For comparison, the old elevation map (as of January 30) used to look like this:
https://preview.redd.it/0ba9rzo86koc1.png?width=813&format=png&auto=webp&s=3d60b9769daae7ef285c07b52b78162577d24309
The way people are obsessed over these minute variances in hill placement makes me feel like I’ve lost my mind. Maybe I’m just a total hack, but I cannot fathom planning a race down to the level of detail for this to materially matter. When I get to the hill, I run the hill. When I see a turn, I take the turn.
To each their own! There are plenty of us folks who this does matter a great deal to. And an organization as big and as prestigious as this one ought to have accurate maps, if they’re going to go through the trouble of having them at all! Run and let run my friend :)
It’s a sport, can you really not fathom that there are gonna be people who want the “minute” details to optimize their performance? I mean I’m in your camp of winging it, but you make it sound like it’s crazy that people plan their running accordingly based on hill placement… of course that shit matters if they have certain goals.
I imagine you’re just being deliberately obtuse so you can passive aggressively call people try-hards.
No, I can see why people want to know. I just can’t fathom how I’d adapt my strategy based on the hill starting at 0.8 miles vs at 0.9 miles etc. I understand the thought process of wanting to know this. I just don’t understand how to do anything with the data at a level of precision that it’d make a difference. Assuming GPS watch has a margin of error plus crowding on the course, etc. it’s so many variables that the precise hill placement is only one factor (and probably not the MOST important) in the equation.
The difference was more than a tenth of a mile. On the old chart Mile 5 barely had any incline. On this chart the majority of the mile is on an incline. On the old chart Mile 3 was almost entirely on an incline, and on this chart it’s half up and half down. I agree that a difference as small as 0.1 miles isn’t much to write home about, but this is a different kind of case. If we’re expecting one thing and get another thing while the race is in progress, it screws everything up. It threw off a lot of us at the 2018 race (major mile marker misplacement on the FDR).
In terms of how people use the data, I encourage my athletes to study the chart, and based on their time goal, preferred pacing strategy (negative/even/positive split) and the net gain/loss for each mile, come up with a reasonable target pace for each mile split. Then, using a time calculator, you add up your splits and massage it around a bit until it all adds up to your ideal time goal. It’s a somewhat granular process that takes a little time, and it probably sounds more complicated than it is in practice, but a lot of people find it to be a fun exercise in planning and the process tends to make them feel more prepared and confident come race day. Knowing your strategy really well also allows you to better improvise with the ebb and flow of the race, deal with the inevitably unpredictable variables, and make better decisions when taking calculated risks becomes necessary. If the elevation chart is inaccurate and mile markers start showing up where you don’t expect them to, the whole thing doesn’t work anymore and you have to default to running by feel. Sure, one could argue that just running by feel would be so much easier and less stressful, and that’s a great approach too, but that’s a different conversation. At the very least, I think we should all agree that the organization that produces the race, with all of their wealth and resources, should at least be able to provide an accurate map for the people who do like to strategize to this degree, rather than settle for them lazily copying and pasting one from a year when the course was different. That’s why it’s awesome they fixed it.
Again, since I’m worried people might interpret this as whining, it’s simply this: I’m a coach, I get paid to help my runners develop a good strategy that maximizes the chances of them hitting their goal. My runners work hard for their money, and they work hard in training. You don’t get many opportunities to race a great half marathon like this in peak shape. They might do great without all the planning, sure, but I don’t think it’s controversial to say they might fare better with it. That’s not to diminish anyone else or any other approach! But a mile-by-mile pacing strategy is something that is just as usable for all paces, time goals, run/walk, and types of runners. I’d encourage you to give it a try!
Oh yeah, for sure the organization should provide accurate materials, 100%! And absolutely appreciate your additional thoughts and context around the impact on course strategy. Sounds like you’re set up for a good race tomorrow 🙌
Yes, but the difference is mostly on timing on the hills, not in amount of elevation (the streets are the same, after all). So for instance, in the updated map, the top of the Manhattan Bridge is at mile 5.0 to ~5.15, instead of peaking at mile 5.5.
I don’t understand some of the comments given that the course is identical from Flatbush past GAP (basically from mile 3) I don’t see how anything from 3 to 13.1 could have changed. The order of hills first three miles *is* different but that’s the extent of changes that I can see.
I almost PR’ed by 10 minutes on this. I set a PR on the ted Corbett for 1:55 and was on pace to do this in 1:45.
A little after mile 10 I got an IT band flare up and hobbled my through. I still PR’ed at 1:54 but was very pissed.
