Just for fun wrote:
By definition? Yes! They are different.
You didn't say "different," you said "completely different."
But rather than argue over semantics, why don't you just post all your measurements.
Just for fun wrote:
By definition? Yes! They are different.
You didn't say "different," you said "completely different."
But rather than argue over semantics, why don't you just post all your measurements.
dukerdog wrote:
Just for fun wrote:
By definition? Yes! They are different.
You didn't say "different," you said "completely different."
But rather than argue over semantics, why don't you just post all your measurements.
Now I am not very smart, but wait a minute. If I said, "completely different." Didn't I say "different?" Otherwise, I guess I would have said, "completely...??????"
dukerdog,
Sorry, I didn't see your request before.
I don't disagree that there are lots of smart assumptions, for example, to smooth "zig-zags" 99% of the time, nor that Garmin has smart people that can do it. My only point was, as you put it, "none of us KNOWS what Garmin is doing", and having smart people is often not enough to get it right (e.g. for business costs or market timing reasons).
Regarding the Dynastream footpod implementation, the footpod measures acceleration (in two directions), at 1000 times per second. From the measurements, the footpod determines the major phases of the gait, and attempts to reconstruct the path of the foot, in the running plane. Determination of the gait is important, to resolve the attitude, and determine the heading, of the sensor.
Proper calibration is still necessary, as the measurements can be affected by running surface, hills, shoe cushioning, placement of sensor on foot, running gait, and even running speed.
A Dynastream white paper can be found here:
http://www.dynastream.com/datafiles/SpeedMax%20White%20Paper%20v4_1.pdf
More detailed information about the method of "dead-reckoning navigation system" can be found here:
http://plan.geomatics.ucalgary.ca/papers/RossSterlingThesisUofADec03.pdf
Have fun.
you guys are aware that the satellite for these things is thousands of miles away in space, right?
And?
rombus wrote:
you guys are aware that the satellite for these things is thousands of miles away in space, right?
Just for fun wrote:
I am very sorry it wasn't clear to you. I honestly felt I accurately decribed the process used. At least in my mind, 3 devices used twice would equate to 6 measurements. I will be more diligent in my future posts.
By the way, I can't believe you are actually supporting Obama.
I was too clouded by pure jealousy, thinking you had 4.5 free hours to do something like that!
I can't believe the Democrats have me campaigning with that wife of mine. I secretly want McCain to win this year so that Hillary can run again in 2012! Oh, and for the White House interns...
Well done Billy!
:) LOL
Average_Joe wrote:
A convenient generalization. Impossible to prove or refute. I could just as easily say "most poor races are a direct result of poor strategy".
I say same difference. Strategy is certainly a reflection on prep. Running is not the only prep done for racing if one is serious enough.
Bull. I said there were no miracles on race day for Jones or Rodgers, that they achieved their times through talent and hard work. You said "wrong".
Wrong. Quote and link to the post with the entire context. Unless you can't.
A breakthrough would be finally putting down a marathon commensurate with what either your training or training or racing has indicated you could but that you've been unable to do.
A miracle would be a marathon performance orders of magnitude beyond what any training run or other race could have predicted. If Jones has also run 1:01:40 for his SECOND half marathon in 85, THAT would have been a miracle.
Except that when it's put to most people (I am not among them, I was in no way surprised) they would say that Wanjiru's Beijing performance was indeed that. From all the comments I've seen, nearly everyone expected him and the others in the top 5 to completely fall apart and stagger to the finish by pursuing the pace that they did in those conditions through 10k, the half, 30k, and so on. Most people would deem it a superhuman performance, a miracle. He ran counter to what nearly every observer expected to be the outcome. I hope you were genuinely not surprised with Wanjiru's performance and that he was able to win using the strategy that he did.
I implied nothing of the sort. You inferred.
Thanks for the confirmation that you fail to understand.
That was talking about outcomes, not strategies. It was an immediate response to your quote about knowing "any alternative outcome". Now who doesn't remember what they said?
