Inaccurate race distances by organisers

[CyclingAddict]

I am by the race getting more and more upset about the inadequacy of race organizers to determine how far the race actually is. The last example of this happened only yesterday morning on the Dome 2 Dome road race, where the race was advertised as 93km, 96km and 98 km - 93km being the race distance advertised, but the route profile indicated 96km, and on the maps where there were turns, 98km. To top it all the route markers all indicated 98km.

 

My bike computer as well as many other cyclists that I spoke to afterwards indicated 97+ km, but when the race results appear online we are given the official 93km distance, that with the time we did, in our case, was a drop of almost 2km/h average, and which also means that I did the last grueling hill-climb for nothing ??

 

If I can accurately use GPS, Endomondo, Sports-Tracker and my bike computer to determine the distance why is it so difficult for race organizers to do the same ??

 

Does anybody else agree that we deserve all the kilometers we worked for ?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Athianl

[mooky]

I got 93km on the dot with my Bryton Rider...

[kingalton]

But everyone did the same distance, not sure what the problem is? its less than a 4% difference?

[marcfr]

I got 93km on the dot with my Bryton Rider...

I also got 93km on the dot with my Endomondo app and 93.04km on my Polar.

[Muddy]

OK this is a joke right? You do realize that it is not 1 April?

 

Come on, get real. You seriously telling me that you ride watching a computer the whole time and when you get to x Km you want to stop? We are not children. 90, 93, whatever. They should be charging you more for the extra distance you get to ride. 40 and 100? No that is a difference and worth mentioning but really shitting your pants about a few kms? Pack away all your gizmos and grow a pair!

[sometime]

which also means that I did the last grueling hill-climb for nothing ??

 

Does anybody else agree that we deserve all the kilometers we worked for ?

 

WTF?

[Smolly]

This fred is kinda like mtbers moaning about mountains on a mountain bike race.

[Spinnekop]

Got 93.07km from my Garmin.

 

I can see your point although for me it's not a big deal. Where it is 10-15km longer I usually get a bit miffed but the race being shorter than expected is never a bad thing.

 

You should not judge your riding by what goes on at Racetec or Championchip. Judge it by your own computer.

 

As for seeding, it is done on the winners time. And he did the same distance as you. So no issue.

[bradwentzel]

93.07 on my Garmin as well.

 

Was slightly off putting seeing the 98km signs though...

 

That might have been because I was headbutting the wall at that stage

[jcza]

Felt like a fool yesterday, I thought the race distance was 105km and I was saving something for the last 10km. Hahahaha pay attention in class!

[ibruegge]

Last race I entered there was a pic of a lady riding in the sunshine on the flyer. I drove there and it was pi55ing with rain, and the lady wasn't there either. So irritated. I got up for nothing. Does anybody else agree that we deserve what's advertised? I think it is going to be my last race - it was also way too expensive.

[mojopup]

Is this a September fools joke? Either your computer is set up wrong or you took a wrong turn and did extra distance. I also recorded 93 like the others.

[petatodd]

What's more annoying is getting short changed on distance. How often do we enter a race that is say 100km and actually only ride about 93km? That is more irritating.

 

Although one year in the Epic they billed a day as 1100m of ascent. When the polar/garmin showed 1100m about halfway in we all thought the rest of the day would be a rest day. Bollocks, ended on 2700m ascent in the end. That was way more irritating and painful than losing/gaining a few kms in a race!

[KevinRhino]

I also got 93.1km (Garmin - not cell phone), that last 100m....

[Li Mu Bai]

I am by the race getting more and more upset about the inadequacy of race organizers to determine how far the race actually is. The last example of this happened only yesterday morning on the Dome 2 Dome road race, where the race was advertised as 93km, 96km and 98 km - 93km being the race distance advertised, but the route profile indicated 96km, and on the maps where there were turns, 98km. To top it all the route markers all indicated 98km.

 

My bike computer as well as many other cyclists that I spoke to afterwards indicated 97+ km, but when the race results appear online we are given the official 93km distance, that with the time we did, in our case, was a drop of almost 2km/h average, and which also means that I did the last grueling hill-climb for nothing ??

 

If I can accurately use GPS, Endomondo, Sports-Tracker and my bike computer to determine the distance why is it so difficult for race organizers to do the same ??

 

Does anybody else agree that we deserve all the kilometers we worked for ?

 

Did you take the fastest race line?

As everyones average racing speed, and resultant seeding index, will be based on the same/distance, does it really matter if all are bumped up?

I do agree with you that it should be accurately measured and advertised. Doing a 80km ride and then finding it turns out to be 89km bites, but sometimes a 70km race that turns out to be 66km can be a bit of a blessing.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Li Mu Bai

[Karooryder]

Naaah Athianl, I was actually impressed by the accuracy of the projected D2D distance. I got 92.7km on my Polar CS200.

 

I agree that in extreme cases many extra miles are just annoying and usually an indication of a poorly organised event…I’m thinking of the terrible Sondela Classic’s “80km race distance” which turned out to be 93km.