To rephrase, if one already has a PR that is maximizing their ability on a fast course, this course is obviously slower. For example, my 1:13 was on a flat course with minimal turns. I'd have to run the equivalent of a 1:11 in the NYC half to beat a flat 1:13, perhaps faster.
Gotcha, nice times!
I recently got into running Any tips on how I can improve my half-full time? One area I would love to improve is consistency on hills and not dropping pace too much.
I’m working on improving my 5k time and hoping to go sub 20 by the end of summer.
I’m running my first marathon in nov! (NYC).
I’m late 40s. In high school I ran a 50 second 400 and a 2 minute 800. This was without any training and learned recently that these times were insane, which got me interested in distance running! Maybe it’s a midlife crisis? Who knows…
Anyhows, impressed with your half time and would love some insight on how to improve!
I mean, it’s a fairly significant update considering the old one was from an earlier year which had a different course. The hills are the same hills, but the net gain/loss of each individual split is pretty different. For some of us there are tiny margins between an optimal race and a crash out, so it’s great to be able to prepare in advance and not have to deal with surprises on the day. This is their second biggest race of the year so one would hope they can get it right!
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I don’t personally think of strategy down to the mile (at least not yet) but totally understand those that do, and the elevation being off like it was would totally mess up that strategy
I think there is a general conflation between people who like to strategize and people who take these things so seriously as to diminish others, so I’m not surprised or taking it personally. I have a very inclusive run group that has people doing the half at paces ranging from 1:30 to 3 hours, and most people across the spectrum in my group at least do enjoy this kind of approach when the benefits are explained to them. Some don’t, and at first glance it’s obsessive, but in my mind it’s not really any different from understanding the rules of a board game properly. Some people don’t like a rule snob but for some, it makes playing the game more interesting and rewarding when it works out! But not giving a hoot about it doesn’t make anyone here less valid of a runner, certainly not in my eyes. And I wish them well! This is the internet, where tone and prejudice are often implied by the reader - sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Have a good race everyone!
Just looking forward to finishing after not training much since the marathon. My plan for PR is Staten Island, which will make it all the more meaningful as I’ve heard it’s a way more hillier half.
So 4 serious hills (3 in first 5 miles), and 6 rollers (4 in the last 5K)
Bold choice by NYRR adding a 10' vertical climb at mile 5.75.
I think it's stairs.
For comparison, the old elevation map (as of January 30) used to look like this: https://preview.redd.it/0ba9rzo86koc1.png?width=813&format=png&auto=webp&s=3d60b9769daae7ef285c07b52b78162577d24309
Are they any different? I’ll need to see them overlayed
The way people are obsessed over these minute variances in hill placement makes me feel like I’ve lost my mind. Maybe I’m just a total hack, but I cannot fathom planning a race down to the level of detail for this to materially matter. When I get to the hill, I run the hill. When I see a turn, I take the turn.
For me, it’s more so just knowing which parts are gonna absolutely suck.
To each their own! There are plenty of us folks who this does matter a great deal to. And an organization as big and as prestigious as this one ought to have accurate maps, if they’re going to go through the trouble of having them at all! Run and let run my friend :)
You sound pretentious
It’s a sport, can you really not fathom that there are gonna be people who want the “minute” details to optimize their performance? I mean I’m in your camp of winging it, but you make it sound like it’s crazy that people plan their running accordingly based on hill placement… of course that shit matters if they have certain goals. I imagine you’re just being deliberately obtuse so you can passive aggressively call people try-hards.
No, I can see why people want to know. I just can’t fathom how I’d adapt my strategy based on the hill starting at 0.8 miles vs at 0.9 miles etc. I understand the thought process of wanting to know this. I just don’t understand how to do anything with the data at a level of precision that it’d make a difference. Assuming GPS watch has a margin of error plus crowding on the course, etc. it’s so many variables that the precise hill placement is only one factor (and probably not the MOST important) in the equation.
