Race Report

On Nov 4, 5:28 pm, Christos Dimitrakakis <oleth...@olethros-

desktop.info said:

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes? If so, that
means you must've have shortened your stride in compared to your
calibration.

Good question. It uses some proprietary technology, and once
calibrated, is supposed to be 98% accurate. When I calibrated it
recently, I went at around a 10:00 pace for 0.5 miles. And I have
since tested it several times on the track up to 2.5 miles distance,
and each time it was dead-on accurate.

Still, I suppose if it's only 98% accurate that could be the
difference between 3.1 and 3.2?

jen

On Nov 4, 5:28 pm, Christos Dimitrakakis <oleth...@olethros-

desktop.info said:

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes? If so, that
means you must've have shortened your stride in compared to your
calibration.

Good question. It uses some proprietary technology, and once
calibrated, is supposed to be 98% accurate. When I calibrated it
recently, I went at around a 10:00 pace for 0.5 miles. And I have
since tested it several times on the track up to 2.5 miles distance,
and each time it was dead-on accurate.

Still, I suppose if it's only 98% accurate that could be the
difference between 3.1 and 3.2?

jen

In article <[email hidden]>,

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

Quoted message said:

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for
this. It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my
ipod, which I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I
calibrated it on a track a few weeks back), said the race course
was 3.2 miles, not 3.1 miles, long.

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes?

According to Apple, they actually measure time on ground, not just the
number of strikes.

--
13.1 Because I can

In article <[email hidden]>,

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

Quoted message said:

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for
this. It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my
ipod, which I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I
calibrated it on a track a few weeks back), said the race course
was 3.2 miles, not 3.1 miles, long.

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes?

According to Apple, they actually measure time on ground, not just the
number of strikes.

--
13.1 Because I can

In article <[email hidden]>,

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

Quoted message said:

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for
this. It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my
ipod, which I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I
calibrated it on a track a few weeks back), said the race course
was 3.2 miles, not 3.1 miles, long.

Erm, don't these work by counting the number of footstrikes?

According to Apple, they actually measure time on ground, not just the
number of strikes.

--
13.1 Because I can

TBR <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Billy's mom said, "Good boy, Billy. Good boy."

--
The Bill Davidson Chronicles

Index
http://tinyurl.com/23zqj5

Sexual Offender Flyer
http://tinyurl.com/2rxcr5

Billy, Motivational Speaker
http://tinyurl.com/2cjwlj

TBR <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Billy's mom said, "Good boy, Billy. Good boy."

--
The Bill Davidson Chronicles

Index
http://tinyurl.com/23zqj5

Sexual Offender Flyer
http://tinyurl.com/2rxcr5

Billy, Motivational Speaker
http://tinyurl.com/2cjwlj

TBR <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Billy's mom said, "Good boy, Billy. Good boy."

--
The Bill Davidson Chronicles

Index
http://tinyurl.com/23zqj5

Sexual Offender Flyer
http://tinyurl.com/2rxcr5

Billy, Motivational Speaker
http://tinyurl.com/2cjwlj

tfactor said:

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

I just mapped it on mapmyrun - twice. The first time it came in at
3.17. Then I zoomed in, and realized I'd mapped it kinda sloppy, so I
did it over, and it came in at 3.18. So I think I'll stick with saying
that I ran this one in 31:17. :-)

jen

tfactor said:

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

I just mapped it on mapmyrun - twice. The first time it came in at
3.17. Then I zoomed in, and realized I'd mapped it kinda sloppy, so I
did it over, and it came in at 3.18. So I think I'll stick with saying
that I ran this one in 31:17. :-)

jen

tfactor said:

If you remember the route you can draw it on gmap-pedometer.com and
see how close you get. I've done it for a few certified races (those
where I could remember the route, which I often can't after a race)
and it's always been dead on (and pretty far off for a couple of
uncertified ones).

