News and Developments for Future In-Person runDisney Events

[kat_lh]

I’m definitely not advocating cheating or anything like that! But if you missed the POT by seconds is it still worth submitting a time?

 

[jmasgat]

I’m definitely not advocating cheating or anything like that! But if you missed the POT by seconds is it still worth submitting a time?

Stay tuned....I had a recent PoT of 2:00:10. I emailed RD yesterday to ask them about their cutoff (2:00:00 or would they take up to 2:00:59). I'll let you know what they say.

They say re: PoT that if you don't submit an appropriate distance or they can't verify data that they will put you in the back. (Which seems a little petty, but it's their race)

 

[MissLiss279]

Stay tuned....I had a recent PoT of 2:00:10. I emailed RD yesterday to ask them about their cutoff (2:00:00 or would they take up to 2:00:59). I'll let you know what they say.

They say re: PoT that if you don't submit an appropriate distance or they can't verify data that they will put you in the back. (Which seems a little petty, but it's their race)

In the past with one of my POTs I was right on the line of corrals - like 30s slower than what the earlier corral. When I got my waiver, I was expecting to be in the later corral, but they put me in the earlier one! I was definitely within the POT they wanted. That’s really tough when it is whether they want a POT or not (and if you say yes, but don’t meet their guideline, then they’ll put in the back)! I don’t know what I would do…

 

[SheHulk]

In the past with one of my POTs I was right on the line of corrals - like 30s slower than what the earlier corral. When I got my waiver, I was expecting to be in the later corral, but they put me in the earlier one! I was definitely within the POT they wanted. That’s really tough when it is whether they want a POT or not (and if you say yes, but don’t meet their guideline, then they’ll put in the back)! I don’t know what I would do…

But have they ever published what the cutoffs or conversions are that they use anywhere? It’s not unreasonable that someone might think that a 2:00:10 is reasonable proof that you could run a 2:00:00. I see no reason not to submit it.

 

[ZellyB]

But have they ever published what the cutoffs or conversions are that they use anywhere? It’s not unreasonable that someone might think that a 2:00:10 is reasonable proof that you could run a 2:00:00. I see no reason not to submit it.

I agree with this. It doesn't really say that your POT has to meet the "expected" completion times. The response that @jmasgat got only threatens moving you to last corral if they can't verify data, and hers will certainly verify. Even if they did put you in the last corral, I think you'd have a good argument to go to runner relations at the expo and get it changed.

 

[kat_lh]

Maybe the “threat” means if you’re totally lying. Like saying you ran a race that you didn’t.

I just wonder how they’re able to verify all the times. Wouldn’t that be a fun job? Being the POT verifier for Disney races!

 

[ZellyB]

Maybe the “threat” means if you’re totally lying. Like saying you ran a race that you didn’t.

I just wonder how they’re able to verify all the times. Wouldn’t that be a fun job? Being the POT verifier for Disney races!

I'd always assumed that they did random checks of this because the work load to check all of them would be enormous. So my husband and I were speculating that maybe they WERE checking all of them and to reduce the labor to do that may have led to the more stringent POT requirements thus having fewer POT races to check. Who really knows, but it made for interesting lunch time conversation anyway.

 

[DopeyBadger]

I just wonder how they’re able to verify all the times. Wouldn’t that be a fun job? Being the POT verifier for Disney races!

My suspicion was that they didn't actually check all POTs (about 12,000 or so for Marathon Weekend 2020). Maybe a spot check. Or maybe just used the threat of "we'll put you in the last corral if we can't verify" to keep those with nothing close to a POT from submitting something completely fake. That threat may have been enough to deter those from trying on the risk you go from a guaranteed Corral F to Corral H. Given the new HM cutoff of 2hrs and presumed 4hrs M POT cutoff, they would have had about 3,100 POT submissions to verify using 2020 numbers. Either way that's a massive workload to check all those to find a handful that completely faked it (not fringe cases).

