login
Chicago Distance Classic
-
No new posts
 2008-08-07 9:12 AM |
Master  1376    Chicago |  Subject: Chicago Distance ClassicAnybody running this on Sunday? I'm using it as part of my last long run before IMKY and was curious as to what people thought about it. Thanks.
Matt
|
| 2008-08-07 9:49 AM in reply to: #1587383 |
| over a barrier | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic Big Race, crowded at the start. I've done it a few times back when it was a 20K, we ran on lower wacker which was cool. I've done it since it turned into a 1/2 as well. Just hasen't worked out on my schedule the last couple of years...Well run though. |
| 2008-08-07 2:22 PM in reply to: #1587383 |
Champion 6999  Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic I like that race even though I only did it in 2005. I think you will enjoy it. It might be hot which is perfect for IMKY. Good luck with your training. |
| 2008-08-07 2:45 PM in reply to: #1587383 |
Expert 1226 Chicago | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic I did it the past 2 years. Elected to forgo it this year when they changed the route (it's all on the lakefront path now). They're doing self-seeded waves this year and I thought I read something about disposable timing chips? |
| 2008-08-07 5:33 PM in reply to: #1588370 |
| over a barrier | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic RunningJayhawk - 2008-08-07 2:45 PM I did it the past 2 years. Elected to forgo it this year when they changed the route (it's all on the lakefront path now). They're doing self-seeded waves this year and I thought I read something about disposable timing chips? San Fran marathon just did disposable chips, just a strip of plastic that sticks together. Too bad about all Lakepath... |
| 2008-08-08 9:16 AM in reply to: #1587383 |
Master 1376 Chicago | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic Not to worried about the throw away chips. That seems to be the new thing in running races. The run on the lakefront path is not going to be fun. It is going to be way to crowded. I'll report back on Monday with my thoughts on it. |
| 2008-08-08 2:06 PM in reply to: #1587383 |
Master 1563 Chicago | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic GOOD LUCK MATT!!! I may go down to watch, not sure yet though. I have to swim in the A.M. But if I go, I'll be sure to yell for you...what will you be wearing??
|
| 2008-08-09 5:29 PM in reply to: #1590647 |
Master 1376 Chicago | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic miami9296 - 2008-08-08 2:06 PM GOOD LUCK MATT!!! I may go down to watch, not sure yet though. I have to swim in the A.M. But if I go, I'll be sure to yell for you...what will you be wearing??
Thanks. I'll have on black nike running shorts and probably a white and blue TYR Tri Top. Probably the same one that is in my avatar. I'll be easy to spot as I wear a compression calf sleeve on my right calf. |
| 2008-08-10 4:39 PM in reply to: #1587383 |
Expert 1226 Chicago | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic How'd you do today? It was GORGEOUS outside. I'm pretty much left without a voice. I was at the top of the "hill" just after you turned onto Congress for the very end. My finger's blistered from ringing cowbell for 3 hours. |
| 2008-08-11 8:46 AM in reply to: #1587383 |
Master 1376 Chicago | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic I'll write up a race report later today. Quick recap. Race went well, they sent people off in waves spread apart by 4 minutes based on your predicted finish time. That spread out the course nicely. Both my wife and I thought the course was long. I had 13.45 miles on my Garmin and she had 13.48, plus she beat me by 11 minutes P.S. Thanks to everybody that came out and cheered. There were a lot of spectators out there. Edited by mattb1 2008-08-11 8:47 AM |
| 2008-08-11 3:25 PM in reply to: #1593820 |
Elite 2493 Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic I ran this too. Probably a personal worst, LOL... at 2:18... but not so bad since I run only once in a while these days. Just signed up on Monday cause I felt like it and the BF wanted to run it, so I did for the heck of it. I always liked this race. At least they didn't run out of water cups like they did last year!! My legs are a bit sore... but that's good... good training for the upcoming DairylandDare this weekend, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! |
| 2008-08-11 9:21 PM in reply to: #1593820 |
