The views expressed on this site are expressed by the posters themselves and do not necessarily reflect the views of Run to the Beat or any of its representatives. The viewing and posting of messages on this forum is subject to the Forum Terms, which can be viewed here.

What Was The Actual Distance ?

Latest post 11-14-2008 16:33 by Suffolk Swift. 51 replies.
Sort Posts:
  • 10-06-2008 15:30

    • S-1979
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on 10-06-2008
    • Posts 3

    Re: What Was The Actual Distance ?

    I'm confused. The route which the Run to the Beat Team loaded into Gmaps Pedometer (http://runtomybeat.co.uk/forums/t/140.aspx) is nearly 13.5 miles (the same as my Garmin recorded). I wonder if anyone from the team could explain why this is please? Not trying to wind things up, but they're adamant that the course was 'exactly 13.1 miles' yet many runners (some of whom have run a fair few half marathons) are certain it was considerably longer than this.

    Quote Reply
  • 10-06-2008 15:43

    Re: What Was The Actual Distance ?

    Well Well,

    You certainly wasted money getting the course accurately meausred.  I recorded 21.97km, I couldn't believe that my watch was out by 870m so I went down the running track tonight and ran 9km, and.......... my watch was out by 50 meters that's right 50m too long, therefore even if you were super conservative you would still only be out by 100-125 meters over 21.1km.  I have to say it is really disappointing to put a lot of time into training, and enter a race, which was very expensive compared to other races organised by small running clubs at half the price, only to never know whether your time is correct.   

    I think you should get the course re-measured. 

    In terms of everything else that went wrong, you really need to employ people who are experienced in event organisation.

    Good luck next year.....

      

    Quote Reply
  • 10-06-2008 15:48

    Re: What Was The Actual Distance ?

    My garmin said 13.32 miles. I agree with you, very expensive for not a lot.

    Quote Reply
  • 10-06-2008 17:00

    Re: What Was The Actual Distance ?

    My Garmin 13.41, my mates 13.37. I dont trust the distance having run 5 halfs this year and never having experienced such variance.

    Very dissappointed.

     

    Quote Reply
  • 10-06-2008 17:12

    Re: What Was The Actual Distance ?

    Run to the beat, without the beat and a bit more mileage are insistent that the route is correclty measured, so IF it goes ahead next year, it will be interesting to see if the course is shortened in any way!

    Quote Reply
  • 10-11-2008 18:33

    Re: What Was The Actual Distance ?

    You should have all gone and done the Wimbledon 10 mile on the same day. Started on time. loads of music round the course and only Ten pounds to enter with a fantastic goody bag at the end.... the course is pretty testing too and all the money raised goes back into community athletics. Run by some guy with a big passion to make a difference to the sport. Highly recommended.

    Quote Reply
  • 10-13-2008 2:57

    Re: What Was The Actual Distance ?

    The last word on course distance - as received from Hugh Jones - Secretary of AIMS -

    Dear David,

     

    I measured the course myself. The reason that no record of this exists yet is because the measurement was finally done only very shortly before the race. I have a text report and a measurement map that I was unable to file with the South of England measurement secretary Mike Sandford before leaving to come to Rio de Janeiro for the world half marathon championships to be held this Sunday. I will do so when I return. The documentation indicates the course to be accurate. I measured the course twice, six months apart, and found minimal diffences (apart from where distance was added in to make up to the required 21097.5m) Indeed, I measured some parts of the course three times, and all measurements were consistent. I do not accept the accusation that it was 0.3 miles too long. What is the basis for such an accusation?

     

    I have previously encountered such protestations from people who wear GPS devices, but these measure where the runner runs, and no-one except perhaps the lead runner can get close to the ¨shortest possible route¨(a theoretical construct) that is the basis of what is measured. Some years ago runners in the London Half Marathon at Silverstone also estimated the course to be 0.3 miles overdistance, but it had also been subject to the same sort of rigorous measurement procedure. I do not know what I can do further (beyond lodging the report on my return) so that people can be reassure d that the distance was accurate.

    Regards,

    Hugh Jones

    So at least the distance is correct, if they can get the start, baggage reclaim, mile markers t-shirts/goody bags. music and the finish sorted we should have a half decent race !

    Quote Reply
  • 10-13-2008 9:25

    Re: What Was The Actual Distance ?

    If everyone is so bsessed with exactly how long it was why does everyones 'garmin sat nav' watches give different distances?!?!?!?!?!? it amazes me that some poeple measured 13.29 and some 13.44! surely if they are that reliable they would all read exactly the same?!

     

    it was an awesome day, you are there to enjoy yourself and run a half marathon. what difference does 100 metres make?! people should stop whinging and not be so negative. it was a first time event with the worst possible luck (weather and tubes) but most people got round and seemed to be smiling at the end.

    Quote Reply
Page 6 of 7 (52 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next >
 
Website Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Help
Copyright, RunToTheBeat Organisation, 2008
designed by IMG Media
developed and managed by IMG Media