But it was the same weekend and in our general area so I bet it is the
same race.

I was a little disappointed with my time but when talking to others it
was clear a lot of people were disappointed as well. Somebody
mentioned the exact same thing about having the stop and start at the
same point in front of the club meant the route was a little long. So
I went home and checked the route on-line and got 3.2 miles as well
(it was one of those uncertified races that measured wrong that I
mentioned in an earlier post).

So you probably did run 3.2 (or 3.18 or whatever) and your time was
better than the "official" results suggest. Plus your i-Pod seems
remarkably accurate.

shinypenny said:

Daniel said:

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

Thanks!

Yeah, maybe sub-30 before March: turns out I was coming down with a
nasty cold! I've gone through a box of kleenex since late last
night... or the effort of the 5K wiped out any last shred of
immunity... ugh, I hate colds... oh well, my DH also came down with
the same cold too, so we're taking the day off work today together,
and napping as much as possible.

Quoted message said:

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course.

The course made a square, basically: straight up one road for about a
mile, turn right for about 1/5 mile, back down another road for 1
mile, then another turn to come back to the start.

Quoted message said:

On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns.

So do I, but they wouldn't let us run on the crown. We ran the whole
thing - except for one short stretch - on the right side of the road
in the gutter, i.e., the inner part of the square. So if the course
had been officially measured using the center of the road, wouldn't
running in the right gutter make the mileage shorter?

When I mapped using mapmyrun, I tried to draw the line as close to the
right gutter as possible. I could try mapping down the center of the
street, but I think it'll come out even farther than 3.18 miles.

My hunch is that at one point someone did measure it out correctly,
but originally it was intended to have a different start and finish
line, instead of starting and finishing on the same line. Especially
since before the race started, I overheard someone saying that the
course was supposed to end in this park area - but that's not where
they ended it this year.

jen

Your description of the route sounds incredibly familiar. I think I
ran the same one last year. I'm reluctant to say which one because I
don't want to reveal information that you may not want to be revealed.
But it was the same weekend and in our general area so I bet it is the
same race.

I was a little disappointed with my time but when talking to others it
was clear a lot of people were disappointed as well. Somebody
mentioned the exact same thing about having the stop and start at the
same point in front of the club meant the route was a little long. So
I went home and checked the route on-line and got 3.2 miles as well
(it was one of those uncertified races that measured wrong that I
mentioned in an earlier post).

So you probably did run 3.2 (or 3.18 or whatever) and your time was
better than the "official" results suggest. Plus your i-Pod seems
remarkably accurate.

tfactor said:

Your description of the route sounds incredibly familiar. I think I
ran the same one last year. I'm reluctant to say which one because I
don't want to reveal information that you may not want to be revealed.
But it was the same weekend and in our general area so I bet it is the
same race.

I was a little disappointed with my time but when talking to others it
was clear a lot of people were disappointed as well. Somebody
mentioned the exact same thing about having the stop and start at the
same point in front of the club meant the route was a little long. So
I went home and checked the route on-line and got 3.2 miles as well
(it was one of those uncertified races that measured wrong that I
mentioned in an earlier post).

So you probably did run 3.2 (or 3.18 or whatever) and your time was
better than the "official" results suggest. Plus your i-Pod seems
remarkably accurate

Now you have me curious! My email works - if you don't mind sending me
a private email, I'd be interested in finding out what race you think
it might be.

Also you'd said something long ago, about the March race we both ran,
you thought it was shorter than 3.1? I never measured that one because
I was quite happy with my results. ;-)

My DH said today that I should run a 5K every weekend that has one
local enough. He had fun scarfing up free bananas, waters and
cookies. :-)

jen

tfactor said:

Your description of the route sounds incredibly familiar. I think I
ran the same one last year. I'm reluctant to say which one because I
don't want to reveal information that you may not want to be revealed.
But it was the same weekend and in our general area so I bet it is the
same race.

I was a little disappointed with my time but when talking to others it
was clear a lot of people were disappointed as well. Somebody
mentioned the exact same thing about having the stop and start at the
same point in front of the club meant the route was a little long. So
I went home and checked the route on-line and got 3.2 miles as well
(it was one of those uncertified races that measured wrong that I
mentioned in an earlier post).

So you probably did run 3.2 (or 3.18 or whatever) and your time was
better than the "official" results suggest. Plus your i-Pod seems
remarkably accurate

Now you have me curious! My email works - if you don't mind sending me
a private email, I'd be interested in finding out what race you think
it might be.

Also you'd said something long ago, about the March race we both ran,
you thought it was shorter than 3.1? I never measured that one because
I was quite happy with my results. ;-)

My DH said today that I should run a 5K every weekend that has one
local enough. He had fun scarfing up free bananas, waters and
cookies. :-)

jen

tfactor said:

Your description of the route sounds incredibly familiar. I think I
ran the same one last year. I'm reluctant to say which one because I
don't want to reveal information that you may not want to be revealed.
But it was the same weekend and in our general area so I bet it is the
same race.

I was a little disappointed with my time but when talking to others it
was clear a lot of people were disappointed as well. Somebody
mentioned the exact same thing about having the stop and start at the
same point in front of the club meant the route was a little long. So
I went home and checked the route on-line and got 3.2 miles as well
(it was one of those uncertified races that measured wrong that I
mentioned in an earlier post).

So you probably did run 3.2 (or 3.18 or whatever) and your time was
better than the "official" results suggest. Plus your i-Pod seems
remarkably accurate

Now you have me curious! My email works - if you don't mind sending me
a private email, I'd be interested in finding out what race you think
it might be.

