Frank Duffy 10 mile 21st August 2010

robinph

Did seem to be quite a few people not overly happy with their runs today which seems unusual. Not happy with mine, but the course and weather and any race organisation are not on my list of reasons for having done less well than I know I'm capable of.

Not enough sleep, too many Erdinger NA the night before, too many burgers, not training enough, making a balls of my medication the day before, being dehydrated, not trying hard enough... and I'm sure I can think of other things I fecked up too.

The heat and hills were not a problem for me today though.

shels4ever

3 stars (average)

robinph wrote: »

Did seem to be quite a few people not overly happy with their runs today which seems unusual. Not happy with mine, but the course and weather and any race organisation are not on my list of reasons for having done less well than I know I'm capable of.

Not enough sleep, too many Erdinger NA the night before, too many burgers, not training enough, making a balls of my medication the day before, being dehydrated, not trying hard enough... and I'm sure I can think of other things I fecked up too.

The heat and hills were not a problem for me today though.

I have no excuse other then a lack of mileage, but to be honest If i was in good shape I'd hope like a day like today.

1. It was warm but not too warm, I skipped the fist water station( not planned but couldnt get any)
2. Zero wind
3. Course wasn't too bad at all..

Brianderunner

3 stars (average)

Slightly warm but nothing major today. Reminded me of DCM last year. Course was better than last year just the upper glen road as usual the hardest part. Covered in a layer of salt at the finish which says a lot about the conditions. Roll on the half.

chinguetti

3 stars (average)

I passed 2 different buggy drivers in the first wave, one even before i got over the start line (headphones and a pink hat i think) and the other before the turn up to the zoo (wearing black) which was probably the same person Gerald saw.

Surely there is something dangerous about buggys in a race with that crowd of people up near the front as Chesterfield Avenue is quite tight due to the parked cars and the surface is fairly dire in places or is that just me?

James Howlett

During the week I asked if I was mad to target a sub 70 time for my first 10mile race.

In the end I set myself a goal of 74minutes.

I now see the mistake I made and will not make it again.
Chip Time 68:45, shame on me doubting myself

Seriously though I found the race really tough but I did enjoy it.
I managed the first mile in 6:40ish and knew from there that I had the potential to get under 70.
I did find pacing pretty hard at some stages but thankfully i was able to stick to a group for most of the race and that helped.
That is until the final water station. I seemed to just lose everything there and was running on empty for the rest of the race.
I was convinced that I missed the 9mile marker but when it finally came into sight my heart sank. At that stage my watch read 62minutes, mile 8 had been my slowest mile for the whole race. A sub 70 finish seemed out of reach for me there but I just hurled my body forward.

Eventually when the finish came in view, and I could make out the timer through sweat drenched eyes, I was overjoyed to see I made the target.
The Foo Fighters song "Everlong" coming on my ipod in the final few minutes also helped.

rainbow kirby

digger2d2 wrote: »

And a purple...Yes purple shirt!! :eek: RK, was that you I saw in last years blue half marathon top and shades?

There were a lot of people in last year's blue HM top and shades! :pac: It quite possibly was me though.

rience

Woddle wrote: »

I reckon it's wave times and chip times, so it's just telling you that it still took you about 20 sth seconds to cross the start mat when your wave started.

It was really much longer than 20 sec. I think 2nd wave started at least 2 minutes after 1st one.

daymobrew

4 stars (good)

rience wrote: »

It was really much longer than 20 sec. I think 2nd wave started at least 2 minutes after 1st one.

But how long did it take you to cross the mat after the 2nd wave started?

I expect that the times listed on the web page have been adjusted for the wave starts.

RayCun

4 stars (good)

rience wrote: »

It was really much longer than 20 sec. I think 2nd wave started at least 2 minutes after 1st one.

Second wave started 4/5 minutes after the first one, but unless you were right at the front of the second wave, it probably took you 20 seconds to get across the mat.

There always seem to be complaints after races that people are being ranked on clock time instead of chip time, so people in wave one are ahead of faster people in wave three, and this seems to be an attempt to address that. Looking through the M35 results, there doesn't seem to be a difference of more than two minutes anywhere between 'chip' and 'finish' time, so they're resetting the finish clock for each wave. Results are still based on finish time, but the finish time is for your wave.

willowthewisp

3 stars (average)

Target of sub 80.
Came in under 77 mins.
It is fair to say that I was delighted.

rience

RayCun wrote: »

Second wave started 4/5 minutes after the first one, but unless you were right at the front of the second wave, it probably took you 20 seconds to get across the mat.

There always seem to be complaints after races that people are being ranked on clock time instead of chip time, so people in wave one are ahead of faster people in wave three, and this seems to be an attempt to address that. Looking through the M35 results, there doesn't seem to be a difference of more than two minutes anywhere between 'chip' and 'finish' time, so they're resetting the finish clock for each wave. Results are still based on finish time, but the finish time is for your wave.

Makes sense. Thanks for explanation. Although, I don't understand a problem with publishing results based on chip time (except that then everyone will have to wait until last participant cross finish line .

The Hammer

robinph wrote: »

Riiiiight, we believe you.

I was making use of one of the other women for keeping me honest for a large chunk of the race. The guy infront being her personal mobile water station and Mr Motivator:



I was going backwards a bit before they caught up with me, so thanks go to them.

Many of you probably know that that is the great Peter Matthews who blasted around the Frank Duffy course last year in 53 minutes - not the worst personal motivator to have :-)

another world

The Hammer wrote: »

Many of you probably know that that is the great Peter Matthews who blasted around the Frank Duffy course last year in 53 minutes - not the worst personal motivator to have :-)

I was thinking he must have been a very good runner because he looked like he was just out for a stroll despite going at probably 6.20min/mile pace and able to talk the whole time. One can only dream!!

papamike

3 stars (average)

Happy with organisation, staggered wave starts worked well as not as much congestion. Would have preferred a banana at the end rather than a pear but thats just me;). Not a big fan of the purple t shirt.

Training hadn't gone as planned last few weeks so I planned not racing this but using this as an LSR leading up to the half. Hit my target LSR pacing of around 8:30-8:40 for first 7 miles but HR was sky high from around mile 2. At this pace HR usually would be mid 140's but was up at 163-165 from the 1 mile marker!!! I thought I was well hydrated - around 2 litres on Friday and bottle of sports drink on the morning. So from that point of view it was a slog getting around and last 2 miles were not hugely enjoyable.

Any ideas why HR would be so high at a pace I am usually fairly comfortable with?

RacoonQueen

4 stars (good)

christeb wrote: »

Hahaaaa - he (Wod) missed me first time around but glad I made up for it at the finish!

I'm pretty sure I dodged him both times.

I called out to him at mile 9, distracted him and then he left it too late. :cool:

Woddle

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I dodged him both times.

I called out to him at mile 9, distracted him and then he left it too late. :cool:

It's that camouflage gear you wear, I'll get you yet.

CramCycle

3 stars (average)

robinph wrote: »

Did you start in the second wave? The time showing on the clock at the finish line will have been started when the first wave started, but the time that you see online is your own actual race time based on when you crossed the start line.

I had problems with this as well. My chip and finish time are the same but I didn't cross the start mat till after the third wave started. They obviously take a start point on the chips for most people but is it common for it not to work for others? Or do they just switch it off for the third wave?

I kept my own time anyway and was very happy with how the day went, lovely weather and lovely people.

flikflak

This was my first 10 mile race after doing a few 5k, 8k and 10k races. I got the shuttle bus up from Parkgate st and only had to wait a few minutes for it. There was still quite a queue when we were pulling away so I hope everyone got to the start on time.

Dropped my bag off which only took a few seconds then thought about going to the toilet and soon decided against it when I saw the queues!
I headed right for the back as I knew I would not be setting the tarmac on fire! So the crowd in the last wave were all friendly enough and there was a bit of banter amongst everyone.

Then the gun went off and we started. There were quite a few walkers in the last group which I suppose is only to be expected so I had to dodge round quite a few of them. The sun was on my face heading down the road and it was a lovely feeling being out and running(ish!) on a Saturday morning with everyone.

When we went past the zoo a few of us had a laugh at the animals screeching! When we had gone past the zoo and were heading up that long road (sorry don’t know the name of it) there was a woman in a Renault who was driving away like 100`s of people were not on the road with her. How did she get into the park?

Didn’t take any water from the first station but did from the 2nd – although I took a big gulp of it then looked in the cup where there were 2 flies eerruugghh! I quickly took another cup and checked that before drinking it!

