I did 50 miles in 14 hours. 75% walking. 30 miles in the last 10 hours. Between 2-5 am I may have been at 2 miles an hour. I was not wore out. Just sleepy. My plan is 29 hours. Should I be looking at 60-65 in 14 hours.Training has been 30 miles in 7:15- 7:30(easy pace) on a hilly course. Pistol 100 is flat. Someone suggested I get in as many miles as possibly before the sun goes down and it gets cold. Miles4Maria the low was 35  F at 4am.The start was 29 F.

I think Blake Norwood's document, "How to Train For and Run Your First 100 at the Umstead 100" will be useful to you. In it, he uses statistical data from Umstead (also a relatively flat 100) to determine the average splits. In short, very few people will negative-split a 100. If you want to finish in 29 hours, a 14.5 hour first 50 sets you up for failure.

Quoting:

"One of  the more common stats used in 100 mile analysis is the fifty mile factor; which is the ratio of the second 50 mile time to the first 50 mile time for each runner? That ratio is expressed as a decimal factor. In the Umstead, the overall second 50 compared to the first 50 factor averages about 1.30. That is to say, if you run the first 50 miles in 10 hours, you can expect to run the second 50 miles in about 13 hours. In analyzing recent Umstead runners with finishing times between 23 and 24 hours, the fifty mile factor average is 1.27 with a range of 1.20 to 1.35. This range represents one standard deviation from the average and contains about 75 % of the runners in this finish period. For runners in the 28 to 30 hour  finish period, the average fifty mile factor is 1.30 with a one standard deviation range of 1.20 to 1.40.  The extremes of the Umstead fifty mile factor range from 1.12 to 1.58. For planning purposes as a first  timer, you should use a factor of 1.30 and you will likely be within 15 to 30 minutes of your actual second 50 mile time compared to your first 50 mile time. Later we will suggest how you might use this  factor in planning your Umstead 100 race lap by lap. As a rule of thumb, if you want to be a sub 24 hour runner, you need to be at the 50 mile mark by an elapsed time of 10:30; 10:40 at the latest. While we do  have sub 30 hour finishers with a first 50 time in excess of 13 hours, they are the exception rather than  the rule. If you want to have a little more confidence about an official sub 30 hour finish, be at 50 miles  in 13 hours or less."

In terms of daylight/cold, I would just go with blake's advice. Trying to get the first 50 in under 11 just to save daylight is probably going out too fast.

While I'm not surprised that averages come out to 1.3, based on what I've seen from the top finishers in a lot of races it is closer to 1.1-1.2.  I would guess that the higher the number, the more problems the runner had in the second half of the race, whether it was because of going out too fast,  not enough training, GI/fueling issues, etc.  I would recommend planning your target pace based on your fitness level, and if shit happens so be it.  Why plan your race around having a bad second 50?  If you do have a bad second 50, how is going out slower in the first half going to help anyway?

As for the weather, I would love to run a 100 mile race in 29 F even if it was dark the entire race.  So much better than 80 with 95% humidity and 16 hours of daylight.  One of the best races I've run was a 50K in 6 inches of snowy trail with a high of 11 degrees.  You can be prepared to put more clothes on if it gets cold, but plan to enjoy the cold not hate it.

I'm not suggesting the statistics are wrong, but advising someone to plan their race strategy around average finisher statistics may not be the best route to go either.  I don't have stats on marathon half splits handy, but I would be willing to bet that the average marathon finisher ends up with a 3-5 minute positive split.  Does that mean that coaches should start advocating positive splits just because they are the most common outcome?  Not necessarily.

No disrespect intended to Blake Norwood (whom I met just once, at Umstead this year), but I'm with flatfooter here. Most people start too fast. This is true for marathon, and even more so for 100. It *is* possible, and smart, to run close to even splits, even for a 100. Depending on course and conditions. Looking at statistics for what people as a whole do doesn't tell you what you should do.

That said -- for Western States this year I looked carefully at past splits by solid runners who know the course very well, and they were in line with the WS recommended splits, which looked very aggressive (big positive split) to me. So, what do I know.

 

Also I must be missing some context here. This is the first post in the thread?? I am lost. And is there a question, other than that implied by the thread title?

Should runs be even splits,positive splits or negative splits? I tend to run negative splits for marathons. There is no way I could negative split the 100. I was one of the walking dead at 2AM. Pistol 100 is a 11 mile loop. The plan is to run 55 miles in 13 hours---22 in 7---23 in 9 = 29.The course is paved and flat.