I just mapped it on mapmyrun - twice. The first time it came in at
3.17. Then I zoomed in, and realized I'd mapped it kinda sloppy, so I
did it over, and it came in at 3.18. So I think I'll stick with saying
that I ran this one in 31:17. :-)

jen

Michelle said:

According to Apple, they actually measure time on ground, not just the
number of strikes.

Whatever it is, it must be an accelerometer of some type.

shinypenny said:

Good question. It uses some proprietary technology, and once calibrated,
is supposed to be 98% accurate.

Aha, it's actually quite simple. Once you have a good accelerometer you
can estimate contact time. And speed seems to be inversely proportional
to contact time, according to numerous studies! So, it should work as
long as the contact time estimation is sufficiently good (and the course
is flat, I guess?)

Michelle said:

According to Apple, they actually measure time on ground, not just the
number of strikes.

Whatever it is, it must be an accelerometer of some type.

shinypenny said:

Good question. It uses some proprietary technology, and once calibrated,
is supposed to be 98% accurate.

Aha, it's actually quite simple. Once you have a good accelerometer you
can estimate contact time. And speed seems to be inversely proportional
to contact time, according to numerous studies! So, it should work as
long as the contact time estimation is sufficiently good (and the course
is flat, I guess?)

Michelle said:

According to Apple, they actually measure time on ground, not just the
number of strikes.

Whatever it is, it must be an accelerometer of some type.

shinypenny said:

Good question. It uses some proprietary technology, and once calibrated,
is supposed to be 98% accurate.

Aha, it's actually quite simple. Once you have a good accelerometer you
can estimate contact time. And speed seems to be inversely proportional
to contact time, according to numerous studies! So, it should work as
long as the contact time estimation is sufficiently good (and the course
is flat, I guess?)

shinypenny said:

I finally got around to running an "anniversary" 5K today and I think
I did pretty good.

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for this.
It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my ipod, which
I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I calibrated it on a
track a few weeks back), said the race course was 3.2 miles, not 3.1
miles, long.

Official clock time: 32:35
Subtract 12 seconds: 32:23
Ipod time at 3.1 miles: 31:17

Here's how it compares to my last two 5K's, which I just went and
looked up again in coolrunning:

October 2006 (with no training at all, and 20 lbs heavier): 37:59
March 2007 (with training, and 10 lbs heavier): 33:58
. . .

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course. On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns. Ah, well, as they say, "Your mileage may vary!"
--
Daniel ( [email hidden] )

shinypenny said:

I finally got around to running an "anniversary" 5K today and I think
I did pretty good.

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for this.
It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my ipod, which
I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I calibrated it on a
track a few weeks back), said the race course was 3.2 miles, not 3.1
miles, long.

Official clock time: 32:35
Subtract 12 seconds: 32:23
Ipod time at 3.1 miles: 31:17

Here's how it compares to my last two 5K's, which I just went and
looked up again in coolrunning:

October 2006 (with no training at all, and 20 lbs heavier): 37:59
March 2007 (with training, and 10 lbs heavier): 33:58
. . .

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course. On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns. Ah, well, as they say, "Your mileage may vary!"
--
Daniel ( [email hidden] )

shinypenny said:

I finally got around to running an "anniversary" 5K today and I think
I did pretty good.

I'm confused about my real time, however. There was no chip for this.
It took me 12 seconds just to cross the start line. And my ipod, which
I'm fairly certain is correctly calibrated now (I calibrated it on a
track a few weeks back), said the race course was 3.2 miles, not 3.1
miles, long.

Official clock time: 32:35
Subtract 12 seconds: 32:23
Ipod time at 3.1 miles: 31:17

Here's how it compares to my last two 5K's, which I just went and
looked up again in coolrunning:

October 2006 (with no training at all, and 20 lbs heavier): 37:59
March 2007 (with training, and 10 lbs heavier): 33:58
. . .

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course. On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns. Ah, well, as they say, "Your mileage may vary!"
--
Daniel ( [email hidden] )

Daniel said:

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

Thanks!

