Waterford Viking Marathon 2014

Dilbert75

My wife's watch showed 41.65km but we were rationalizing that by the fact that so much was twisting and turning in town, plus a section that was under tree coverage. GPS is not an accurate measure in such situations and I'm sure 123agh will be along to comment shortly.

Bahanaman

Itziger wrote: »

Ah, lads, I couldn't be having that. Two years in a row! Shocking. I have read a different report on another forum saying the same btw. Bloke said he reckoned it was around mile 11 but hadn't given splits or Garmin link - think he was posting from phone.

Bahanaman......... are you going to add on the quarter mile? You'd still be sub 3 right?

Well the average on the garmin for what I covered was 6:52 which is right on the 3 hr mark. I'd like to think if things were that tight near the end I'd have made it by hook or by crook! Still it's something I'll never know and that's what tarnishes the time. It's bittersweet! A sh1t load of work went into training for this and I ran the race of my life.

TFBubendorfer

Dilbert75 wrote: »

My wife's watch showed 41.65km but we were rationalizing that by the fact that so much was twisting and turning in town, plus a section that was under tree coverage. GPS is not an accurate measure in such situations and I'm sure 123agh will be along to comment shortly.

It wasn't the tree coverage.

At the 10 mile marker my Garmin read 10.1
At the 12 mile marker my Garmin read 11.67

That was on the Tramore road. All other mile splits were fine. I have spoken to a few other guys, including all the pacers from 3:00 and 4:00 and they all noticed the same.

ThebitterLemon

Simply unacceptable if true, an organiser can fock up everything else and a runner can probably live with it, but a short course is unacceptable and to happen two years in a row is nothing short of a disgrace.

I ran this in 2012 and really enjoyed it but I will never do it again.

TbL

Macaonbhuit

Definitely short. Busted my ass for this marathon after a disappointing debut at last years DCM. Very annoying to see the course was short.. and it undoubtedly was. It looks like just over a quarter mile short, based on my Garmin anyway - Garmin map Won't be back

Toblerone1978

My watch says I ran the course at 87 mins and my chip time is 87.5 mins long. Strava and the Garmim watch tells me I ran the half marathon in 86.5 mins ie the course was too long. Hard to know what's right!!

The course was flatter than I thought but it had a few drags! It was really well organised - army of volunteers, lots of pacers, well sign posted, lots of water stops, nice routes, etc. Showers at the end were a big bonus.

But as previous posters mentioned, correct distance is vital. I do wonder about the accuracy of the distance. Obviously different routes for different distances but the starting and finishing line was still the same for all distances - I would have thought that different starting lines would be required for each distance to have them completely accurate. For a full marathon in Vienna, my Garmin was out by 0.01 miles. For this half marathon, my Garmin was 0.08 miles, which is not much but in terms of what I trained for (a PB!), it's the different between success and failure. Even leaving a side the accuracy of the gps on my
Garmin, I don't understand why a 26 sec different between what I clocked on my watch and the chip time.

I spoke to someone else afters who also ran the half and their Garmin 620 clocked 13.2 miles. I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who ran the half.

It's a pity if this is the case because everything was really well organised. And the weather was A1 too.

mylifetoday

Courses are not measured by garmin... Certified courses are measured by Jones Counter... IS this a certified course measured by jones counter... ????

mr.wiggle

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

It wasn't the tree coverage.

At the 10 mile marker my Garmin read 10.1
At the 12 mile marker my Garmin read 11.67

That was on the Tramore road. All other mile splits were fine. I have spoken to a few other guys, including all the pacers from 3:00 and 4:00 and they all noticed the same.

I ran the half today and passed comment to a fellow struggler that the 10 mile sign was way to short..I looked at my watch and it showed 9.77. It was just before the roundabout turnaround for the half runners. But the half course measured over 13.2 on my garmin so who knows...btw Respect to the runners who did the full...I was thinking about ye in that heat..savage stuff.

snailsong

If the course was short that's simply not acceptable. A quarter mile night as well be five miles to any serious runner.

Anyone who did this should email the organisers and ask for your money back. You clearly didn't get what you paid for.

