>General Running>Trying to ONLY run 26.2 miles in a marathon
an amazing likeness
I synched it up, and it tells me how well it is synched which the running versions do not -- accuracy +/- 75 feet.
If we lived in a world without tears...how would scars find skin to etch themselves into
However, .02 for 5 miles = 7.2 seconds at 6-minute per mile pace. At 8-min pace it becomes almost 10 seconds. This is quite significant, imo, and is multiplied as the distance increases.
I've got a fever...
The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called place, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.
One of the other numbers that matters much...is time. Time is always secondary to place in it's value. Neither place nor time are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call competition. Time does not supersede place, but it is a way of comparing the place of two or more experiments from different venues and eras...
On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.
Feeling the growl again
Not sure why you think the running Garmin ForeRunner x05 units don't give current satellite information -- they all have displays for current accuracy as well as the satellite constellation in use. Mine is nearly always reports 15 - 22 feet as accuracy during my runs.
"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
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
...it is clear that the resulting GPS measurements will never compare to a course certifier with a Jones counter carefully following the tangents of the course...
Until you get hit by a car!
The Logic of Long Distance
If you have the Garmin set to 'record-every-point' the above discussion stands. If you have the Garmin set to 'Smart Data Recording' a slight mod is needed. In this case, the accuracy will probably be BETTER than 'record-every-point' if there are long sections of straight trail/roadway'. This is because in Smart Recording mode the software will 'decide' whether you are running a straight line and then go back and delete intermediate points (and their inaccuracies) and then interpolate between the two endpoints of that segment. If someone had a accurately, conventionally measured (Jones counter?) 5mile distance (has to be long to get any significant data) on a very straight and flat road or trail you could verify this. I don't think the Garmin would ever measure it short unless it was in Smart Recording mode. In the other mode it would ALWAYS record the distance long and, obviously, would have nothing to do with running any tangents the long way.
NJ Trail Series NJ Trail Series on Facebook NY NJ Runners Group @rickmcnulty
I have learned from this thread that only thing better than geeking out over running stats from the Garmin is geeking out over the accuracy of the running stats from the Garmin.
"He conquers who endures" - Persius "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel