Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

It's called a measuring wheel, or inaccurate race distances
Quote | Reply
I have never posted anything before, but I read Dan's article on race course measuring and sent him a reply. He asked me to post it, so here it is.

This article was one I just had to respond to since I have given more than a little thought to it. I agreed with Dan's conclusions, probably because I came from a running background where USA track and field certified courses. To be certified, an official had to go out and walk the course with a wheel. They noted permanent landmarks along the way and thus, once certified, there is not a need to do this year after year for annual races.

Most people don't vie for awards so the race is purely one against themselves and the only thing they have to go off is a clock. Therefore, runners don't like to find out after a race that their PR is not really a PR because the course was measured wrong. Apparently though, most triathletes don't care. Maybe because some of them didn't come from competitive sports backgrounds. Who knows why? I just know that whenever I have noted that a course is short or long to someone, people look at me like I have two heads. Measuring courses is not that hard, so I don't understand why race directors don't do a better job. More than anything I just want to know what the distance is going in.

I just raced a half-IM last weekend where the swim was probably 500 meters short (good for me) and they were setting up the buoy about 15 minutes before the race. Ok, I can live with that, but on the ride they added a little out and back dogleg to get to 56 miles. If it was a simple maneuver it would not have been a big deal, but to add the extra distance you had to make a hard right in the middle of a downhill, scream down a hill, brake hard for a 180 degree turn and then climb back up out of the basin. Why bother? If an RD isn't going make the effort to measure an accurate swim, then don't make me stand on my head to hit the other race distances on the nose.

That is one view. Here is another. Why are we so stuck on the standard distances? Why not have races where the swim is longer (I'll never go since I swim terrible, but others might) the ride is a little long or the run especially tough? I have my best overall place of the year each year at an Olympic distance" race with a 1K swim.

Quote Reply
Re: It's called a measuring wheel, or inaccurate race distances [cdwalton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I posted something similar before dan's recent article. It's either that I come from a running background, or that I'm highly anal (truth is it's probably both), but this really bugs me. I like the standard distance. I generally limit my sign-ups to standard distance races. I've never done Alcatraz, but here's an example where the standard distance doesn't really apply. But for some new local race, why wouldn't you make it one of the standard distances?

I'm out there racing against myself and the clock. I don't race for kicks, I race for time. I want to compare and I want to track my personal bests. If I were running for the USAT board, certifying courses would be my platform.

however, given the response I've seen in the past, no one would vote for me or my platform. :-(
Quote Reply
Re: It's called a measuring wheel, or inaccurate race distances [cdwalton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Why are we so stuck on the standard distances?"

i don't get the sense that we're stuck on standard distances. in fact, i'd bet there is less attachment to standard distances in triathlon than in road running.

whether you're running falmouth (with an odd distance), or alcatraz (another odd distance), or whether you're doing a standard distance, my issue is the same: measure the course. tell the athletes what the race distances are, and if you're going to have mile markers, actually place them at the correct mileage intervals.

no, it's not a requirement that the course be measured correctly in order or the race to be of value, or for me to have fun. but it's an annoyance. if you're an RD and you mismeasure your course (and especially if you don't care to publicly apologize after the race) it tells me you're probably lazy, and you have limited abilities. if you don't mind that i, along with a lot of your other customers, consider you lazy, dim and untalented, then fine, keep on doing what you're doing.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: It's called a measuring wheel, or inaccurate race distances [cdwalton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We talked about this in another (short-lived) thread recently, also in response to Dan's article, and I look at it like this:

If you're going to claim a certain format, be as close to that format as possible. Publish the actual distances before the race, regardless of whether the distances are accurate relative to the advertised lengths.

We're all hung up on the formats because the sport's organizers have made us so. So we go do our race, only to have someone tell us, "Oh, well, you're not REALLY a Half IM finisher because that race was short 1 mile on the run", or whatever.

If this sport is about challenging ourselves, accomplishing something we can be proud of, and maybe learning something about ourselves, then knowing just what we accomplished is an important part of that. Having the legitimacy of an honest course goes with it.

You don't often hear people say, "Oh, you only did the Chicago Marathon. That course is short by 1 mile, so you're not really a marathoner." But people in our sport talk that way all the time.

Let's think about why we are all out there doing these races. We don't sign up for an IM thinking, "Gosh, I hope the bike is only 90 miles and the run is 15." We want to endure the entire distance, and see how we manage it.

That's why accuracy in course measurement is important.

------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Reply