As for timing, they don't publish their conversions of other distances to the HM/M POT. So maybe the 10 miler cutoff is in reality 1:31:12. But you submit a 1:31:15 unknowingly as to whether that qualifies as a conversion under 2 hrs. I think you're likely justified to try and I'd venture to guess they wouldn't hold that against you. But if you submitted a 2:00:10 HM POT for a HM race POT, I mean that's pretty clearly above 2:00 hrs. Although it definitely is left to ambiguity whether it's 2:00:00 or 2:00:59. However, this image would lead me to believe it is 2:00:59:



Since the selection of the anticipated finish is 2:01-2:15. Not 2:00-2:15. But that's being really nit-picky on a company that has been prone to errors.

 

[SheHulk]

But if you submitted a 2:00:10 HM POT for a HM race POT, I mean that's pretty clearly above 2:00 hrs. Although it definitely is left to ambiguity whether it's 2:00:00 or 2:00:59.

But, I mean, if you are projecting a 2:00:00 finish in a future race, which presumably you will train for, and you last ran a 2:00:10, or even a 2:04:00, most people who don't crunch numbers as a hobby or vocation would assume that shows they could do it. And they are probably right in a lot of cases. I'm not saying that's what Disney does or uses, but I would bet a lot of people, who don't obsess over this stuff like the folks like us who come to this board do, would assume that would count as a "proof" that they can run a 2:00:00 in their next race. I know all runners are obsessive over their times and there is a world of difference in the running community between a 3:59:00 marathon and a 4:01:00 to lots of us. But they would be throwing a lot of people into that last corral and have tons of complaints to deal with at the expo if it was that hard-and-fast. Maybe they do but also I think you would be hearing more people complain on social media.

As for the change in standards for corral placement, my personal guess is that they have some data that shows that there is actually little correlation between anybody's proof of time from "local" races and how long it takes them to finish a Disney race (because people stop for characters, rides, drinks etc., leaving out people who cheat the system) and that the fastest corrals showed a bit better correlation. So why do all that work verifying and waste time & money for the slower corrals. Billy I do think you have data on that somewhere though, on how long it has taken runners compared to their projected time via corral placement, so you would know if that's a possibility.

 

[HangWithMerida]

As for the change in standards for corral placement, my personal guess is that they have some data that shows that there is actually little correlation between anybody's proof of time from "local" races and how long it takes them to finish a Disney race (because people stop for characters, rides, drinks etc., leaving out people who cheat the system) and that the fastest corrals showed a bit better correlation. So why do all that work verifying and waste time & money for the slower corrals.

That's an interesting theory that actually makes a lot of sense to me. It is a lot of times to verify and I can certainly say that in my personal experience, my disney HM was my slowest by almost 40 minutes. And I didn't even stop as much as many people do. Just navigating the crowd alone coupled with a potty break and a picture here and there adds a ton of time.

 

[Livelovedance]

I definitely agree. Admittedly I’ve pushed myself so hard to get POT for Disney races (I’m not fast so I had to work for the previous POT cutoffs), but when I get to Disney I don’t even think about my finish times!

 

[DopeyBadger]

But, I mean, if you are projecting a 2:00:00 finish in a future race, which presumably you will train for, and you last ran a 2:00:10, or even a 2:04:00, most people who don't crunch numbers as a hobby or vocation would assume that shows they could do it. And they are probably right in a lot of cases. I'm not saying that's what Disney does or uses, but I would bet a lot of people, who don't obsess over this stuff like the folks like us who come to this board do, would assume that would count as a "proof" that they can run a 2:00:00 in their next race. I know all runners are obsessive over their times and there is a world of difference in the running community between a 3:59:00 marathon and a 4:01:00 to lots of us. But they would be throwing a lot of people into that last corral and have tons of complaints to deal with at the expo if it was that hard-and-fast. Maybe they do but also I think you would be hearing more people complain on social media.