JohnnyBingo

Toblerone1978 wrote: »

My watch says I ran the course at 87 mins and my chip time is 87.5 mins long. Strava and the Garmim watch tells me I ran the half marathon in 86.5 mins ie the course was too long. Hard to know what's right!!

The course was flatter than I thought but it had a few drags! It was really well organised - army of volunteers, lots of pacers, well sign posted, lots of water stops, nice routes, etc. Showers at the end were a big bonus.

But as previous posters mentioned, correct distance is vital. I do wonder about the accuracy of the distance. Obviously different routes for different distances but the starting and finishing line was still the same for all distances - I would have thought that different starting lines would be required for each distance to have them completely accurate. For a full marathon in Vienna, my Garmin was out by 0.01 miles. For this half marathon, my Garmin was 0.08 miles, which is not much but in terms of what I trained for (a PB!), it's the different between success and failure. Even leaving a side the accuracy of the gps on my
Garmin, I don't understand why a 26 sec different between what I clocked on my watch and the chip time.

I spoke to someone else afters who also ran the half and their Garmin 620 clocked 13.2 miles. I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who ran the half.

It's a pity if this is the case because everything was really well organised. And the weather was A1 too.[/quoted
I ran the half and garmin shows 13.14. Allowing for a bit if bobbing and weaving particularly in the first 2 miles I'd say that's pretty accurate. Although there's obviously something wrong with the time on the damn thing 😱

Bestake

snailsong wrote: »

If the course was short that's simply not acceptable. A quarter mile night as well be five miles to any serious runner.

Anyone who did this should email the organisers and ask for your money back. You clearly didn't get what you paid for.

Completely understand the frustration of a shorter/longer course, but not so sure a refund can be justified??

It would be fantastic to build on this event for future years, particularly the time of year the event falls on (the tall ships weekend - what a weekend that would be!) - potential distance errors certainly aren't helping this.

Did the HM yesterday - hadn't the homework done due to an injury at the wrong time a few months ago, and I certainly felt the last 3 miles. Got a PB though so I was delighted.

Overall, ignoring the potential distance error (which could overshadow the whole day for some), I felt it was well organised, great atmosphere around the town, plenty of water stations at the right times, and any hills were over and done with when everyone was still fresh. I hope this trend continued for the FM.

For me, the main downside to the HM was the isolation of atmosphere from around the 9 mile mark to the 12.5ish mile mark. This was probably the most difficult stage of the race for me, and a 'well done boy' or a 'drive on lads' would have been invaluable to me at that stage

I also felt the merging of the HM and FM runners back with the QM at the Ursline made it difficult to navigate. I am not sure if that road was closed (runners blindness), but maybe the insistence that one group veers to the left side of the left hand lane while the other stays on the right side of the left hand lane, would have worked better.

Again, it doesn't mean much to those who are there for the distance and going off topic, but being born and bred in Waterford but living away, it was great to see so much atmosphere in Waterford, given the hammering it is getting.

I think it would have been a good idea to get more local food companies into the RSC afterwards. There were 4 or 5 there, but why not have another 10/15, and promote a food theme of some sort well in advance so people can bring a few quid? There were certainly enough runners and supportive families there to spend a good afternoon. And you can be guaranteed that a runner will eat after running!!

Well done to all - runners and organisers a like, and I look forward to the HM in Dec and maybe FM next year

JohnDozer

While I do see that there was plenty of positives to take from yesterday, I do think that courses that are long or short by a significant enough margin are unacceptable, especially when it appears to be a measurement issue rather than a garmin issue (although we will await clarification on that, even if the evidence suggests so at this point). I think it's probably less of an issue at shorter races, as you can recover quicker and find one to tackle again within a short timeframe. With a marathon, most people target the date months out, and train specifically for that, and then the recovery time involved means it isn't just a case of do another one in a few weeks (except for the lucky few that can do it). A short course casts doubt on a shiny new PB. I had this experience in one particular 10k which consistently measures short and has never been rectified, despite the organisers being aware. I had a PB that day but there is still a sour taste because of the course distance.

