MSB St Patrick's 5k 19 March

HelenAnne

The course has changed :eek::( I loved the old one!

http://msbac.ie/images/MSBStPatRaceCourse17.pdf

PS anyone else doing it? I am! Can't wait!

MisterDrak

Yep, always do this one.

The T-shirt for the last couple of years, has been my go to long sleeve for winter running.

Anyway, nice to run on closed roads in the City Centre. Might have a sneaky pint after !

Singer

Third year in a row for me, and looking forward to it! The route's a bit twisty and turny, but it's had a good field running it in the past which helps to drag me along, and it's always fun legging it around the city centre.

Myself and my wife are both doing it, and planning a sneaky Sunday bank holiday lunch afterwards before getting back to the kids

caseyjones1

I'm gonna give this ago...hadn't planned to but had a messy week of training so why not. Did it last year and loved it. I believe there are entries on the day? Hoping so as will be doing a late entry.

davedanon

Did this as usual, had a pretty good run, so much so that I was a little disappointed with a 19.32 official time. It felt much quicker than that. It was quite windy, and the course changes possibly made it 'twistier' than before. Does anyone else feel the same way? From an informal straw poll among my own clubmates, it would seem so.

agreed, I think it was a bit longer than the 5k because of all the twists,
having said that I really enjoyed the run:)

caseyjones1

I was disappointed with my official time...thought I ran better, and I was going ok but then I did struggle with the wind from about 3k. There are plenty of turns alright.

CassieManson

Deleted User wrote: »

agreed, I think it was a bit longer than the 5k because of all the twists,
having said that I really enjoyed the run:)

According to my Garmin it was 5.15km. Also a bit annoyed that the placing on the myrunresult were based on gross times - its pretty meaningless. How hard can it be to sort by net times.

Apart from that, nice run and really enjoyed it!

adrian522

CassieManson wrote: »

According to my Garmin it was 5.15km. Also a bit annoyed that the placing on the myrunresult were based on gross times - its pretty meaningless. How hard can it be to sort by net times.

Apart from that, nice run and really enjoyed it!

How annoyed can you possibly be by how the results are ordered? Can't see how it makes any difference.

Placings have to be decided by the order people cross the finish line. Chip time doesn't come into it with regards to finishing positions.

Also your Garmin is going to be really inaccurate in a city center race.

CassieManson

adrian522 wrote: »

How annoyed can you possibly be by how the results are ordered? Can't see how it makes any difference.

Placings have to be decided by the order people cross the finish line. Chip time doesn't come into it with regards to finishing positions.

Because we don't all start at the same time - therefore some people who were placed above me actually ran slower. I found it annoying especially as this was emphasised at the start to people would not push forward - it was stated that the timing would be based on chip times. It is quite possible (but probably unlikely) that the first past the post is not actually the fastest runner as there was at least one minute in the difference between the first runners starting and the final runners going through the start line.

jimjamkk06

CassieManson wrote: »

According to my Garmin it was 5.15km. Also a bit annoyed that the placing on the myrunresult were based on gross times - its pretty meaningless. How hard can it be to sort by net times.

Apart from that, nice run and really enjoyed it!

defo was long my garmin came in at 3,19 miles, I know city builds might interfere with gps but I'm in a running club and not one person out of ten that ran came anywhere near there pb,, and garmin was 3,19 on 7 out of ten,,,,

Singer

davedanon wrote: »

Did this as usual, had a pretty good run, so much so that I was a little disappointed with a 19.32 official time. It felt much quicker than that. It was quite windy, and the course changes possibly made it 'twistier' than before. Does anyone else feel the same way? From an informal straw poll among my own clubmates, it would seem so.

I saw some other chatter on Strava with folks reckoning it was a long course.

My own GPS measured long by about 0.1 of a km, but it also had me running straight through some of Dublin's finest buildings (which may have accounted for my disappointing time, but unfortunately didn't actually happen), so it's useless data. The start was a good bit further down St. Stephen's Green than the original course map, though that's also pretty speculative evidence of a long course. A lot of the field didn't run the shortest distance at times (though I have no idea what the actual race line was), for example when going onto Leeson St. for the first time I was the only one running in the bus lane, most around me had moved out towards the middle before moving back in to turn up Fitzwilliam Place.

I'm not moaning about the race or organisation, it was my third time doing it and I'll definitely be back - if it happened it's mildly interesting is all.

KielyUnusual

I suspect the course probably was a little long. I wouldn't read too much by the GPS data but you can generally tell by the times people ran if a 5k course is long/short. I ran this race last year and posted a faster time but in much better shape this year and my time was slower. Most people in the club were surprised by their times too. Unfortunately, it can be a bit of a lottery with city centre races and this race three years ago was definitely suspect short so its probably something they need to pay more attention to.

Another bug bear was the prize giving. The structure they had detailed in their email was not followed in any shape or form. They had teams of three down to score but on the day it was four. We had three in the top ten but our fourth was some way down so it was the difference between first and third team on the day. This should have given us a prize anyway according to their instructions but they only gave out prizes for first in the team and age categories rather than the top three they had stated. The RD seemed a little all over the place in general. Calling out the first six in the mens and only the first three in the womens before calling the women back some time later so they could give prizes to the top six.

The race itself was organised pretty well but some of the supplementary stuff needs to be sorted out.

28064212

CassieManson wrote: »

Because we don't all start at the same time - therefore some people who were placed above me actually ran slower. I found it annoying especially as this was emphasised at the start to people would not push forward - it was stated that the timing would be based on chip times. It is quite possible (but probably unlikely) that the first past the post is not actually the fastest runner as there was at least one minute in the difference between the first runners starting and the final runners going through the start line.

Timing was based on chip times, that's how you have an actual 5k time and not a (5k + time taken to get to the start-line) time. Positions are not based on chip-time and are always based on who crosses the finish line first. Gross times are the only thing that matter when it comes to ordering. This is true for pretty much every race organised anywhere.

Aquals

CassieManson wrote: »

Because we don't all start at the same time - therefore some people who were placed above me actually ran slower. I found it annoying especially as this was emphasised at the start to people would not push forward - it was stated that the timing would be based on chip times. It is quite possible (but probably unlikely) that the first past the post is not actually the fastest runner as there was at least one minute in the difference between the first runners starting and the final runners going through the start line.

Here's a good article explaining why races order finishing positions by gun time, instead of chip time. It's generally taken that it's the runner's own responsibility to get to the start line early if they're concerned about finishing position.

http://www.millenniumrunning.com/ask-the-race-director-net-vs-gun-time/3349

And, while in theory, someone starting a minute behind the leaders could run the fastest time, that almost never happens as they would have too much weaving to do.

In terms of this specific race, I thought it was brilliant. I also suspect that it was long, based on my Garmin measuring 5.16km, but difficult to tell for sure due to tall buildings and winding course causing inaccuracy.

fletch

CassieManson wrote: »

Also a bit annoyed that the placing on the myrunresult were based on gross times - its pretty meaningless. How hard can it be to sort by net times.

It's a race not a time trial

TheTruthFairy1

"Under IAAF/AAI Rules, the
“gun time” is the official time, but many large, non-championship events
routinely provide “net times” for informational purposes as well as using
these times to determine age group winners. Net time is not permitted for
IAAF World Record purposes."

https://
+
www.
+
iaaf.org
+
/download/download?filename=1d445793-24b4-4821-98e4-38fc55b9f8ef.pdf&urlslug=
+
IAAF%20Road%20Running%20Manual