See and I viewed the POT as a seeding process by which it is something you've already accomplished and not necessarily a projection of what you could theoretically do at Disney since most people don't. Similar to the seeding process seen in other races like the Chicago Marathon. Although Chicago refers to it as a "verified qualifying time" (link) for the purpose of corral assignment. But reading the language on runDisney's site for POT, I can definitely see your view point as well. Where it's a means to show that "if you believe you will finish the event in less than X". Not necessarily something you've already accomplished.

As for the change in standards for corral placement, my personal guess is that they have some data that shows that there is actually little correlation between anybody's proof of time from "local" races and how long it takes them to finish a Disney race (because people stop for characters, rides, drinks etc., leaving out people who cheat the system) and that the fastest corrals showed a bit better correlation. So why do all that work verifying and waste time & money for the slower corrals. Billy I do think you have data on that somewhere though, on how long it has taken runners compared to their projected time via corral placement, so you would know if that's a possibility.

Here is some data from a 2018 Tableau (link). The page I think would most likely answer this question would be the following:



I used that data to determine what percentile of each corral had finished by their projected POT finish time, as well as when the 50th percentile had crossed the line.



To me, the "Expected Finish time based on POT" is actually more consistent than I would have initially guessed. Runners in Corral A through E (<3:40 through 5:30, which I believe represented the actual POT corrals in 2018, and F, G, H were non-POT corrals) showed about 20% of runners in those corrals finished by the time the POT would have projected them to. The 50th percentile is relatively consistent as well, although there appears to be more of a downward trend starting from 55.7% working down to ~44%. So I would say the number of runners that do the race in the projected time is consistent (~20% of each corral), but the further back in corrals you go the more of a tail you start to see in terms of the average runner taking more time. But how much extra time those runners take evens back out after >2 hrs over POT (see Corral A 5:00-5:30 at 90% finished vs Corral D 6:30-7:00 at 90% finished).

So I think to go back to your original hypothesis, when it comes to runners in corrals running their projected time, the POT corrals all showed a similar trend. In general, even at its absolute best, only about 20% of runners hit the same time standard as their POT would suggest in a local race. But when looking at how much time (to a limit of +2 hrs) there is a trend with faster corrals on average using slightly less extra time. So I think the answer to your hypothesis is both yes and no. An easily useable data set to justify moving the POT standards from 2:30 down to 2:00 if it's a means to simply reduce workload of verifying POT since less than 20% of the field is running the race at POT levels.

 

[SheHulk]

Yes but I will note that those half-hour bins are pretty darn big, time-wise, so when we say that those later corrals were within 2 bins to get to 50% (just 50%!) we are saying that half the runners finished within an *hour* of their PoT right? Not a great predictor of finish times then.
If you just choose different cutoffs, like When did 75% of the runners in each corral finish, then you see that for A & B, 75% finished within an hour and for C-E for instance, we get to 75% closer to an hour and a half after the PoT.
When there is really only a spread of possible finish times of about 3 hr (ok, 2:30 but not many people are running that here) to 6 hr or 6:30 given the balloon ladies (so a spread of 3.5 hr-4 hr), those later corrals not getting to 75% until an hour and a half after 100% of those people said they would finish, could be interpreted as not worth the time to put effort into checking. Just let people self-seed and move on.
Edited to correct myself: Maybe the balloon ladies give you 7 hr to finish, not 6 or 6:30. Even so the spread of possible finish times is about 4 hr or a a little more. So being one hour or 1.5 hr off is a lot!

 

[SheHulk]

It also wouldn't surprise me if, internally, there was discussion that there isn't much benefit to checking proof of time for *any* corrals anymore, but that would cause such an outrage/drop in fast runner participation that this is some kind of compromise. If you're close at all to that 2hr half or 4 hr marathon, I'd go for it and submit something.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Yes but I will note that those half-hour bins are pretty darn big, time-wise, so when we say that those later corrals were within 2 bins to get to 50% (just 50%!) we are saying that half the runners finished within an *hour* of their PoT right? Not a great predictor of finish times then.
If you just choose different cutoffs, like When did 75% of the runners in each corral finish, then you see that for A & B, 75% finished within an hour and for C-E for instance, we get to 75% closer to an hour and a half after the PoT.
When there is really only a spread of possible finish times of about 3 hr (ok, 2:30 but not many people are running that here) to 6 hr or 6:30 given the balloon ladies (so a spread of 3.5 hr-4 hr), those later corrals not getting to 75% until an hour and a half after 100% of those people said they would finish, could be interpreted as not worth the time to put effort into checking. Just let people self-seed and move on.