Yeah, maybe sub-30 before March: turns out I was coming down with a
nasty cold! I've gone through a box of kleenex since late last
night... or the effort of the 5K wiped out any last shred of
immunity... ugh, I hate colds... oh well, my DH also came down with
the same cold too, so we're taking the day off work today together,
and napping as much as possible.

Quoted message said:

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course.

The course made a square, basically: straight up one road for about a
mile, turn right for about 1/5 mile, back down another road for 1
mile, then another turn to come back to the start.

Quoted message said:

On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns.

So do I, but they wouldn't let us run on the crown. We ran the whole
thing - except for one short stretch - on the right side of the road
in the gutter, i.e., the inner part of the square. So if the course
had been officially measured using the center of the road, wouldn't
running in the right gutter make the mileage shorter?

When I mapped using mapmyrun, I tried to draw the line as close to the
right gutter as possible. I could try mapping down the center of the
street, but I think it'll come out even farther than 3.18 miles.

My hunch is that at one point someone did measure it out correctly,
but originally it was intended to have a different start and finish
line, instead of starting and finishing on the same line. Especially
since before the race started, I overheard someone saying that the
course was supposed to end in this park area - but that's not where
they ended it this year.

jen

Daniel said:

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

Thanks!

Yeah, maybe sub-30 before March: turns out I was coming down with a
nasty cold! I've gone through a box of kleenex since late last
night... or the effort of the 5K wiped out any last shred of
immunity... ugh, I hate colds... oh well, my DH also came down with
the same cold too, so we're taking the day off work today together,
and napping as much as possible.

Quoted message said:

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course.

The course made a square, basically: straight up one road for about a
mile, turn right for about 1/5 mile, back down another road for 1
mile, then another turn to come back to the start.

Quoted message said:

On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns.

So do I, but they wouldn't let us run on the crown. We ran the whole
thing - except for one short stretch - on the right side of the road
in the gutter, i.e., the inner part of the square. So if the course
had been officially measured using the center of the road, wouldn't
running in the right gutter make the mileage shorter?

When I mapped using mapmyrun, I tried to draw the line as close to the
right gutter as possible. I could try mapping down the center of the
street, but I think it'll come out even farther than 3.18 miles.

My hunch is that at one point someone did measure it out correctly,
but originally it was intended to have a different start and finish
line, instead of starting and finishing on the same line. Especially
since before the race started, I overheard someone saying that the
course was supposed to end in this park area - but that's not where
they ended it this year.

jen

Daniel said:

Good job, Jen! And next March (or sooner?) . . . sub-30:00?

Thanks!

Yeah, maybe sub-30 before March: turns out I was coming down with a
nasty cold! I've gone through a box of kleenex since late last
night... or the effort of the 5K wiped out any last shred of
immunity... ugh, I hate colds... oh well, my DH also came down with
the same cold too, so we're taking the day off work today together,
and napping as much as possible.

Quoted message said:

About the distance, I have no idea how your techie thingie works but a
certified race course is measured along straight line tangents from
turn to turn. The more turns and curves there are, the more your
actual distance run is going to exceed the mathematical/surveyed
distance of the course.

The course made a square, basically: straight up one road for about a
mile, turn right for about 1/5 mile, back down another road for 1
mile, then another turn to come back to the start.

Quoted message said:

On streets, for example, I usually prefer to
stay out of the gutter and closer to the center crown of the road even
on turns.

So do I, but they wouldn't let us run on the crown. We ran the whole
thing - except for one short stretch - on the right side of the road
in the gutter, i.e., the inner part of the square. So if the course
had been officially measured using the center of the road, wouldn't
running in the right gutter make the mileage shorter?

When I mapped using mapmyrun, I tried to draw the line as close to the
right gutter as possible. I could try mapping down the center of the
street, but I think it'll come out even farther than 3.18 miles.

My hunch is that at one point someone did measure it out correctly,
but originally it was intended to have a different start and finish
line, instead of starting and finishing on the same line. Especially
since before the race started, I overheard someone saying that the
course was supposed to end in this park area - but that's not where
they ended it this year.

jen