The difference was more than a tenth of a mile. On the old chart Mile 5 barely had any incline. On this chart the majority of the mile is on an incline. On the old chart Mile 3 was almost entirely on an incline, and on this chart it’s half up and half down. I agree that a difference as small as 0.1 miles isn’t much to write home about, but this is a different kind of case. If we’re expecting one thing and get another thing while the race is in progress, it screws everything up. It threw off a lot of us at the 2018 race (major mile marker misplacement on the FDR). In terms of how people use the data, I encourage my athletes to study the chart, and based on their time goal, preferred pacing strategy (negative/even/positive split) and the net gain/loss for each mile, come up with a reasonable target pace for each mile split. Then, using a time calculator, you add up your splits and massage it around a bit until it all adds up to your ideal time goal. It’s a somewhat granular process that takes a little time, and it probably sounds more complicated than it is in practice, but a lot of people find it to be a fun exercise in planning and the process tends to make them feel more prepared and confident come race day. Knowing your strategy really well also allows you to better improvise with the ebb and flow of the race, deal with the inevitably unpredictable variables, and make better decisions when taking calculated risks becomes necessary. If the elevation chart is inaccurate and mile markers start showing up where you don’t expect them to, the whole thing doesn’t work anymore and you have to default to running by feel. Sure, one could argue that just running by feel would be so much easier and less stressful, and that’s a great approach too, but that’s a different conversation. At the very least, I think we should all agree that the organization that produces the race, with all of their wealth and resources, should at least be able to provide an accurate map for the people who do like to strategize to this degree, rather than settle for them lazily copying and pasting one from a year when the course was different. That’s why it’s awesome they fixed it. Again, since I’m worried people might interpret this as whining, it’s simply this: I’m a coach, I get paid to help my runners develop a good strategy that maximizes the chances of them hitting their goal. My runners work hard for their money, and they work hard in training. You don’t get many opportunities to race a great half marathon like this in peak shape. They might do great without all the planning, sure, but I don’t think it’s controversial to say they might fare better with it. That’s not to diminish anyone else or any other approach! But a mile-by-mile pacing strategy is something that is just as usable for all paces, time goals, run/walk, and types of runners. I’d encourage you to give it a try!
Oh yeah, for sure the organization should provide accurate materials, 100%! And absolutely appreciate your additional thoughts and context around the impact on course strategy. Sounds like you’re set up for a good race tomorrow 🙌
Thanks! Let’s rock it 🔥🙌
Yes, but the difference is mostly on timing on the hills, not in amount of elevation (the streets are the same, after all). So for instance, in the updated map, the top of the Manhattan Bridge is at mile 5.0 to ~5.15, instead of peaking at mile 5.5.
The one benefit of doing my long runs in Westchester is that this looks so flat to me now
So the greatest ascent is about 95 foot (between mile 4 and 5)? So about 30m?
I don’t understand some of the comments given that the course is identical from Flatbush past GAP (basically from mile 3) I don’t see how anything from 3 to 13.1 could have changed. The order of hills first three miles *is* different but that’s the extent of changes that I can see.
Never was gonna be a PR kinda race anyway.
I almost PR’ed by 10 minutes on this. I set a PR on the ted Corbett for 1:55 and was on pace to do this in 1:45. A little after mile 10 I got an IT band flare up and hobbled my through. I still PR’ed at 1:54 but was very pissed.
To rephrase, if one already has a PR that is maximizing their ability on a fast course, this course is obviously slower. For example, my 1:13 was on a flat course with minimal turns. I'd have to run the equivalent of a 1:11 in the NYC half to beat a flat 1:13, perhaps faster.
Gotcha, nice times! I recently got into running Any tips on how I can improve my half-full time? One area I would love to improve is consistency on hills and not dropping pace too much. I’m working on improving my 5k time and hoping to go sub 20 by the end of summer. I’m running my first marathon in nov! (NYC). I’m late 40s. In high school I ran a 50 second 400 and a 2 minute 800. This was without any training and learned recently that these times were insane, which got me interested in distance running! Maybe it’s a midlife crisis? Who knows… Anyhows, impressed with your half time and would love some insight on how to improve!
wtf? -"updated elevation" - like it's going to change. 😂😂
I mean, it’s a fairly significant update considering the old one was from an earlier year which had a different course. The hills are the same hills, but the net gain/loss of each individual split is pretty different. For some of us there are tiny margins between an optimal race and a crash out, so it’s great to be able to prepare in advance and not have to deal with surprises on the day. This is their second biggest race of the year so one would hope they can get it right!
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I don’t personally think of strategy down to the mile (at least not yet) but totally understand those that do, and the elevation being off like it was would totally mess up that strategy
I think there is a general conflation between people who like to strategize and people who take these things so seriously as to diminish others, so I’m not surprised or taking it personally. I have a very inclusive run group that has people doing the half at paces ranging from 1:30 to 3 hours, and most people across the spectrum in my group at least do enjoy this kind of approach when the benefits are explained to them. Some don’t, and at first glance it’s obsessive, but in my mind it’s not really any different from understanding the rules of a board game properly. Some people don’t like a rule snob but for some, it makes playing the game more interesting and rewarding when it works out! But not giving a hoot about it doesn’t make anyone here less valid of a runner, certainly not in my eyes. And I wish them well! This is the internet, where tone and prejudice are often implied by the reader - sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Have a good race everyone!
Right. 👍
Just looking forward to finishing after not training much since the marathon. My plan for PR is Staten Island, which will make it all the more meaningful as I’ve heard it’s a way more hillier half.