Official 2021 CIM Thread

Any link to results or leaderboard? Can’t get their website to work.

the vortex wrote:

Any link to results or leaderboard? Can’t get their website to work.

CJ already out the back

Leaders through (downhill) half in 1:04:58

OMG!!! What a travesty! This course is just like falling off of a cliff and then add in the super shoes!!! 15 men under 2:03 and a new women's world best of 2:13:52 is just madness!!!

Oh wait. None of that happened.

Dumb post. CIM still runs faster (for most) than a flat, fair course.

Sara Vaughn wins in 2:26:53. She’s got quite the range.

Great marathon debut for Nick Hauger from NAZ elite

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

Dumb post. CIM still runs faster (for most) than a flat, fair course.

No it doesn’t. Flat is faster than CIM. And don’t give an analysis that ignores the perfect weather the race has had in most years, including today. That is a huge factor.

I assume you understand that a flat course for 25 miles with x feet downhill in the last mile would be faster than a rolling (non-flat) course with equal gain and loss for 25 miles and then x feet downhill in the last mile, Both courses would have the same overall net change, but one is faster than a flat course and the other might not be (depends on how much gain and loss, not just the net change).

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The profile you're describing isn't CIM. The course loses 300+ feet of elevation. It appears to have around 550-600 feet of total elevation gain, so there are significant rollers. But most people end up gaining time on such a profile.

Buff for life wrote:

Sara Vaughn wins in 2:26:53. She’s got quite the range.

Also negative split, with a 1:14:48 first half and a 1:12:05 second half. May have been her debut, or at least I couldn't find any other marathons on her WA page or on Athlinks. Athlinks did show a couple of halfs this fall in 1:17 and 1:15 (in Colorado at 70 degrees).

JamesD2 wrote:

Buff for life wrote:

Sara Vaughn wins in 2:26:53. She’s got quite the range.

Also negative split, with a 1:14:48 first half and a 1:12:05 second half. May have been her debut, or at least I couldn't find any other marathons on her WA page or on Athlinks. Athlinks did show a couple of halfs this fall in 1:17 and 1:15 (in Colorado at 70 degrees).

Yes, it was her debut.

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The profile you're describing isn't CIM. The course loses 300+ feet of elevation. It appears to have around 550-600 feet of total elevation gain, so there are significant rollers. But most people end up gaining time on such a profile.

You can’t ignore weather. You can’t just say, well, it has net loss so it’s downhill therefore it is faster. Ok, you can say it, but doesn’t make it true. No, most people don’t end up gaining time. On that profile, you lose time.

Please answer this: is it possible for a net downhill course to be slower than a flat course?

An honest answer would be “yes”.

Are all possible net downhill courses slower than a flat course? No- it’s easy to think of net downhill

courses that would be faster than flat.

Ok- so how do you tell the difference?

If you just say, “seems like people tend to run their best time here, so I guess it is the course profile causing it”- that is a guess but ignores the fact that the race has nearly perfect weather most years.

The truth is that it’s probably faster than most courses, but slower than a flat course, and what you lose due to elevation change is offset in the time you gain by running at 40 degrees with low wind (compared to average weather at other races).

Yes, for example, if the course lost 100 feet but had 1,000 feet of total gain, that profile would be slower than Berlin. But CIM is not that.

I'm not ignoring the weather. There are plenty of flat, fast marathons with good weather. Why don't people go to those races instead of CIM?

Courses like CIM and Boston should not be eligible for OTQ just as they are not eligible for World Athletics records or qualifying.

Per this calculator (

http://www.runworks.com/calculator.html

), assuming all else is equal, a marathoner running 3:00:00 at a perfectly flat race (zero feet of elevation gain, zero feet of elevation loss) would run 3:00:10 at a race like CIM (500 feet of elevation gain, 850 feet of elevation loss) and 3:00:43 at a race like Chicago (240 feet of elevation gain, 240 feet of loss). Assuming you think that calculator is a good barometer (and I do--it won't be perfect for everyone but it pretty much checks out, in my experience), that's saying that CIM is 33 seconds faster than Chicago at that pace, only taking into account elevation--not weather, turns, having people to run with, event logistics, etc etc. I could see how the lack of turns and easier mid-major logistics could make CIM another minute or so faster than Chicago for a 3-hour marathoner (so, around 90 seconds faster total assuming comparable weather conditions).

And then, well, the weather--Chicago has had some warm years recently, and CIM has had pretty much perfect weather for almost a decade straight, now. With perfect weather at CIM and a warm year at Chicago, could CIM be 3-5 minutes faster? Sure. But to me, that doesn't put CIM in the bucket of races where times run there shouldn't or don't count (except for WA record purposes . . .), that just means the conditions at Chicago sucked that year! Pick your marathon wisely, folks, and not just for the course--all of the factors that go into how fast you can run should be taken into account.

Net downhill marathon course! Lol so every time needs a big * or \

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

Yes, for example, if the course lost 100 feet but had 1,000 feet of total gain, that profile would be slower than Berlin. But CIM is not that.

I'm not ignoring the weather. There are plenty of flat, fast marathons with good weather. Why don't people go to those races instead of CIM?

Courses like CIM and Boston should not be eligible for OTQ just as they are not eligible for World Athletics records or qualifying.

What are the flat marathons in the US with great weather as consistently as CIM?

Imimpresssed wrote:

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

Yes, for example, if the course lost 100 feet but had 1,000 feet of total gain, that profile would be slower than Berlin. But CIM is not that.

I'm not ignoring the weather. There are plenty of flat, fast marathons with good weather. Why don't people go to those races instead of CIM?

Courses like CIM and Boston should not be eligible for OTQ just as they are not eligible for World Athletics records or qualifying.

What are the flat marathons in the US with great weather as consistently as CIM?

Monumental in Indy.

Here is some video of Vaughn.

https://twitter.com/RunLiao/status/1467546336832589832

and Top 15 results

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/12/2021-california-international-marathon-results-2021-cim-results-sara-vaughn-22653-and-brendan-gregg-21121-win/

Why is there an official CIM 2021 thread but no official Valencia 2021 thread?