I think we're in agreement.

-Small subset (20%) of each corral from A through E actually runs POT levels.
-The further back in corrals you go the more of a tail you begin to see. Thus, faster corrals on average use slightly less extra time than do slower corrals. The difference between +30 min for Corral A (55%) and +30 min for Corral D (43%) is 12%. The difference between +60 min for Corral A (75.5%) and and +60 min for Corral D (65%) is 10%. So fairly small difference between the gain in +30 vs +60 min from POT between A and D. But this trend tails off once you hit +120 min when across the board you start to see around 90%.

It also wouldn't surprise me if, internally, there was discussion that there isn't much benefit to checking proof of time for *any* corrals anymore, but that would cause such an outrage/drop in fast runner participation that this is some kind of compromise. If you're close at all to that 2hr half or 4 hr marathon, I'd go for it and submit something.

Seems reasonable to me. Essentially move to a 5k/10k corral system for the HM/M. Not that I'd be an advocate for such a change.

I know for me personally it wouldn't change much of anything I do on race if they did or didn't do POT/estimate. But I typically finish in the 0.2-1.0% of the total field. Based on my pace, I'd still need to show up before the walk to the corrals opens and line up near the start line in Corral A. Although having to contend with more than 5% of the HM/M field would be a change. But when I do the 5k/10k, I've got something like 10-33% of the field to contend with to getting a starting line spot. So somewhat similar in that regard. But I could see it be a bigger change for those in Corral A of the HM/M who don't tend to show up as early as I generally do.

 

[SheHulk]

Agree with all that Billy.
To add to your points, it strikes me that the reasons for corralling by pace are
1) safety: slow runners aren't getting plowed over by fast runners, or fast runners aren't stopping suddenly for slow runners.
I personally think those A/B pace cutoffs do a great job for safety. Me at my 10-11 min mile, I am really not in danger of plowing over someone who is going at a 13-14 min mile pace. But someone running at 7-8 min miles (or faster) might be. I have definitely been annoyed by 4-abreast walkers who I've had to weave around, but it wasn't a safety hazard at my pace. I'm slow enough that I can see the situation clearly before I get to it.

2) crowd control, avoiding bottlenecks with everyone showing up to a tight spot at once
When you have as much mixing among corral participants as you do from Billy's chart, I don't know how much the previous system could have helped with bottlenecking anyway.

Just think of all the resources dedicated to not just checking these PoT's, but dealing with complaints, questions, comments: why am I in E and not D? When they know that person is just as likely to finish an hour behind either of those PoT predictions. If I was running things, I'd want to cut down on it as much as possible too.

 

[Blue Caterpillar]

1:53:36 would be the estimate. A 10 miler would be a 1:24:50.

Thanks. I've often wondered why they don't make it clear what conversions they use.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Thanks. I've often wondered why they don't make it clear what conversions they use.

At one point in time runDisney said they would make their calculator available on their site, and then it never happened. I guess they figured the slight mystery behind it left them some wiggle room at the margins if they needed it. Because if they were off by even a second with posted things then there would be additional emails, calls, and runner relations headaches. But I don't know that for certain.

 

[Blue Caterpillar]

At one point in time runDisney said they would make their calculator available on their site, and then it never happened. I guess they figured the slight mystery behind it left them some wiggle room at the margins if they needed it. Because if they were off by even a second with posted things then there would be additional emails, calls, and runner relations headaches. But I don't know that for certain.

And I guess it's give us a little wiggle room as well. For if think your time predicts a certain pace ......maybe?

 

[azrivest]

Has anyone heard anything else about the new runDisney Kids Adventures? Just curious to see when/what it is