Why don't we have kilometer markers during 5k, 10k, etc. races?

It seems to me if we're going to have races of kilometer distances, then we should put kilometer markers on the course. I think runners would get used to it quickly. I also think it would be good to get in the habit of knowing your kilometer pace. A 15 minute 5k runner would need kilometer splits of 3 minutes, a 20 minute 5k runner 4 minutes and so on. Why isn't this happening? Is this the case only in the USA?

I couldn't agree more. One of my favorite things about the Bolder Boulder is the fact that they have every kilometer (and mile) marked.

I'm sure the main argument is that people don't understand kilometers. You don't have to understand it. A 10 kilometer race is 10 kilometers. If you run 1 kilometer you're 1/10th of the way done. Multiply your split by 10 to find out what you'll run at that pace. That's certainly easier than multiplying it by 6.2.

And for experienced runners, it shouldn't be an issue at all, as almost every time we run on the track it's all in metric. We don't have our splits given to us at the english measurements on the track, so why english measurements in metric races on the roads?

BDG

How many people really think about their training pace in terms of..."Am I running 3:45 or 4:00 pace today?"

Maybe they should.

I agree with having kilometer splits.

At the world champs marathon one year, there were stand up markers on the pavement, and it was very easy to see them, then they counted down to the end, 1000, 800, 600, 400 etc.

Very cool.

Same reason the US never really switched over to the metric system. People prefer miles.

Locknload wrote:

Is this the case only in the USA?

Most road races in Canada will have splits called at the mile mark (only one mile) but signs for every km. Sometimes a 10km will have splits also called at 5km.

I've run some longer races (mostly marathons) with splits every 5k (in addition to the miles). Never ran a race with splits every k though.

I little off the subject, but how can you tell if a track your running on is 400 meters or 440 yards?

People prefer miles.

It doesn't matter what people prefer! It matters what would be good for them. Sometimes they don't know and race directors need to

Kilometre splits would be far more meaningful in races that are 5 kilometres or 10 kilomteres. The advantage of just being able to multiply by 5 or 10 to get predicted finishing time would more than offset the [initial] problems of unfamiliarity with what a 3:28 split meant.

Especially in a 5km, but true for any distance, the 1km split is incredibly helpful in saving people from starting at the wrong pace. You get significantly earlier feedback on how you're doing than getting your first split at a mile.

Glad you know what is better for me than I do.

What should I have for lunch today? I cannot decide without your guidance.

bulldog35 wrote:

I little off the subject, but how can you tell if a track your running on is 400 meters or 440 yards?

easy. get a gps system on walk and map it.

Locknload wrote:

It seems to me if we're going to have races of kilometer distances, then we should put kilometer markers on the course. I think runners would get used to it quickly. I also think it would be good to get in the habit of knowing your kilometer pace. A 15 minute 5k runner would need kilometer splits of 3 minutes, a 20 minute 5k runner 4 minutes and so on. Why isn't this happening? Is this the case only in the USA?

By and large Americans think in miles. Even veteran international runners talk in terms of pace per mile and not pace per km.

For an experienced runner, doing the math on pace is not that big of a deal. If I am running a race and want to run a time of X, I know that I need to hit each mile in Y minutes.

A practical reason for the RD not to do it is that it requires more time to lay out 9 markers for a 10K rather than 5 markers. You also need to measure more splits (and I think we all know how mile markers can be way off).

As much as I use the metric system I still find myself using pace per mile rather than pace per km; I instantly know that 6 min/mile is going to be a hard pace, but I have less of a "feel" for how hard 3:45/k is (they are pretty much the same BTW).

In order to get the US on the metric system (other than drug dealers), it would require a total changeover and teaches would need to stop teaching people how to convert distances/volumes/etc and just teach them what a liter and kilometer are.

generation of malmo wrote:

bulldog35 wrote:

I little off the subject, but how can you tell if a track your running on is 400 meters or 440 yards?

easy. get a gps system on walk and map it.

A GPS might not be the best way. Walking in a tight circle like that is tough for a cheap GPS unit to measure.

Look at the markings on the track. They should be marked as 100m, 200m, 400m start.

If there is a straight line about 9 yards back from the start /finish line that says "Mile Start" then it is a 400m track.

If there are no markings, you are screwed.

A general rule: if the track has been resurfaced any time in the last 25 years, it's metric.

Our local road runners' club does a bang-up job on course measurement. Hell, they've even certified the 8.2-mile and 2.8-mile loops they use once a year for a breakfast prediction run. They do mark every 5k for longer races but that's it.

For anyone who's as thorough as these guys, there's probably only one reason they don't mark every km for shorter races: no one's ever asked them to. I'll bring it up.

I think Scott Hubbard already mentioned in another thread that the Volkslaufe races in Frankenmuth MI do use kilometer splits. They use to be great races, but I haven't been there in 20 years.

flightless wrote:

It doesn't matter what people prefer! It matters what would be good for them. Kilometre splits would be far more meaningful in races that are 5 kilometres or 10 kilomteres..

The only thing that matters is what the runners prefer. Mile splits are for the benefit runners, not the race directors.

Kilometer splits arent "good" for them if they don't know what they mean. They arent more meaningful to people who have spent their whole lives thinking in miles.

Kilometre splits are more meaningful in a race whose total distance is an integer number of kilometres.

When we start being taught our 6.215 and 3.1075 times tables in school then I'll concede that mile splits in X kilometre races make sense.

The 1km split would also be for the runners benefit by giving you earlier feedback on your pace.

It's just bizarre to have metric length races and give splits in miles.

Good Call!