And lets not forget that it was AT LEAST 0.25 miles short. Many garmins put up to 0.25 extra over the marathon distance so it's probable that the course was even shorter than that. If I had trained hard and paid good money for a 26.2
mile event, I don't think I'd feel very positive this morning about an event that promised me the opportunity to do so, but then deprived me of it, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Bestake

By the way, did any one notice a bearded man dressed as a fairy pushing a pram on the tramore road lane way yesterday?.....or was it just my imagination???

66_Lad

mr.wiggle wrote: »

I ran the half today and passed comment to a fellow struggler that the 10 mile sign was way to short..I looked at my watch and it showed 9.77. It was just before the roundabout turnaround for the half runners. But the half course measured over 13.2 on my garmin so who knows...btw Respect to the runners who did the full...I was thinking about ye in that heat..savage stuff.

The 10 mile marker for the half was turned the wrong way around, on way back from the turn point it was 10 miles when passed the sign. The half course measured a little long on my garmin -13.17 - but nothing outside the ordinary. Only the full was impacted this yr.

Bahanaman

Bestake wrote: »

By the way, did any one notice a bearded man dressed as a fairy pushing a pram on the tramore road lane way yesterday?.....or was it just my imagination???

Saw him alright!

TFBubendorfer

Bestake wrote: »

By the way, did any one notice a bearded man dressed as a fairy pushing a pram on the tramore road lane way yesterday?.....or was it just my imagination???

He was quite the sight! I wondered what bet he had lost

mr.wiggle

He was just standing there on the laneway when i passed him, had to look twice to see if i was going mad
Later on in the day we were returning from Tramore about 3pm and there he was diligently pushing the pram along the hardsholuder. We gave him a beep and a cheer which he appreciated, but i felt for him.
He shoulda worn a shorter skirt in that heat !!:pac:

Mr.W~

Itziger

Folks, the vast majority of Garmins are 'generous' over Half or full marathon distance. Did a Half this morning and the watch has it as 21.36. Almost exactly what I would expect, 1% over. So if a lot of watches are coming in under 42k.......... Oh, dear.

Supernintento Chalmers

Itziger wrote: »

Folks, the vast majority of Garmins are 'generous' over Half or full marathon distance. Did a Half this morning and the watch has it as 21.36. Almost exactly what I would expect, 1% over. So if a lot of watches are coming in under 42k.......... Oh, dear.

Would you not expect it to be over?
Due to the extra distance added from not running a perfect line, going wide on corners, moving to get around people etc?

Itziger

Supernintento Chalmers wrote: »

Would you not expect it to be over?
Due to the extra distance added from not running a perfect line, going wide on corners, moving to get around people etc?

As I said in my post, yes, I would expect it to be over. I don't think it's just the 'not taking the racing line' thing either. It's the way they measure. They're accurate but not 100%

In almost every race I've done the Garmin is 1% over, on a couple of occasions more. I changed my auto lap setting to 1.01k recently and it's fantastic. This morning again it beeped at almost all the markers and when I glance at the 'lap time' I get a better value than if it had been at bog standard 1.00

That's my feeling anyway.

Supernintento Chalmers

Itziger wrote: »

As I said in my post, yes, I would expect it to be over. I don't think it's just the 'not taking the racing line' thing either. It's the way they measure. They're accurate but not 100%

In almost every race I've done the Garmin is 1% over, on a couple of occasions more. I changed my auto lap setting to 1.01k recently and it's fantastic. This morning again it beeped at almost all the markers and when I glance at the 'lap time' I get a better value than if it had been at bog standard 1.00

That's my feeling anyway.

What I meant was would you not expect it to be over due to accuracy as opposed to being over due to inaccuracy.

I'd reckon that if anything, the watch will show you to have ran a shorter distance that what you have actually covered.
I think the watch will lose distance where they cut corners, like if they log a position before and after a corner, they'll work out a distance based on a straight line between the two points.
What you would lose from this sort of thing would probably still be less than what gets added to the distance from weaving, etc.

