16 replies to this topic

[julia]

Anyone else running in the Corporate Games this Saturday at Albert Park?
I'm flying down for it

[moby]

Hi Julia

Didn't see this during the week.  How did you go?  I did run yesterday morning and it was probably as bad conditions as I've raced in.  Although the rain and wind were not at their worst at the time as earlier and later in the day, the amount of water and mud on the gravel path made footing a bit uncertain.  

I only managed to run 7 seconds faster than I went through the 10km point of the 14km City2Sea race a fortnight ago.  I am putting this down partly to the conditions but also that I am pretty certain the course wasn't accurately measured and was long.

[julia]

Hi moby,

I won the 5k race, both 1st in my age group and 1st out of the females. It was a slow time though, I was the only female to go sub 20 and only just which is slowwww for me, but I do believe it was the conditions and I measured the course as 5.2k.
Also, having the 10k start before the 5k meant I spent most of the race weaving around people, spent a lot of the time running on the grass as people were running 3-4 abreast and having a big chat and didn't notice or respond to me trying to break my way through.
It was only in the last km that I realised there was still 1 more female in front of me as she was in amongst the 10k racers...but I caught her in the last 100-150m

Was great fun, will most likely be back next year!

[DistanceRunner]

Moby, interested to ask why you thought the course was long?

It wasn't long, and the course has been accurately measured. The conditions were quite poor for a quick time, and the gravel at Albert Park is never a speedy surface.

[julia]

DistanceRunner, on 28 November 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

Moby, interested to ask why you thought the course was long?

It wasn't long, and the course has been accurately measured. The conditions were quite poor for a quick time, and the gravel at Albert Park is never a speedy surface.

My garmin picked up the course as 5.2km, and given what I know my 200m time is and my previous 5km time in tough conditions, when I take my 200m time off my result, it becomes a more reasonable 5k time for myself even with the poor weather and surface. And most of my km splits were the same except for the last 2 which were faster and match the pace I thought I was doing, so I'm pretty happy with the accuracy of my garmin during the race.

But yeah I definately measured the course as long. I did the same course the next day for my long run (but a few times around ), and I measured it as long again with clear weather.

[pbig]

Garmins (and other GPS devices) almost invariably measure courses long, so I'd rather put my faith in official measurements - my 301xt measured 10.25km for the 2 laps. It was rather like running in a wet sandpit, especially for the 2nd lap, and avoiding the birdlife, schoolkids and boats was interesting, but atmospherically at least the conditions were pretty good. Happy with an alleged 3rd place in the old blokes category given it was my first 10km in years, almost 3mins slower than my previous corp games in 2003 though!

[julia]

pbig, on 28 November 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

Garmins (and other GPS devices) almost invariably measure courses long, so I'd rather put my faith in official measurements - my 301xt measured 10.25km for the 2 laps. It was rather like running in a wet sandpit, especially for the 2nd lap, and avoiding the birdlife, schoolkids and boats was interesting, but atmospherically at least the conditions were pretty good. Happy with an alleged 3rd place in the old blokes category given it was my first 10km in years, almost 3mins slower than my previous corp games in 2003 though!

While my Garmin isn't 100% accurate and I know that, I find mine usually measures courses as short rather than long. Although I haven't factored in the weaving around people I did into my distance I don't mind the wet course, I've always been told to just run straight through the puddles, except I had a few close calls of people changing direction in the last minute to avoid puddles and jumping right in front of me. Either way I enjoyed it, I was a bit worried if I'd get my medal through the bag check at the airport though, it's quite hefty!

[DistanceRunner]

My own experience with Garmins is that they tend to measure long (on an accurate course), so that all else being equal (and with good reception) I'd expect to see about 10.2 for a 10.00 certified course. I have rarely had a Garmin measure less than 10 on an known to be accurate 10km course.

The accuracy of a Garmin is stated as +-2%. When you consider the fact that runners never run the optimal race line - especially dodging all the obstacles at Albert Park I wouldn't be concerned over your reading.

I'd be interested in knowing any other observations/ suggestions participants may have concerning the race(s).

[pbig]

DistanceRunner, on 28 November 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

I'd be interested in knowing any other observations/ suggestions participants may have concerning the race(s).

DR, not related to the race itself and maybe not within your control or influence, but I'd like to have seen a participant list before the event - I did ask games admin via email beforehand but was told it was not available. Makes no difference to the run, but from a social perspective it's always good to know if there's someone you've met before who's also doing the event. With the information presumably in a database it could not be that hard to extract.

[julia]

DistanceRunner, on 28 November 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

My own experience with Garmins is that they tend to measure long (on an accurate course), so that all else being equal (and with good reception) I'd expect to see about 10.2 for a 10.00 certified course. I have rarely had a Garmin measure less than 10 on an known to be accurate 10km course.

The accuracy of a Garmin is stated as +-2%. When you consider the fact that runners never run the optimal race line - especially dodging all the obstacles at Albert Park I wouldn't be concerned over your reading.

