12

This is what I get for being lazy (Read 1021 times)

    Instead of bothering to actually run a 5K I figured I'd just get my time by throwing a couple recent races into the Race Time Predictor and see how I'd do.

     

    The races I used were:

     

    4.75 M in 30:08 (6:21 pace)

    &

    4 M in 25:48 (6:27 pace)

     

    The predictor figures it will take me 20:33 to run 3.1 miles (6:37 pace) with the above longer races run at faster paces.

     

    Am I:

     

    a) doing it wrong

    b) drunk

    c) going to suck even worse in the future

    d) other

    f) lazy

    h) all of the above

     

     

      Yes, you're doing it wrong.  The times for your recent races needs to be entered in the format

       

      0:30:08

      0:25:48

       

      I think you left out the initial 0: in your times.  i got a 6:20 pace for your 5K (19:36)

        For future reference options (b) through (f) may still apply. Wink

        2013

        3000 miles

        Sub 19:00 for 5K  05-03-13 Clee Prom 5K - 19:00:66 that was bloody close!

        Sub-40:00 for 10K 17-03-13 Gainsborough 10K - 39:43

        Sub 88:00 for HM

         

          i) e and g.

          Failure is a good start.

            Yes, you're doing it wrong.  The times for your recent races needs to be entered in the format

             

            0:30:08

            0:25:48

             

            I think you left out the initial 0: in your times.  i got a 6:20 pace for your 5K (19:36)

             

             

            I'm still getting the same numbers. I think RA is trying to tell me something.

             

             


            just a simple cat

              Smile

               

              Running is stupid

                The shorter race is slower, and the calculator is extrapolating that and predicting that the shorter 5K will be slower still.

                  The shorter race is slower, and the calculator is extrapolating that and predicting that the shorter 5K will be slower still.

                   

                  it's assuming he'll still be recovering from the longer races... Roll eyes

                    Smile

                     

                    You almost had me going out for a drink because I couldn't figure that one out either.

                      The shorter race is slower, and the calculator is extrapolating that and predicting that the shorter 5K will be slower still.

                       

                      Apparently the opposite is true too. Apparently I'm not the only who's drunk round here. So is the RA Race Time Predictor.  

                       

                      This just made my day:


                       

                        Why stop at the marathon, go all the way to 100 milers.

                         

                        In fact I know this because of the marathon predictor I got based on my 10 mile and half marathon times.  The slower 10 miler is a hilly race with a mountain to climb in mile 8.  Using those times gave me a BQ (or it did until last year), Now if only BAA recognized this, I won't need to actually qualify. 

                          OK, I just read calculation description and understand what is going on now.

                           

                          The estimator uses the following formula devised by Pete Riegel:

                           

                          T2 = T1 x (D2 / D1)C

                           

                          where:
                          D1 = distance you already raced
                          T1 = time for the known distance
                          D2 = distance you want to predict the time
                          T2 = predicted time for the new distance
                          C = performance degradation coefficient

                          This formula was first published in the August 1977 issue of Runner's World. Your overall pace slows as you run longer distances. The coefficient (Coef) describes this slow down. A larger value will produce a longer predicted time.

                           

                           

                          The calculation assumes a slow down with the longer distance but, in this case, the distances were close and I happened to have had a better day on the longer race. Therefore, I threw the equation to the point that it predicted I can run 100 miles in 7:52:42.

                           

                          Clearly the answer was i.


                          Feeling the growl again

                             I can run 100 miles in 7:52:42.

                             

                             

                            Sounds like a good equation to me.  Can't wait for you 200 mile time.  Watch out, Dopple Bock.

                            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                             


                            Craig

                              The range of coefficient values should be pretty small, probably much tighter than 1.04 to 1.10.  It does not really make sense to use two input races to determine the coefficient. Use one input race at a time. 

                               

                              And the coefficient used by Riegel was 1.06, not the default of 1.08 this predictor is using.  He probably had good reason to determine 1.06 was the proper coefficient to be used for someone prepared to race at various distances.  If the 1.06 coefficient does not seem to properly predict, you are probably not properly prepared for at least one of the distances.


                              HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                                You suck at the 100 meter dash, I think. 9:40 pace. Way slower than your 100 mile pace.

                                It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                                12