VHTRC Runner Survey

Home | News | BRR | MMT | WHM | Search | Contact

VHTRC Participant Survey Results

Event: Women's Half Marathon (WHM)
Date: September 10, 2011

Thank you to those who particpated in the survey of runners in in the 2011 VHTRC Women's Half Marathon Trail Run. Here are the results.

The Survey

We sent a request to participate in the survey to the 206 starters in the 2011 WHM. We received responses from 99 (48%) of the runners.

For each question, there was a required rating response and an optional comment box. We have listed the average rating and a summary of the comments. To encourage candid responses, we do not make specific comments public.

All of the raw data has been shown to the WHM race director and the VHTRC board members. (As we noted in the survey, no version of the data connects a respondent's name with any response, although a few respondents included their names.) If you responded to the survey, we have heard you.

If you have any question about the survey, or have any further comment, you may e-mail the VHTRC president, Alan Gowen, at alangowen@gmail.com.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. We appreciate your time and your opinions.

The VHTRC Board
October 2011

Results

The rating responses were weighted from 1 for Very Poor to 5 for Very Good. For each question, the average response is listed in red.

About the runner ...

A. Have you run a trail race prior to this year's WHM?
Yes: 67 (68%) | No: 32 (32%)
B. Have you completed an ultra trail race?
Yes: 34 (35%) | No: 62 (65%) | (3 not responding)
C. Have you completed a half marathon prior to this year's WHM?
Yes: 85 (86%) | No: 14 (14%)
D. Have you run the WHM before this year?
Yes: 39 (39%) | No: 60 (61%)
E. Your Age:
20s: 28 (28%) | 30s: 32 (32%) | 40s: 27 (27%) | 50s and above: 12 (12%)

1. The WHM web site was... 4.40: Very Poor (1) through Very Good (5)
Comments:
Comments on Web site were generally positive. Suggestions for improvement included adding race address (which is posted, but not on home page); making weather forecast updates easier to find; adding more preview trail pictures.

2. The quality of the entrant shirt was... 4.63: Very Poor (1) through Very Good (5)
Comments:
Lots of positive comments about the race shirts, but a number of comments that the cut was short. Others commented on having more than one color (one runner liked this, others did not), and on difficulty seeing dark logo on dark shirt. Some said that they preferred the 2010 Asics shirt to 2011 Patagonia.

3. The pre-race briefing was...4.43 (3 didn't answer): Very Poor (1) through Very Good (5)
Comments:
Not many comments - one runner wanted more info on condition of course at briefing. Runners did love the men's chorus!

4. The course markings were... 4.49 (1 didn't answer): Very Poor (1) through Very Good (5)
Comments:
Runner comments indicated that most found the course marking adequate. One runner did have trouble staying on trail and wanted more markings, and two runners asked for mile markers.

5. The aid stations were... 4.55: Very Poor (1) through Very Good (5)
Comments:
(Please include what you most liked and what you would like to see but didn't at the aid stations.)
A wide variety of comments from the runners on the aid stations. A number of runners wanted to see gels, salt tabs, and fruit, while many others liked the M&Ms, pretzels, chips and cookies. Aid station volunteers in general were praised for enthusiasm and helpfulness; "Elvis" in particular.

6. The post race food was... 3.84 (7 didn't answer): Very Poor (1) through Very Good (5)
Comments:
(Please include what you most liked and what you would like to see but didn't.)
Comments were fairly evenly divided between those who wanted more fruit and more substantial food and those who liked the selection available this year at the end. Several comments about need for more organization; pre-pouring drinks; and ensuring variety available for back of pack runners.

7. The post race atmosphere was... 4.63 (16 no answer or Didn't Attend): Very Poor (1) through Very Good (5) | Didn't Attend
Comments:
Not many comments, but most liked the music and the general atmosphere at the finish. One wanted the ceremony to start earlier; one wanted awards for most blood & most mud added.

8. The quality of the awards was … 4.30 (69 no answer or Didn't Observe): Very Poor (1) through Very Good (5) | Didn't Observe Awards
Comments:
Comments were positive and negative on the buff headbands that were given out as awards. One runner asked about whether there were team awards (there were); one hoped for medals as awards; the quality of prizes was otherwise well-received.

9. Based on your experience this year, do you want to run the WHM again? 4.36: [Weight - Response - Number asnwering (percentage)]
1 - Definitely not - 1 (1.01%)
2 - Probably not - 5 (5.05%)
3 - Might/might not - 9 (9.09%)
4 - Probably - 26 (26.26%)
5 - Definitely - 58 (58.59%)
Please tell us Why or Why Not:
Lots of positive comments here about the course and the event. Some did not expect it to be as hilly, narrow, and to have challenging footing. One runner thought that first aid should be available and another wanted mile markers.

Overall Comments/Recommendations
Again lots of positive comments about the event as a whole. Couple of critical comments about finish line food and volunteers. One person each called for active recycling, for a return to a former course, and for a course that is longer.