The two are inseparable to all but the most simplistic of minds.
No. I am saying that what I knew about Pocono and why I chose it is completely irrelevant to the fact that it was a course with some badly placed mile markers.
You are lost, the point was not about mile markers.
Which demonstrates only your ignorance about me and my motives, and is (again) completely irrelevant to the worth of a Garmin.
Then do go on, since you somehow differ in motive from all the other disingenuous goofballs who run St. George, Steamtown, Tucson, and the like to nab phony PR's. Let me guess, they made you an offer you couldn't refuse?
Had that been the actual mile marker, it would have been too fast. Since the mile marker was incorrect, the time was correct.
Exactly. Now ponder that fact, let it sink in.
Because it's been wrong before. Had I not had the Garmin, I probably would have trusted it anyway. But I see no virtue in guessing when it is so easy to know. Ignorance is neither "ballsy" nor "tough", merely stupid.
And whose fault is that? You see, there is little need to guess, regardless of any gadget purchases.
Technically most out of his body would be the fastest time. It's not as if there was anyone left to race him after mile 2. Even Thackery couldn't keep up with him. The fact that he died so badly, running a 5 minute positive split is evidence enough that he did not get the fastest time he was capable of.
And what real evidence is there that Jones did not run as fast as he was capable of on that day? Even splits have not proven to yield the best effort in one's body on the day. All of those runs where Geb and so many others have finished up with a negative split confirm that their tanks were not on empty at the end.
The former is an outcome. The latter is a strategy.
(The term "blowing me" was an editing error and should have read "blowing up". Thus is it does not suit as a synonym for "miracle". It is more like the opposite)
And one leads to the other. There is no separating strategy from outcome, except to less-developed minds.
do the math wrote:
The two are inseparable to all but the most simplistic of minds.
One would hope that even the most simplistic of minds could consult the dictionary to understand the difference. Go ahead. I'll wait.
You are lost, the point was not about mile markers.
I think I will be the judge of the point that I made in the first place, thanks.
Then do go on, since you somehow differ in motive from all the other disingenuous goofballs who run St. George, Steamtown, Tucson, and the like to nab phony PR's. Let me guess, they made you an offer you couldn't refuse?
Pocono offered prize money for a place that, judging by previous years times, might not have been far out of my reach. Several friends were already going down. I'd already missed my chance at a PR at Boston 3 weeks earlier. Seemed like a fun thing to do.
I accept your apology for questioning my motives in choosing the race.
And whose fault is that? You see, there is little need to guess, regardless of any gadget purchases.
Lacking the actual data, all you have left is guessing. An educated guess is still a guess. Your preference for ignorance is inexplicable. Your need to criticize the desire for knowledge is even more so.
Even Jones has admitted he had no idea of the pace that he was running that day in Chicago. No idea? How do you account for this? By your own definition, he must not have trained properly, not to be know his pace. He shouldn't have needed to guess.
And what real evidence is there that Jones did not run as fast as he was capable of on that day?
That he ran a hugely positive split. He could have broken the record. He could have been the first sub-2:07 marathoner. Maybe even the first sub 2:06 guy. He doesn't care and fine but only an imbecile would think that's the fastest time he could have run that day.
Even splits have not proven to yield the best effort in one's body on the day.
If "best effort" is "fastest time", then yes, they really have. Certainly a hell of a lot better than a 5 minute positive split.
All of those runs where Geb and so many others have finished up with a negative split confirm that their tanks were not on empty at the end.
A negative split by a few seconds is nothing. A positive split by 5 minutes means you died.
And one leads to the other. There is no separating strategy from outcome, except to less-developed minds.
Wait one second! So you mean no matter what strategy you choose there is always an outcome? Wow! Great point! Who knew?
Strategy is what you try to do. Outcome is what actually happens. When they coincide, that's a good day. When they do not, it's a bad one. That's how you separate them.