1

Pace Calculation (Read 515 times)

Steve in CT


    OK, I know I'm being picky about this, but it seems to me that the pace calculation is off a tiny bit. Here's one example: 8.05 miles in 1:09:24. If I do the arithmetic on this I come up with 8:37.27. Even if you round up, this should still be 8:37, not the 8:38 I see in my log. My Garmin shows 8:37, the Runners World calculator comes up with 8:37, and I see this discrepancy very often between my Garmin and the log. it seems to me that in the running log any fraction is rounded up to the next second.
    Slo


      OK, I know I'm being picky about this, .
      Um, Yes Next month when you review your log......is it really going to make a difference ? Your Garmin is accurate to 19 ft, do you account for that ?


      Right on Hereford...

        OK, I know I'm being picky about this, but it seems to me that the pace calculation is off a tiny bit. Here's one example: 8.05 miles in 1:09:24. If I do the arithmetic on this I come up with 8:37.27. Even if you round up, this should still be 8:37, not the 8:38 I see in my log. My Garmin shows 8:37, the Runners World calculator comes up with 8:37, and I see this discrepancy very often between my Garmin and the log. it seems to me that in the running log any fraction is rounded up to the next second.
        I'm picky too, and I'm with you on this. I wish the pace calculator would round to the nearest second, rather than always rounding up. It even seems to round up to 8:38 if your actual pace was 8:37.0! I'd be happy if the pace was shown to the nearest tenth of a second, too. Either way. O/C types unite! Cool
        Slo


          Believe me, I can appreciate a little anal retentiveness, but posting your pace times to the nearest 10th of a sec Roll eyes Do you keep scrupulous notes detailing how you slowed down at an intersection for a car that was passing thru, or how you tailed a couple of slow runners before you could get around and pass. How did the wind affect your pace, the temp.......If it isn't going to affect how your going to train in the next few days don't worry about it. Put the pencil and calculator down. I'm only saying this for your own good........O/C unite indeed ! And I'm bettin you can find lots of 'em in a pair of running shoes. Big grin FWIW, I've spent well over 300hrs perfecting my Excel Log.
            OK, I know I'm being picky about this, but it seems to me that the pace calculation is off a tiny bit. Here's one example: 8.05 miles in 1:09:24. If I do the arithmetic on this I come up with 8:37.27. Even if you round up, this should still be 8:37, not the 8:38 I see in my log.
            I go the other way on this one. To use your example, it would wrong to say you ran your workout at 8:37/m pace. If you had run at an 8:37/m pace you would have finished 8.05 miles in 1:09:21. You didn't. You ran slower. Not a lot slower, obviously, but slower nonetheless. I think of it like this: what the log shows the closest pace (without decimals) that actually accounts for you having covering the specified distance in the specified time. Since the precise elements in the log calculations are distance and time, I think its working the best way possible. (Also 8:37.27 rounded up to the nearest second is 8:38, so I think your last sentence quoted above is a bit off).

            How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2.

              In this example (an 8.05 mile run in 1:09:24), my vote is for the pace to be calculated as 8:37.
              eric :)


                Pace is always rounded up. You'll get 8:38 even if you ran an 8:37.01 mile. All the race listings display whole seconds. Why doesn't anyone display fractional seconds? I dunno. I guess it really doesn't matter all that much. Dakota RR: a pace of 8:37.0 for 8.05 miles is 1:09:21.85.