Also you'd said something long ago, about the March race we both ran,
you thought it was shorter than 3.1? I never measured that one because
I was quite happy with my results. ;-)

My DH said today that I should run a 5K every weekend that has one
local enough. He had fun scarfing up free bananas, waters and
cookies. :-)

jen

shinypenny said:

tfactor said:

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

I just mapped it on mapmyrun - twice. The first time it came in at
3.17. Then I zoomed in, and realized I'd mapped it kinda sloppy, so I
did it over, and it came in at 3.18. So I think I'll stick with saying
that I ran this one in 31:17. :-)

jen

I just want to take the opportunity to say I was very unhappy with my
Nike+ for my iPod. I calibrated it both on a track and on a treadmill
and found that distances still varied and I don't know why. Plus the
thing only worked for about a month and a half and it quit on me and
all I have been told is that buying a new one is my only option for
fixing it.

Oh well, I tried.

Matt
http://www.recreationease.com

shinypenny said:

tfactor said:

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

I just mapped it on mapmyrun - twice. The first time it came in at
3.17. Then I zoomed in, and realized I'd mapped it kinda sloppy, so I
did it over, and it came in at 3.18. So I think I'll stick with saying
that I ran this one in 31:17. :-)

jen

I just want to take the opportunity to say I was very unhappy with my
Nike+ for my iPod. I calibrated it both on a track and on a treadmill
and found that distances still varied and I don't know why. Plus the
thing only worked for about a month and a half and it quit on me and
all I have been told is that buying a new one is my only option for
fixing it.

Oh well, I tried.

Matt
http://www.recreationease.com

shinypenny said:

tfactor said:

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

I just mapped it on mapmyrun - twice. The first time it came in at
3.17. Then I zoomed in, and realized I'd mapped it kinda sloppy, so I
did it over, and it came in at 3.18. So I think I'll stick with saying
that I ran this one in 31:17. :-)

jen

I just want to take the opportunity to say I was very unhappy with my
Nike+ for my iPod. I calibrated it both on a track and on a treadmill
and found that distances still varied and I don't know why. Plus the
thing only worked for about a month and a half and it quit on me and
all I have been told is that buying a new one is my only option for
fixing it.

Oh well, I tried.

Matt
http://www.recreationease.com

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:15:17 -0800, "Matt -

http://www.recreationease.com said:

I just want to take the opportunity to say I was very unhappy with my
Nike+ for my iPod. I calibrated it both on a track and on a treadmill
and found that distances still varied and I don't know why. Plus the
thing only worked for about a month and a half and it quit on me and
all I have been told is that buying a new one is my only option for
fixing it.

Oh well, I tried.

Matt
http://www.recreationtease.com

What did you expect from nike [censored]? You are lucky you got a month and
a half out of it.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:15:17 -0800, "Matt -

http://www.recreationease.com said:

I just want to take the opportunity to say I was very unhappy with my
Nike+ for my iPod. I calibrated it both on a track and on a treadmill
and found that distances still varied and I don't know why. Plus the
thing only worked for about a month and a half and it quit on me and
all I have been told is that buying a new one is my only option for
fixing it.

Oh well, I tried.

Matt
http://www.recreationtease.com

What did you expect from nike [censored]? You are lucky you got a month and
a half out of it.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:15:17 -0800, "Matt -

http://www.recreationease.com said:

I just want to take the opportunity to say I was very unhappy with my
Nike+ for my iPod. I calibrated it both on a track and on a treadmill
and found that distances still varied and I don't know why. Plus the
thing only worked for about a month and a half and it quit on me and
all I have been told is that buying a new one is my only option for
fixing it.

Oh well, I tried.

Matt
http://www.recreationtease.com

What did you expect from nike [censored]? You are lucky you got a month and
a half out of it.

TBR said:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:15:17 -0800, "Matt -

http://www.recreationease.com said:

I just want to take the opportunity to say I was very unhappy with my
Nike+ for my iPod. I calibrated it both on a track and on a treadmill
and found that distances still varied and I don't know why. Plus the
thing only worked for about a month and a half and it quit on me and
all I have been told is that buying a new one is my only option for
fixing it.

Quoted message said:

Oh well, I tried.

Quoted message said:

Matt
http://www.recreationtease.com

What did you expect from nike [censored]? You are lucky you got a month and
a half out of it.

The Nike's worked just fine it was the iPod portion of the product
that failed. All Nike had to do was leave a hole in the shoe to put
the sensor. The shoes were fine, I look Apple's way when I think
about the failure of the product.

Matt
http://www.recreationease.com

"Matt - http://www.recreationease.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

The Nike's worked just fine it was the iPod portion of the product
that failed. All Nike had to do was leave a hole in the shoe to put
the sensor. The shoes were fine, I look Apple's way when I think
about the failure of the product.

Matt

What exactly did you expect from Nike?

Michelle said:

Also, race courses are measured at their shortest possible distances,
using the insides of every curve in the path. If you don't hug the
insides of all those curves, you will run farther than the measured
distance.

Either of those, or (more likely) a combination of them could account
for that .1 mile discrepancy.

What would it take to make an extra 160 meters by not cutting the
tangent lines?

We can get a feeling for this by considering an example.

Suppose that you are off by a whopping three meters around every
single bend. Every time these bends add up to a full 360 degree turn,
you will add 2 * pi * 3 or 19 meters extra distance. A bit over eight
full turns are required to add up to 160 meters. Your race course
would have to be twisty enough to spin you around eight times. That
would be irritating in a 5 km course. 🙂

Note that a loop course which forms a convex polygon only turns you
around once, no matter how many vertices there are. No matter how long
such a course is, be it be a 400 meter track or a marathon, by running
r units to the outside of the tangent line, you just add 2 pi r to the
total distance.