I'd be interested in knowing any other observations/ suggestions participants may have concerning the race(s).

I measured the 9k bridge run as 8.80k both years maybe my garmin is special...

Suggestions, I would ask for the 5k to begin before the 10km. I understand that it was probably done with the 10k first for time reasons, but in the end, the difference is only 5 minutes.

I spent a lot of my time running in and around the 10k runners, from the end of the 1st km onwards, I was either weaving through people, warning people I was approaching, or running on the grass because I couldn't get through people or around them on the track. There was not a great deal of the race where I was running freely, I spent most of the race figuring out how to dodge people. I did hear some people remark along the lines that they didn't know why we were going so fast, and some seemed to not realise that we were 5k runners, not 10k runners, and that we were trying to get past them because we were running a different race - it seemed like some did not want to let us through because they thought we were competing with them.

I nearly tripped over/tripped others trying to move in and around, especially when it came to the 5k turn off - surrounded by 10k runners wanting to turn left and me sprinting straight ahead as I chased down the female that ended up in 2nd place. I did make all efforts to be on the very right of everyone as I knew some would be turning, but still..

Considering the 5k will be run much faster by some than the majority of the 10k runners, I would think it would make sense to have the faster paced race start first.

Other than that....maybe less rain

[pbig]

With a 5min start time difference, the issue of the front of one pack running into the back of the other would occur whichever distance was run first. It may even be worse with the 5km starting first given the larger number of 5km participants and the likelihood (I suspect) that the average or 80th percentile pace of each event is probably not that different. If total event time was not an issue, then starting the 5km 15min before is probably ideal - the front 10km runners would still eventually run into the back of the 5km event but it should be relatively thin and spread out.

[DistanceRunner]

We've had other feedback re: 10k/ 5k start times. Ultimately it's up to the Corporate Games organisers at what time they would like us to start the event. However, it may be possible to recommend that the start sequence be modified.

Re: start lists. Of course there exists a start list, and we receive a copy in the week beforehand. Likewise we can bring this up when the opportunity arises. You could argue that releasing a list of competitors (and their affiliation) may help generate a healthy rivalry.

[julia]

Good to know I'm not the only one who would like the start changed

And I thought I did see a startlist on the website before the race? You can get to the company team lists and it shows what events people are competing in, as I checked out who else from my company would be doing the 5k in my age group... but I suppose it would be easier if there was a compiled list available for those who wanted to see who else was running... but personally I don't like knowing who I'm going to be racing against prior to an event  

[moby]

DistanceRunner, on 28 November 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

Moby, interested to ask why you thought the course was long?

It wasn't long, and the course has been accurately measured. The conditions were quite poor for a quick time, and the gravel at Albert Park is never a speedy surface.

Happy to accept that it was accurately measured if it was.  

Obviously not great conditions for fast running, but (as Julia also mentioned) I just felt the final time was slower than the pace I was pretty sure I was running.  Everyone I spoke to afterwards said the same thing; they were surprised it wasn’t faster.

Now I never take the Garmin as being accurate, however I do know from experience by how much it usually measures long on a 10km course. On Saturday it was about 130m longer than usual so that just added to the feeling that I already had about it.

I’m guessing that you are from Malvern, and if so, I do want to say thanks for delivering the event.  Everything went smoothly on the day in very poor conditions.

[jpol3692]

julia, on 28 November 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

I measured the 9k bridge run as 8.80k both years maybe my garmin is special...

Nope, I got 8.8km too (or thereabouts) - that run is not accurate in any case (the website says 'approx 9km').

[pbig]

Just looking at the results - wow, 10km winning time of 31:44 in those conditions is flying . Nice time too and 12th overall in the 5km Julia, well done! Just as well I didn't hang around for the presentations - my alleged 3rd placing in the 50+ has become a 4th. Happy enough with the time though, wondered whether I would even get under 45 based on training form.

Surprisingly it looks like there were more in the 10km (246) than the 5km (184), but the suspicion that it may have been worse if the starts had been reversed appears to be true from a quick glance... just taking for example the numbers of runners at less than 5min pace and those greater than 6min pace:

5km, <5min pace = 49, >6min pace = 74
10km, <5min pace = 102, >6min pace = 45

... so, probably much more of a joining of the front and back packs if the 5km event started 5min earlier than the 10km. If starting the 5km 15min or so earlier is not feasible from an overall event duration perspective, then it would seem best to keep the 10km first, but maybe 10min before the 5km. The front pack of each event would still merge into the back of the other, with more of the 10km front runners on their second lap joining with more of the 5km back runners, but hopefully in both cases the back packs should be relatively spread out.

[julia]

Thanks I'm pretty happy with it considering the weather conditions and I've had some pretty bad endocrine issues the past couple of months which has made my training really inconsistent and just...tough, to the point of wanting to stop running. So this has given me a nice little boost as I prepare for Chicago next year