The RW Race-Time Predictor

121 to 140 of 266 messages
18/04/2005 at 17:37
Calculator was a tad optimistic for me in the FLM, based on a half done a month earlier:

Bath half: 1:23:54 PB
RW Calc : 2:54:55
Macmillian Calc: 2:56:57
Actual: 2:57:24 PB

So the Mcmillian calc was the closest being only 30 secs out and you could put that down to not always following the blue racing line.
23/04/2005 at 22:27
It's a useful tool as an indicator however the times vary in relation to my race times for different distances. It obviously can't take into account, terrain, number of runners etc.

09/05/2005 at 09:36
completely way off for me.

completeed LFM in 3.35, last month

the last couple of weeks have done a few short races with out any special training for them (distances which I've never tried before) and got

34.58 -5 miler (predicts 3.16 marathon)
19.50 -5km (predicts 3.10 marathon)

so either I've found my niche in the shorter distances, or the calc just doesn't work for me ...or i just had a really bad day!!
10/05/2005 at 22:24
Sam (earlier) - almost exactly my experience

10k 46:24
1/2 m 1:44:45 actual
09/08/2005 at 22:27
Seems to be accurate for the London marathon, but at least 10% out for New York, unfortunately for me.
24/08/2005 at 15:15
Quite accurate, but a little fast for my 5k prediction.
24/08/2005 at 15:48
OK…

Marathon PB: 3:39:01 (2004)

5k – 20:05 (2005) – Predicts 03:12:25
10k – 42:28 (2004) – Predicts 03:15:09
10 miles – 01:07:48 (2005) – Predicts 03:10:56
Half Marathon – 01:32:35 (2005) – Predicts 03:13:01

Determined to get that sub-3:15 next Spring…..

25/08/2005 at 04:19
The race-predictor is pretty accurate for my old times. For my current times - I'm less reliable so don't think you can blame the calculator. I think it is great to be able to have a quick look before you start an event - it lets you what is possible if everything has gone to plan.
25/08/2005 at 04:20
...it lets you see
04/09/2005 at 21:58
Spot on for me when I put in my 5k time itgives my half mara to within 30 secs.

I need to sharpen my full marathon times up though by the look of the preditors time... :-)
07/09/2005 at 14:58
Well I just put in the times for the last 2 races (27.34 for 5K and 1.35.32 for 10 Miles) to see if the would predict accurately and they were spot on both ways around.
SGQ
07/09/2005 at 15:34
Hmmm...my 10K PB (44:15) suggests a 1:37ish half-marathon, but I've yet to break 1:43. Guess the 10K was a good day?
08/09/2005 at 22:32
sgq

i have similat times to yours - best 10k 45.43 and best 1/2m 1:44:45..
....struggling to break 45 for 10k, & would be harder to break 1:40 for 1/2m for me.

looks like your 10k was a really good day
09/09/2005 at 09:56
I wish the predictor was right, as I would be verging on an international vest if correct!

My best 1500 time this summer is 3.49 which gives me these times:

3k 7.57 (8.22 best)
5k 13.40 (14.50 best)
10k 28.30 (30.49 best)
half 62.50
marathon 2.11

Im ranked about 60th in the country for 1500m, imagine the potential of the other 59 runners in front of me, yet only 1 Brit has been under 7.57 for 3k this year, 1 under 13.40, none under 28.30, none 62.50 etc.
Flipper    pirate
09/09/2005 at 10:24
It worked pretty well for me:

My best 10K this summer was 58.44

The calculator predicted my 5K would be 28.10 when infact it was 28.44 so only 34 seconds out.

I don't think the estimation of 2.09 for my half marathon is going to be accurate (last year pb is 2h 17) but that's because I haven't really been training for it, whereas the 5K and 10K I worked equally pretty hard for and raced them within a week or so of eachother.
09/09/2005 at 10:41
Going by my half marathon time from last sunday it predicts a 10k time of over 54 mins for me. my 10k time is 47.11 so its way out for me. Probably to do with the heat on Sunday
15/09/2005 at 11:47
The formula can be modified to suit your running. Take two races that you ran under similar conditions (flat, cool etc.) with different lengths - ideally a 10k and a marathon. It doesn't matter if the races were several years ago, but they should be reasonably close together. The exponent n (the 1.06 bit in the standard formula) can be calculated as:
n = ln(marathon time/ 10 k time)/ln(marathon distance/10k distance). Where ln is the natural logarithm. What you will find is that for most people n will be larger 1.06 - mine for example is 1.11. You can then put the n back into the formula T2 = T1 x (D2/D1)^1.06 and recalculate your expected time at a marathon based on a recent shorter race.
29/09/2005 at 07:56
A quick scan through the posts reveal most people perform the marathon slower than the predictor, as do I which I think is due to apptitude and specialist training.

If you look at Paula Radcliffe's times for the marathon she is actually underperforming at 10k according to the predictor, but we all know she is exceptionally tuned to 26.2 miles. I think she illustrates perfectly why you cannot apply a mathematical formula to human potential.
H.
29/09/2005 at 08:22

Actual Half Time - 1.55
Predicted Mara' Time - 3.59.46 (I wish!)
Actual Mara' Time - 4.18.42

Tried quite a few times and found it a bit optimistic, esp on the longer distances.
29/09/2005 at 15:50
Stockie,

Think you are right in that different runners tune themselves to different distances.

Don't know if you can make an individual formula, or fit in a variable for it.

It worked quite well for me, but by time you have run a mara too many things could have happened. Rain, hail, snow, dehydration, not recovered enough, or just downright knackered :-)
121 to 140 of 266 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums