jebuz wrote: » Great stuff DR, good to see you back racing, and winning! Always nice to fit in a sneaky win in an 85 mile week
cianc wrote: » Bravo, very impressive week!
dublin runner wrote: » Two things to note:
dublin runner wrote: » 1. The stretch up Chesterfield Avenue and towards Castleknock is a tough one, especially if the wind is in your face like today 2. The few miles after Casstleknock are fast ones 3. The Crumlin Road aint any easier!
yaboya1 wrote: » Nice looking week. One question though, two or three?
dublin runner wrote: » Thursday 14/8 10 Miles @6.54p/m in 1.09:00-inc. 3 Miles @Marathon Pace Splits: 1. 6.00 2. 6.03 3. 6.02This is my first time stumbling upon this log since I seen you in the Dundalk 10K. Looking at your MP above, are you aiming at 2.38 in Dublin. I am heading for Dublin myself. Hoping for somewhere in the 2.45 region. My plan during summer was to get 10K time down and then build up to Athlone in September so on course this far. Might see you in Athlone. My target there is 1.17 so might see you in a wee group at some stage.
NiallG4 wrote: » This is my first time stumbling upon this log since I seen you in the Dundalk 10K. Looking at your MP above, are you aiming at 2.38 in Dublin. I am heading for Dublin myself. Hoping for somewhere in the 2.45 region. My plan during summer was to get 10K time down and then build up to Athlone in September so on course this far. Might see you in Athlone. My target there is 1.17 so might see you in a wee group at some stage.
dukeraoul wrote: » I'm a jackass. Sorry DR didn't even see ya as you're right, the hill was really the only thing on my mind! Was just thinking about it there- yourself and Ecoli would actually make the perfect pacing team. You could run 2 mins under and he could run 2 mins over- it would be a great way to space out the pace bands! Maybe you guys could share your pacing expertise w/ the 3:40 lads in DCM;)
dublin runner wrote: » Ah here! I was 80 seconds under. I'll send you the Garmin link! I am still wondering why. I don't want to speculate on the most likely reason.....:eek:
Krusty_Clown wrote: » I checked against my tracklog from last year, and there's a slight variance in distance (13.07 Vs 13.01), using the exact same watch (slightly newer firmware), the exact same course, and I ran pretty much an identical racing line. So variances seem to be caused by external influences, such as satellite cover, weather conditions, GPS watch inaccuracy etc. As to whether the course is short or not - I don't really know (and if I'm being honest, don't really care in this instance!). I often wonder how the course is measured - e.g. how they measure around those roundabouts, the measured route through that last stretch back into town (where I took a pretty aggressive racing line through the middle of the road) etc. Are we taking short-cuts that the race measurer didn't take? Anyway, there's not much point in delving too deeply, unless you want to go back with a measuring wheel, we'll never get any closer to the reality on these things.
menoscemo wrote: » I discussed this a week ago on TbL's log. Didn't want to open that can of worms again but it seems it's now open!! It seems that they changed the start point of the AIMs measured course 2 years ago which left the course short. I Ran the marathon 3 years ago and the start was in a completely different place. I too got 12.94 when i ran the half in 2012.
dublin runner wrote: » I don't want to speculate on the most likely reason.....:eek:
dukeraoul wrote: » You had a super hot chick you were tailing on 1:28 pace?
Krusty_Clown wrote: » e.g. how they measure around those roundabouts, the measured route through that last stretch back into town (where I took a pretty aggressive racing line through the middle of the road) etc. Are we taking short-cuts that the race measurer didn't take? Anyway, there's not much point in delving too deeply, unless you want to go back with a measuring wheel, we'll never get any closer to the reality on these things.
dublin runner wrote: » I do remember being ushered to run on the grass on one of the roundabouts at the end. You are right. There's no point and nothing to be gained. Whether the course was long, short or actually bang on doesn't take away from your podium finish! Everyone runs the same course. Simples
yaboya1 wrote: » I got 13.04 on Sunday. I don't think it was short. I think the turnaround caused the Garmins to be off as my watch was beeping around 50 yards short of the mile markers before that point. Anyway, I don't care either as I still would have Pb'd and gone sub 1:21
menoscemo wrote: » If the turnaround caused the garmin to be short then the mile containing the turnaround by logic would have been very slow (because you would have run 1.1 mile or whatever when the garmin thought you only ran 1 mile). Was that the case?
Krusty_Clown wrote: » Haha. I hadn't thought of that. I'd love to delight in my podium finish, however, I took a quick look at where I would have finished last year, given my time this year. The answer? 5th. Who would I have displaced? Me. So it was just a bad turn-out this year, in terms of the sub 80 minute runners.