So I plodded round and took it handy on the hills but didn’t stop or walk I just slowed up a bit to compensate. I finally crossed the finish line at 1hr and 49 mins. Didn’t really have a time in mind as I was just doing it to prove to myself that I could go the 10 miles so was pleased that I managed to jog all the way round and not have to walk or stop.

No fruit left when I came through but was not too bothered about that. Went and got my bag and headed for the bus. So all in all a good experience for my first 10 miler and feeling fine and dandy today which is a bonus!

Can’t believe how much paraphernalia people carry round with them though! Saw people with belts with about 5 bottles of different coloured liquid in, people fiddling with MP3 players every 2 mins, people with their phones in their hands, car keys in their hands, waist bags bulging with stuff and other bits and bobs. That would drive me mad having to go round with all that stuff!

Jk_Eire

3 stars (average)

CramCycle wrote: »

I had problems with this as well. My chip and finish time are the same but I didn't cross the start mat till after the third wave started. They obviously take a start point on the chips for most people but is it common for it not to work for others? Or do they just switch it off for the third wave?

I kept my own time anyway and was very happy with how the day went, lovely weather and lovely people.

I had this problem too. Unfortunately I didn't have my own watch so I lost as to what my time was. I'd guess around 82 mins, but would love to know the exact time.
I dropped them a mail inquiring...

jcsmum

3 stars (average)

Really enjoyed yesterday's race. Was aiming for a sub 90. The waves confused me a little bit and I plonked myself in the first wave, towards the back (I think), couldn't see the start of the second wave. To be honest (despite some cheekiness on my part), I was positioned well, I wasn't overtaken by that many people and I seemed to be keeping pace with a lot of people around me & overtaking some more.
I was mindful that I needed to be doing 9 min miles throughout and some sub 9 miles in the beginning to allow me a slower speed for the hills and the tiredness of the end of the race. It was my first race with my garmin and it was great because it kept me focused on my pace.

My time was 88.12 which I'm absolutely thrilled with. Roll on the half marathon!

Sparky101

3 stars (average)

I thought it was a great race, well organised, lovely course and fantastic weather too! I'm a bit disappointed with my time, was hoping for sub 95 and came in a bit over, but only have myself to blame as I really didn't push myself at all and treated it more as a training run. I enjoyed the run, but am kicking myself now
Then again, I didn't even wear a watch so had no idea how I was doing...perhaps this is the excuse I need to buy a Garmin?!

daymobrew

4 stars (good)

rience wrote: »

Although, I don't understand a problem with publishing results based on chip time (except that then everyone will have to wait until last participant cross finish line .

to publish them based on chip time is against IAAF rules. I raised this after the 5 mile race and the chip timing people informed me of this rule. (Search the 5 Mile thread for these posts)

Aside, I am planning to start a thread in the main A/R/T forum to explain the chip timing and how to read the results info.

rovers_runner

4 stars (good)

Great day for it, came in at the back end of the field and everything still went off well before and after the finish line.

Epic disaster personally but lessons will eventually be learned, lost interest at half way when target wasn't on so that'll have to be addressed, otherwise it is top marks to the organisers on a day which restored my faith in the good name of the series.

glennhysen

4 stars (good)

Ran 80.34 which was pretty close to my target time of 80 mins. Overall happy with the run, found the last 2 miles hard but that was due to lack of mileage in trianing.

Started at the front of wave 2 as I was unsure as wave 1 said 70 mins. Turned out to be great as i was able to get into my pace quite quickly.

Great event and well done to the organisers!

ct_roy

4 stars (good)

managed sub 80 (78m) so was absolutely delighted with that.
going was tough at times with the heat - water station 2 couldn't come quick enough

overall a great day out as usual as is the case now the with these races - and somehow the sun always shines!

roll on the half!

peanuthead

3 stars (average)

There weren't enough water stations imo. I was expecting 3 for some reason - don't know why.

robinph

I think I'd seen three marked on a map at some point, but two is about right for that distance. Any more than every three miles is a bit excessive, and putting one at 9 miles on a 10 mile race wouldn't help much.

MaroonTam

I was a little bit disappointed with my time today. Was aiming to get under 70 minutes but finished in 72:45. Its 8 minutes off last years time, which is a reflection of better quality training.

I think the main reason I did not hit my time was tiredness. I just did not get good quality rest in last week. But with the mileage increasing for the Marathon training, its no surprise there was heaviness in the legs.
I found the heat did not help either. Time for some warm weather training I think

I thought the course was better than last year. Still a couple of quite sharp corners, and I was not expecting the added detour around the triangle near the Phoenix Monument... but much more interesting than two laps, and less hills....

sickpuppy32

managed it in 107, bit dissapointed cause i wanted 10 min miles at least. That second hill defeated me, had to stop and walk for mile 8 cause my feet where screaming in agony, happy i did it but my right foot is the size of a baloon now

itsalltrue

3 stars (average)

happy enough with 78 minutes considering my heavy training and the heat.

Also i had a bit of a fall at the half mile stage. I would like to thank the person who stopped to make sure i was ok. Didn't get to thank him at the time as i was a bit in shock at falling, in future i will go around the roundabout rather than through it.

The 2 knees are in bits after it but i'm hoping it won't delay my training

chez-moi

I don't think the amount of water stations was an issue rather the stupid plastic cups. They should start using River rock because it is "water that you wear". Other than that a well organised race again

Kooli

My aim was 1 hr 55 mins and I came in at 1 hr 57 but I can't be disappointed because never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I could run 10 miles! So I'm delighted!!

It was really tough though, I struggled from the second water station to the 9 mile mark. I think that was partly to do with the sun/heat/dehydration and partly because I had been off sick with a cold the preceding week which probably left me tired.

So now I just gotta figure out if I'm enough of a masochist to sign up for the half marathon. It would probably take me more than three hours...and it would probably be hell....but I could always say I've done a half marathon!!!

MisterDrak

4 stars (good)

Great Race...

Was looking for 69:00, and got 68:47, which is a PB by 3:30. So a good day in the office for me. Thought the organisation was spot on, the first wave seemed well paced. Water station again in the right places, and couldn't complain about the weather.

Strangely the Garmin lost coverage at mile 6, so i had to relay on instinct to keep pace. Also ditched the running vest at mile 4, (on the start of chesterfield ave) and seemed to be the only guy running "naked"... Which in the heat seemed strange.

Anyway bring on the Half...

decboy

had a great day, glad most pains have cleared this morning, still a bit tight around the calfs thought nothing serious. was aiming for 86, but came in at 89.10. But overall I'm very happy with it. Its my first year of running, did 5mile before and now this. Will miss half marathon as have holidays planned. Does anybody know what I shud be trying to run this week after having ran Sats 10 mile. Shud I take it easy with a just a few 2-3 mile runs for a few days, then step it up again with a nice LSR this weekend.

it was mentioned earlier and deserves another mention, the monkeys hooting, and the size of that gorilla up the high tree at the zoo was amazing. had my earphones on at full blast and cud still hear them, so had to rip them out to listen to them. Where else would you get a run like that. Well done organisers.

James Howlett

MisterDrak wrote: »

Was looking for 69:00, and got 68:47

I got 68:45 as my chip time, must have pretty much crossed the line with you.

MisterDrak

4 stars (good)

James Howlett wrote: »

I got 68:45 as my chip time, must have pretty much crossed the line with you.

Yeah, see that from your earlier post. Well done. Bit of a race between us for the Half???

James Howlett

MisterDrak wrote: »

Yeah, see that from your earlier post. Well done. Bit of a race between us for the Half???

It's on like Donkey Kong.

emerald007

2 stars (poor)

Searching the garmin website for Saturday's race profiles seems to suggest the route was a bit long? 200meters or so.

http://connect.garmin.com/explore

Enter "Frank Duffy 2010" and "Dublin, Ireland"

I understand by sending the route down acres road, the idea was to ensure runners used the path for the second pass down chesterfield ave, and avoid any issue with the people at the back of the second wave. But could we not have just been routed to the left of the pillar and straight onto the path rather than having the longer diversion down acres road? The distance doesn't bother me but it would be good to confirm of the same 'dog leg' will be on the half marathon course.

chinguetti

3 stars (average)

MisterDrak, i passed a topless guy at about 9.5 miles so i'm guessing that was you as i finished in 68.19.

maximalistic

Well done to everyone who participated in this one very heartening to see the amount of runners well over doubling since I last ran it in 2008. Anyways came home in 85:10 kinda gutted I was missed out on a sub 85 finish but great day out lovely weather and very well organised. The shuttle buses in and out were well handy aswell!

RayCun

4 stars (good)

emerald007 wrote: »

Searching the garmin website for Saturday's race profiles seems to suggest the route was a bit long? 200meters or so.

http://connect.garmin.com/explore

Enter "Frank Duffy 2010" and "Dublin, Ireland"

Doing a similar search for Dublin marathon 2009 gets a lot of results saying the race was 26.5 miles long.

Middle Distance

Heard a good few lads who finished at the top end of the field chatting after the race on Saturday and quite a few of them were discussing the distance that their garmins measured for the 10 mile. At least 5 of them wearing the Garmin 405 got readings of 10.15 miles & a few with 10.1. Why would this be if the course was accurately measured. Do Garmins sometimes measure a little bit less if running under tress etc - surely though they cannot over measure the distance - can anyone throw any light on this one please:rolleyes:.

neonman

3 stars (average)

Well done to all that raced on Satruday morning.

It was my first 10 Mile race and wanted to do it in 90mins but came in at 98mins. Still happy with it as I had a long break with a knee injury that I hope is gone for good now, so I didn't cover the miles I would have liked in training before this event.

The heat did get to me a bit. The last 2 miles were tough.

I was wondering if I took an energy gel with 2 miles to go or even 3 miles would it have had the time to kick in and give me that little bit of extra energy to finish a bit stronger than I did. I know that you shouldn't need to take a gel for this distance but I was thinking after the race that maybe I should've had one in the back pocket just in case.

CramCycle

3 stars (average)

Middle Distance wrote: »

Heard a good few lads who finished at the top end of the field chatting after the race on Saturday and quite a few of them were discussing the distance that their garmins measured for the 10 mile. At least 5 of them wearing the Garmin 405 got readings of 10.15 miles & a few with 10.1. Why would this be if the course was accurately measured. Do Garmins sometimes measure a little bit less if running under tress etc - surely though they cannot over measure the distance - can anyone throw any light on this one please:rolleyes:.

After reading the numerous complaints on boards.ie about the shortening of the 5 mile run by a certain amount depending on what Garmin you were using, the organisers decided to add on a certain amount, again dependent on the type of Garmin you were using. This is why some say .1 extra, others .15 and some as much as 0.5.

Personally I measured it in steps and found it to be out by approximately 312 paces too long :P

RayCun

4 stars (good)

CramCycle wrote: »

After reading the numerous complaints on boards.ie about the shortening of the 5 mile run by a certain amount depending on what Garmin you were using, the organisers decided to add on a certain amount, again dependent on the type of Garmin you were using.

Did anyone else notice the two mats at the start line? One was for the chip timing, the second was for ****ing with everyone's Garmin.

gerard65

3 stars (average)

Middle Distance wrote: »

Heard a good few lads who finished at the top end of the field chatting after the race on Saturday and quite a few of them were discussing the distance that their garmins measured for the 10 mile. At least 5 of them wearing the Garmin 405 got readings of 10.15 miles & a few with 10.1. Why would this be if the course was accurately measured. Do Garmins sometimes measure a little bit less if running under tress etc - surely though they cannot over measure the distance - can anyone throw any light on this one please:rolleyes:.

A GPS device on your wrist is never going to be 100% accurate, its tracking a moving object from space. Try running around a 400m track with one on and despite running on the curb the device will show you running in different lanes at times, so each person could get slightly different distances, and road races will have you dodging around others etc. .05 of a mile is not much out.

menoscemo

4 stars (good)

My garmin had it 10.07 and i started a fair bit back and had to do a lot of weaving. Therefore i would think the course was spot on (or at least what i would normally expect it to be).

As others have said, i measured DCM last year at 26.5 miles which seems to be standard for most marathons.

robinph

The course being long is OK and the 10.05miles that my 405 measured says the course was spot on to me. Spot on being 16090 meters, plus about 50 just to be sure probably.

The 4.8? that people were measuring for the 5 mile course was not OK though and the course should never be short. You can of course have overly long such as a recent half I think which was 14 and a bit miles which is just as bad, but long by 50meters or so is perfectly fine.

central park

3 stars (average)

Well done to the organisers again for a very enjoyable event. We have come to expect great things from these races and as far as I'm concerned, it would be hard to fault them. The crowds have grown over the past few years so it takes a lot of planning and volunteering for it to go well. I say well done and keep up the good work! I love the purple t shirt, as it seems to be the year of the red and royal blue shirts at the races I've done!

gerard65

3 stars (average)

10.09 miles on mine, its not unusual to get different distances - within reason. I'd say if you wore a GPS device on each arm you'd get a different reading. Those satallites are a long way up.