TFBubendorfer

Supernintento Chalmers wrote: »

I'd reckon that if anything, the watch will show you to have ran a shorter distance that what you have actually covered.
I think the watch will lose distance where they cut corners, like if they log a position before and after a corner, they'll work out a distance based on a straight line between the two points.

I've run 40 marathons, 35 of those with a Garmin strapped to my wrist. I am perfectly aware of the inaccuracies of GPS measurement and I know how they work - for a starter, they do not calculate a straight line between points but interpolate a curve instead, so they do not lost distance at corners.

The full marathon yesterday was short.

Supernintento Chalmers

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

The full marathon yesterday was short.

I'm not doubting you.
There doesn't seem to be any doubt that it was short.

DAVID AKA MACKY

As regards those questioning the distance yesterday,i competed in the half marathon event and my watch read 13.29miles,.19 over but this was due to running the coarse too long at points,so i increased my distance which ultimately gave me a slower time.So i would say the half distance was spot on.

baza1976

Tipp man running wrote: »

The correct distance would be a great start!....No Excuses please

But on a positive note it was a decent race last year, particularly enjoyed the downhill mile to the finish and the finish on the track...overall it was a well run race and got many things right.

I know things went wrong with the council moving a cone on the out and back section, maybe if at all possible get rid of that section and make the distance up somewhere else.

Looks like it's not a first from the above. If you were promised a marathon I think you'd be in your rights for money back.

Edit the request was over 8 months ago

viperlogic

A piece/report here on the short marathon course

http://munsterrunning.blogspot.ie/2014/06/waterfordreport-on-waterford-viking.html

eliwallach

Very disappointed about this measurement cock-up. And there is no doubt, the course was DEFINITELY short. My Garmin measured 25.90 miles as opposed to the usual Garmin reading of 26.4x for the proper marathon distance. The pacers were so embarrassed by this, and it wasn't their fault.
From what I picked up at the finish, the City Council were responsible for measurement of course and placement of mile markers. The mile markers were put in place at 4am marathon morning. However, the start and finish lines were organised and put in place weeks ( months ?) ago, therefore the measurement cock up was made as far back as then.
The first I noticed of this measurement error was at the 10 mile marker where my Garmin read 9.77 (all mile markers up to that point had been in accordance with the Garmin reading).
From what I've read here, this is my theory: the 10 mile marker we met at 9.77 miles was the 10 mile mark for the Half Marathon ( this tallies up, My Garmin beeped for 10 miles a similar distance beyond the roundabout on the Tramore side). for whatever reason this 10 mile marker (which should have been facing towards Tramore, to greet the Half Marathon runners on their return after negotiating the Roundabout) had been put in place facing the wrong way AND on the wrong side of the road.

This goes some way to explain the short reading of 9.77 miles at 10 mile marker but does not explain the overall short distance for the marathon as surely the entire 26.2 miles would have been measured before mile markers were put in place. Surely?????? :mad:

As stated, monumental cock-up and unless something drastic is done for next year e.g. putting course measurement in the capable hands of WAC I fear for the event. On second thoughts, I think the damage is irreparable.

If this were Tripadvisor: Wouldn't Reccomend to a friend.

:mad:

mylifetoday

66_Lad wrote: »

The 10 mile marker for the half was turned the wrong way around, on way back from the turn point it was 10 miles when passed the sign. The half course measured a little long on my garmin -13.17 - but nothing outside the ordinary. Only the full was impacted this yr.

Totally agree.... when we passed it on the way out 4 or 5 in our group with 3:15:00 pacer all commented that something was wrong.. However, I was doing the half and when I passed the sign again after the turnaround I was spot on at the sign pacewise and similarly at the 11 marker.

spaceylou

Ran the half yesterday and (mostly) enjoyed it - like someone else above said, as a Waterford native, living away and coming home for this it is great to see such a great atmosphere, and the city looking so well. I found it well organised, start, bag drop, great location for finish etc but if that is true about the distance then that is just not on - I was considering doing the full next year as my first marathon but I want my first marathon to be the full friggin distance!!

eliwallach

Dilbert75 wrote: »

ns and I'm sure 123agh will be along to comment shortly.

.............