Pages: 1 |
| So I'm probably just being anal retentive... (Read 438 times) |
| view log Girl On The Run |
posted: 12/7/2007 at 8:41 PM |
But why do I see 3 different distance figures when I upload my Garmin to MB? Garmin says 7.88, Inbox figure was 7.91, and MB summary once Inbox is submitted is 7.9. I don't really care, but it would be nice if they all agreed. Is the distance discrepancy related to the MB Gravity? Which # do I trust? I don't want to claim more distance than I have actually run, since those little snippets here and there add up and I like to know that every step of HTFUing is the real deal. 
k |
Kirsten . . . --> GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS <--
• Ladies Locker Room •
.: 2008 Goals :.
• Run 1500 miles
• October 5 - 1st marathon - Milwaukee Lakefront - in my home state of WI
• PRs: 5k ~ 15k ~ 25k |
|
|
| view log Playmaker / nemesis |
posted: 12/7/2007 at 9:42 PM
modified: 12/7/2007 at 9:43 PM |
♫ Gamin says 7.88
♫ MB inbox says 7.91. This is a preliminary number based on looking at the set of coordinates coming from the watch.
♫ MB says 7.90 after importing. I think that this is the most trustworthy number since MB's GPS corrections have been applied at this point. (MB Gravity refers to altitude clean-up, not GPS position tune-up)
It's kind of weird system and I hope they improve / clarify it. My biggest beef are the time discrepancies that creep in whenever you have a run involving a lot of stopped time. Someone (either Scout or Mikeymike) said it best when they said that the watch itself (or GTC) is the best source for running time, and MB has the most accurate distance if you have the GPS tune-up preference turned on. |
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20 |25k: 1:35:59
21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00
What are you doing? |
|
|
| view log Girl On The Run |
posted: 12/7/2007 at 9:55 PM |
Ok, that makes sense. I used 7.9 for my log here, but I almost felt like I was cheating a little since my Garmin is .02/mile shorter. I know that seems silly, but I'd rather claim fewer miles than miles I haven't actually run.
k |
Kirsten . . . --> GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS <--
• Ladies Locker Room •
.: 2008 Goals :.
• Run 1500 miles
• October 5 - 1st marathon - Milwaukee Lakefront - in my home state of WI
• PRs: 5k ~ 15k ~ 25k |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 12/8/2007 at 2:45 PM
modified: 12/8/2007 at 2:46 PM |
Try doing a run on a course you've measured and know to be accurate and you get a fourth number.
Since most of my regular loops are pretty curvy, the Garmin and MB both tend to slightly underestimate my distance (MB less so than garmie himself). If I don't know the distance of the loop I just ran, then I use MB's distance figure. If I do, I use my known distance. In either case, I use the time off the watch, NOT MB. The only reason I use the garmin on routes I know is when I'm doing workouts and I want the garmin for intervals etc. |
|
|
| view log Girl On The Run |
posted: 12/8/2007 at 2:48 PM |
| Quote from mikeymike on 12/8/2007 at 2:45 PM: In either case, I use the time off the watch, NOT MB.
Yeah, I did discover a week or so ago that the time on my Garmin and the time MB figures are often not the same...which is very odd. I can see distance being different because of the MB elevation corrections, but time should be time....
|
Kirsten . . . --> GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS <--
• Ladies Locker Room •
.: 2008 Goals :.
• Run 1500 miles
• October 5 - 1st marathon - Milwaukee Lakefront - in my home state of WI
• PRs: 5k ~ 15k ~ 25k |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 12/8/2007 at 2:50 PM |
| Quote from zoom-zoom on 12/8/2007 at 2:48 PM: Yeah, I did discover a week or so ago that the time on my Garmin and the time MB figures are often not the same...which is very odd. I can see distance being different because of the MB elevation corrections, but time should be time....
Yeah that's the weirdest thing that MB does. I think when it "puts back" distance that the watch didn't record (like if you lose signal or go under a bridge) it also tries to put back time based on an estimate of your average pace or something. Just make sure "auto-pause" is turned off and the watch time should always be 100% accurate.
|
|
|
| view log Girl On The Run |
posted: 12/8/2007 at 2:58 PM |
| Quote from mikeymike on 12/8/2007 at 2:50 PM: Yeah that's the weirdest thing that MB does. I think when it "puts back" distance that the watch didn't record (like if you lose signal or go under a bridge) it also tries to put back time based on an estimate of your average pace or something. Just make sure "auto-pause" is turned off and the watch time should always be 100% accurate.
Yup, I was going to use auto-pause (a friend of mine uses it on hers), but after reading iffy reviews of the feature I disabled it. I will stop the watch if I have to wait at an intersection to cross for more than a few seconds.
k |
Kirsten . . . --> GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS <--
• Ladies Locker Room •
.: 2008 Goals :.
• Run 1500 miles
• October 5 - 1st marathon - Milwaukee Lakefront - in my home state of WI
• PRs: 5k ~ 15k ~ 25k |
|
|
| view log Blaine Moore |
posted: 12/8/2007 at 5:35 PM |
| I don't use auto pause, and spent a lot of time stopped waiting today. A couple of times I stopped the watch, but most of the time I didn't bother since it was only 10 seconds at a time or so while I waited for somebody. It just meant that my pace was a little slower. |
Run to Win
I just started using Twitter - anybody else on there? http://twitter.com/BlaineMoore
Saturday, 9/6, I'll be interviewing a man who has only lost 1 minute off his 5K time in 30 years:
http://www.runtowin.com/ask/Tom-Ryan.html - Sign up for the call in details and to have your own questions answered! |
|
|
Pages: 1 |