Veteran 118 Skokie, IL | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic mattb1 - 2008-08-11 8:46 AM I'll write up a race report later today. Quick recap. Race went well, they sent people off in waves spread apart by 4 minutes based on your predicted finish time. That spread out the course nicely. Both my wife and I thought the course was long. I had 13.45 miles on my Garmin and she had 13.48, plus she beat me by 11 minutes P.S. Thanks to everybody that came out and cheered. There were a lot of spectators out there. Hey, my wife did this also yesterday and her Garmin had it at 13.48 or something. She was upset when her official time came in, since she felt her spits were consistant. Also, I glanced at her log and couldn't figure out where the Garmin lost .4 miles, usually you can tell where it loses time. Also, my sister-in-law felt something was off based upon her pace. Wonder if anybody else had issues. edit: just found this http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2617614 Edited by McLuvin 2008-08-11 9:26 PM |
| 2008-08-11 10:49 PM in reply to: #1587383 |
Champion 6999 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic (13.48 - 13.1) / 13.1 *100 = 2.9000 So basicly it is 97.1 percent accurate assuming you ran the tangents perfectly which I doubt you did. Every race everyone complains how off the course is and really its can not be that off. maybe it was off but like I said its not that bad. Then again you never know. |
| 2008-08-12 8:46 AM in reply to: #1596042 |
| over a barrier | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic McLuvin - 2008-08-11 9:21 PM mattb1 - 2008-08-11 8:46 AM I'll write up a race report later today. Quick recap. Race went well, they sent people off in waves spread apart by 4 minutes based on your predicted finish time. That spread out the course nicely. Both my wife and I thought the course was long. I had 13.45 miles on my Garmin and she had 13.48, plus she beat me by 11 minutes P.S. Thanks to everybody that came out and cheered. There were a lot of spectators out there. Hey, my wife did this also yesterday and her Garmin had it at 13.48 or something. She was upset when her official time came in, since she felt her spits were consistant. Also, I glanced at her log and couldn't figure out where the Garmin lost .4 miles, usually you can tell where it loses time. Also, my sister-in-law felt something was off based upon her pace. Wonder if anybody else had issues. edit: just found this http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2617614 Yikes! That seems like a fun loving bunch at letsrun.... |
| 2008-08-12 9:03 AM in reply to: #1596184 |
Master 1376 Chicago | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic chirunner134 - 2008-08-11 10:49 PM (13.48 - 13.1) / 13.1 *100 = 2.9000 So basicly it is 97.1 percent accurate assuming you ran the tangents perfectly which I doubt you did. Every race everyone complains how off the course is and really its can not be that off. maybe it was off but like I said its not that bad. Then again you never know. I agree, every race I've been in I've never had the exact mileage when I finished. Depending on the length of the race I'm usually .10 to .25 miles long. This one just felt abnormally long. I can't swim in a straight line and I can't run in a straight line either, hence the extra distance. |
| 2008-08-12 9:31 AM in reply to: #1587383 |
Master 1376 Chicago | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic Looks like the race was long. According to John Bingham on the let's run forum. "The course certifier is acknowledging that the turn around is off by 0.1668 miles. He is therefore marking the course at 13.2762 miles" Sounds like they are going to adjust times to go with the new distance. Not sure how they will figure it out. I'm just glad I wasn't trying to qualify for a starting corral for the Chicago Marathon. |
| 2008-08-12 9:52 AM in reply to: #1587383 |
Champion 6999 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic (13.48 - 13.2762) / 13.2762 *100 = 1.535 so that means garmin was 98.48 excluding any error that people were off which is good. Garmin is not 100% accurate but it is quite good. I just know in bigger races the margin of error is much greater than smaller races since its hard to run the tangents. Its too bad that the course was off. I can not beleive someone acutally posted on letsrun that it would be on the middle of the road and not on the shortest path one can take. |
| 2008-08-12 10:12 AM in reply to: #1587383 |
Champion 6999 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic I can understand people'c concern over the race being too long but what I do not understand is people complaining that a pace group did not hit each split perfectly. |
| 2008-08-13 8:53 AM in reply to: #1587383 |
| over a barrier | Subject: RE: Chicago Distance Classic "*To all participants: It has come to our attention that the 2008 course was incorrectly certified. Athletes' paces have been adjusted to reflect the actual course distance of 13.2762. Finishing times have not been changed. See below for more details. As a result of the adjustment, The Bank of America Chicago Marathon corral qualifications have been changed for those who participated in the 2008 Chicago Distance Classic. Please click here for the most up to date information" http://www.chicagodistanceclassic.com/results.htm |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK