Banned by Jihad Gary wrote:
C0ckbain is a disgrace to the British ultra community.
https://imgur.com/a/0p2or
Ross Woodward:
"I guess the basic test of what is true is now does Mark C*ckbain know you?"
Mark C*ckbain:
"Never heard of him either."
Banned by Jihad Gary wrote:
C0ckbain is a disgrace to the British ultra community.
https://imgur.com/a/0p2or
Ross Woodward:
"I guess the basic test of what is true is now does Mark C*ckbain know you?"
Mark C*ckbain:
"Never heard of him either."
Route wrote:
The two most notable changes from Pete's route were San Fran, as was mentioned, as well as Walden, CO where Pete was able to take some gravel roads south of Walden. I would imagine those roads were not plowed after the snow storm, causing her to stay on 14 up to Walden.
If you look back at the Garmin data for the Walden CO day you see that they drove along two highways to see if there was anyway to go down the roads Pete took. Those miles are in Sandy's Garmin, as are all the other rides to places the RV parked. Here total Garmin miles are some 200 miles further than she has actually run.
Route wrote:
The two most notable changes from Pete's route were San Fran, as was mentioned, as well as Walden, CO where Pete was able to take some gravel roads south of Walden. I would imagine those roads were not plowed after the snow storm, causing her to stay on 14 up to Walden.
She also deviated in Nebraska and took a slightly shorter route; she did not run through Lincoln.
Where was this discussion?
Mark C*ckbain doesn't seem to have a clue.
Funny that the system doesn't allow to spell his name.
Runner 247 wrote:
Where was this discussion?
Mark C*ckbain doesn't seem to have a clue.
Funny that the system doesn't allow to spell his name.
The system has apparently determined that he's disgusting.
5-MILE SPLITS
Day # 40, October 20th
All times are Garmin Time in the Pacific Timezone
Time: Miles
02:44 AM: 0
03:47 AM: 5
04:52 AM: 10
06:01 AM: 15
07:13 AM: 20
08:21 AM: 25
09:26 AM: 30
10:33 AM: 35
10:33 AM: Lunch Break Start
11:03 AM: Lunch Break End (30 minutes)
12:09 PM: 40
01:18 PM: 45
02:23 PM: 50
https://www.facebook.com/groups/259647654139161/On the URC website wrote:
Runner 247 wrote:
Where was this discussion?
Mark C*ckbain doesn't seem to have a clue.
Funny that the system doesn't allow to spell his name.
The system has apparently determined that he's disgusting.
Be aware, it's a toxic place, full of delusional fanboys. They supported Rob Young, Amy, Vaz and many other scammers till the end.
Dot follower wrote:
Route wrote:
The two most notable changes from Pete's route were San Fran, as was mentioned, as well as Walden, CO where Pete was able to take some gravel roads south of Walden. I would imagine those roads were not plowed after the snow storm, causing her to stay on 14 up to Walden.
She also deviated in Nebraska and took a slightly shorter route; she did not run through Lincoln.
I will come out of hiding and say that I've been following this too, being a bit of a numbers person and helping with the route somewhat (although my sister is better at that). It seems that the eastern Nebraska route Sandy took would shave off the extra 7 or so in Cali and Colorado, and make her distance virtually identical to mine. I think it may have to do with her watch. I used the Garmin 225 across the entire country (which has a terrible heart rate monitor, btw), and some days when I would run with another person for extended miles seemed to get behind. For example, Jon Kuehler ran the entire day with me on Sep 27 in Colorado and it looks like he had 71.1 miles on the day and I had 70.6. So I would imagine Sandy may also have a better, more "detailed" watch that is catching about .5 more miles per day than me, resulting in her Strava likely closer to 3,100 than my 3,067 when it's over. Interested in anyone's thoughts on this, as I'm not an expert, but interested for sure. Good thing is I'm hopping in my car to go run with her tomorrow hopefully, and will be wearing a 225 and a 235 to switch out at lunch.
5-MILE SPLITS
Day # 40, October 20th
All times are Garmin Time in the Pacific Timezone
Time: Miles
02:44 AM: 0
03:47 AM: 5
04:52 AM: 10
06:01 AM: 15
07:13 AM: 20
08:21 AM: 25
09:26 AM: 30
10:33 AM: 35
10:33 AM: Lunch Break Start
11:03 AM: Lunch Break End (30 minutes)
12:09 PM: 40
01:18 PM: 45
02:23 PM: 50
03:36 PM: 55
Banned by Jihad Gary wrote:
C0ckbain is a disgrace to the British ultra community.
https://imgur.com/a/0p2or
Ross Woodward is a legend, love it, love it.
At LAST someone standing up to Mark Co*kbain. So bored with everyone just agreeing with him and appearing to think this is the cool thing to do. (his name is so stupid it can't even be posted on here!)
Pete Kostelnick wrote:
I will come out of hiding and say that I've been following this too, being a bit of a numbers person and helping with the route somewhat (although my sister is better at that). It seems that the eastern Nebraska route Sandy took would shave off the extra 7 or so in Cali and Colorado, and make her distance virtually identical to mine. I think it may have to do with her watch. I used the Garmin 225 across the entire country (which has a terrible heart rate monitor, btw), and some days when I would run with another person for extended miles seemed to get behind. For example, Jon Kuehler ran the entire day with me on Sep 27 in Colorado and it looks like he had 71.1 miles on the day and I had 70.6. So I would imagine Sandy may also have a better, more "detailed" watch that is catching about .5 more miles per day than me, resulting in her Strava likely closer to 3,100 than my 3,067 when it's over. Interested in anyone's thoughts on this, as I'm not an expert, but interested for sure. Good thing is I'm hopping in my car to go run with her tomorrow hopefully, and will be wearing a 225 and a 235 to switch out at lunch.
Strava or any other gps device are not as accurate as people think. A Trans Con route, is is not and never will be as accurately measured like a road marathon or a loop for a 24 hour race.
I would think that the actual run mileage is 1% or so less than you can see on Strava.
5-MILE SPLITS
Day # 40, October 20th
All times are Garmin Time in the Pacific Timezone
Time: Miles
02:44 AM: 0
03:47 AM: 5
04:52 AM: 10
06:01 AM: 15
07:13 AM: 20
08:21 AM: 25
09:26 AM: 30
10:33 AM: 35
10:33 AM: Lunch Break Start
11:03 AM: Lunch Break End (30 minutes)
12:09 PM: 40
01:18 PM: 45
02:23 PM: 50
03:36 PM: 55
04:02 PM: ~56-1/2 (End of her day)
Pete Kostelnick wrote:
I will come out of hiding and say that I've been following this too, being a bit of a numbers person and helping with the route somewhat (although my sister is better at that). It seems that the eastern Nebraska route Sandy took would shave off the extra 7 or so in Cali and Colorado, and make her distance virtually identical to mine. I think it may have to do with her watch. I used the Garmin 225 across the entire country (which has a terrible heart rate monitor, btw), and some days when I would run with another person for extended miles seemed to get behind. For example, Jon Kuehler ran the entire day with me on Sep 27 in Colorado and it looks like he had 71.1 miles on the day and I had 70.6. So I would imagine Sandy may also have a better, more "detailed" watch that is catching about .5 more miles per day than me, resulting in her Strava likely closer to 3,100 than my 3,067 when it's over. Interested in anyone's thoughts on this, as I'm not an expert, but interested for sure. Good thing is I'm hopping in my car to go run with her tomorrow hopefully, and will be wearing a 225 and a 235 to switch out at lunch.
One thing I have noticed in her Garmin data, and I looked back at yours also, is that something the Garmin has a hiccup. A hiccup can be a either a gap in the breadcrumbs, or it can be be occur when going around a sharp bend--sharp at least in terms of two minutes breadcrumbs points. So what happens is that a part of the route seems to be missed. You might run right through a mountainside, or through part of a river, or through a building. There will some distance difference simply because of these hiccups.
The splits I provide are based on putting a days starting point from Garmin (Lat, Lon) into Google Maps and asking it to create directions further down the road. Then I stretch the route until it reaches a certain distance; 0-5miles, then stretched to 10 miles, and so on. I adjust the path to force it to match the actual route taken. The distance is a rough placement of +/-0.1 miles which is the level accuracy Google provides. But you look at the splits and the final distance per Google Maps it is typically short of the Garmin miles. I think the issue is one of how elevation is used to measure distance. New Garmins should measure well--at least much better than my old GPS unit which uses a pressure sensor for elevation.
So far today 2 wrote:
Pete Kostelnick wrote:
I will come out of hiding and say that I've been following this too, being a bit of a numbers person and helping with the route somewhat (although my sister is better at that). It seems that the eastern Nebraska route Sandy took would shave off the extra 7 or so in Cali and Colorado, and make her distance virtually identical to mine. I think it may have to do with her watch. I used the Garmin 225 across the entire country (which has a terrible heart rate monitor, btw), and some days when I would run with another person for extended miles seemed to get behind. For example, Jon Kuehler ran the entire day with me on Sep 27 in Colorado and it looks like he had 71.1 miles on the day and I had 70.6. So I would imagine Sandy may also have a better, more "detailed" watch that is catching about .5 more miles per day than me, resulting in her Strava likely closer to 3,100 than my 3,067 when it's over. Interested in anyone's thoughts on this, as I'm not an expert, but interested for sure. Good thing is I'm hopping in my car to go run with her tomorrow hopefully, and will be wearing a 225 and a 235 to switch out at lunch.
One thing I have noticed in her Garmin data, and I looked back at yours also, is that something the Garmin has a hiccup. A hiccup can be a either a gap in the breadcrumbs, or it can be be occur when going around a sharp bend--sharp at least in terms of two minutes breadcrumbs points. So what happens is that a part of the route seems to be missed. You might run right through a mountainside, or through part of a river, or through a building. There will some distance difference simply because of these hiccups.
The splits I provide are based on putting a days starting point from Garmin (Lat, Lon) into Google Maps and asking it to create directions further down the road. Then I stretch the route until it reaches a certain distance; 0-5miles, then stretched to 10 miles, and so on. I adjust the path to force it to match the actual route taken. The distance is a rough placement of +/-0.1 miles which is the level accuracy Google provides. But you look at the splits and the final distance per Google Maps it is typically short of the Garmin miles. I think the issue is one of how elevation is used to measure distance. New Garmins should measure well--at least much better than my old GPS unit which uses a pressure sensor for elevation.
Yeah, by Garmin I should clarify I'm referring to my watch and not the tracker. On the first day of my run, I actually tripped and scraped up the device pretty bad, then went on to drop it many times, which likely caused some of the device's hiccup potential. I'm amazed at the lack of hiccups with Sandra and Mimi's device, perhaps due to Garmin improving the more recent device models.
I'm not sure which model of watch Sandra wears, but it seems like it picks up better detail than my Garmin 225 did last fall. Very small, but likely enough to explain ~30 miles further than what I ended up with, although we had four meaningful deviations so far (San Francisco and Walden CO adding to Sandra's mileage, while she made up some miles by not running through Lincoln NE and Boone IA). I estimate her route will end up being at least 15-25 miles longer than mine per Strava.
So far today 2 wrote:
One thing I have noticed in her Garmin data, and I looked back at yours also, is that something the Garmin has a hiccup. A hiccup can be a either a gap in the breadcrumbs, or it can be be occur when going around a sharp bend--sharp at least in terms of two minutes breadcrumbs points. So what happens is that a part of the route seems to be missed. You might run right through a mountainside, or through part of a river, or through a building. There will some distance difference simply because of these hiccups.
Well, after stopping today the Garmin had quit an adventure. While in a car and plotting breadcrumbs every two-minutes the path goes through buildings and across water. You can look at Sandy's shared Garmin to see the hiccups. The Garmin itself might keep better data within it, but public Garmin path looks pretty wild when it is in a car.
Pete Kostelnick wrote:
Yeah, by Garmin I should clarify I'm referring to my watch and not the tracker. On the first day of my run, I actually tripped and scraped up the device pretty bad, then went on to drop it many times, which likely caused some of the device's hiccup potential. I'm amazed at the lack of hiccups with Sandra and Mimi's device, perhaps due to Garmin improving the more recent device models.
I'm not sure which model of watch Sandra wears, but it seems like it picks up better detail than my Garmin 225 did last fall. Very small, but likely enough to explain ~30 miles further than what I ended up with, although we had four meaningful deviations so far (San Francisco and Walden CO adding to Sandra's mileage, while she made up some miles by not running through Lincoln NE and Boone IA). I estimate her route will end up being at least 15-25 miles longer than mine per Strava.
The GPS tech is certainly better these days. And yes, Sandy's and Mimi's Garmins have provided fairly smoother data. Except when it is in a car. Sandy's Stava identifies the tackers as a Garmin f?nix 3.
So far today 2 wrote:
Pete Kostelnick wrote:
Yeah, by Garmin I should clarify I'm referring to my watch and not the tracker. On the first day of my run, I actually tripped and scraped up the device pretty bad, then went on to drop it many times, which likely caused some of the device's hiccup potential. I'm amazed at the lack of hiccups with Sandra and Mimi's device, perhaps due to Garmin improving the more recent device models.
I'm not sure which model of watch Sandra wears, but it seems like it picks up better detail than my Garmin 225 did last fall. Very small, but likely enough to explain ~30 miles further than what I ended up with, although we had four meaningful deviations so far (San Francisco and Walden CO adding to Sandra's mileage, while she made up some miles by not running through Lincoln NE and Boone IA). I estimate her route will end up being at least 15-25 miles longer than mine per Strava.
The GPS tech is certainly better these days. And yes, Sandy's and Mimi's Garmins have provided fairly smoother data. Except when it is in a car. Sandy's Stava identifies the tackers as a Garmin f?nix 3.
The Garmin Fenix seems to be superior at picking up movement compared to the 225/235, but again, it is ENTIRELY different from the "Garmin" tracker fka the Delorme Inreach. The Garmin tracker that shows Sandra's location in real-time is a walkie talkie looking device that is carried separately from what is recorded on her Garmin GPS watch that is uploaded to Strava.
5-MILE SPLITS
Day # 40, October 20th
All times are Garmin Time in the Pacific Timezone
Time: Miles
02:44 AM: 0
03:47 AM: 5
04:52 AM: 10
06:01 AM: 15
07:13 AM: 20
08:21 AM: 25
09:26 AM: 30
10:33 AM: 35
10:33 AM: Lunch Break Start
11:03 AM: Lunch Break End (30 minutes)
12:09 PM: 40
01:18 PM: 45
02:23 PM: 50
03:36 PM: 55
04:02 PM: ~56-1/2 (End of her day)
END OF DAY SUMMARY PER STRAVA
Miles: 56.7
Elapsed Time: Pace
13:15:43: 14:02 Includes breaks
12:45:43: 13:30 Excludes breaks
OVERALL SUMMARY
Total Miles 2256.7
Route Miles 3067 (Based on initial estimate prior to starting the attempt -- Pete's Route**)
Miles to Go 810 (Based on 3,067 miles - Total Miles)
Miles /day 56.4
NOTE: ** The miles Sandy needs to cover is likely 10-20 miles further than Pete's Route. Adjustments are being made to Pete's Route by Pete's sister to try to shorten the remaining distance to NYC.
The Garmin In Reach live tracker is different from the Garmin GPS Watch that Sandy is wearing. The watch syncs up daily to Strava and is what is used for calculating running distance. The tracker provides real time location information only. The miles recorded by the tracker and shown on the share.garmin.com page is measured with a pin location every 2+ minutes is not an accurate measurement . The tracker itself records 1 minute location data points and can be obtained when the device is synced.
According to Garmin, the GPS watch is accurate within 10 meters. Source:
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/
In the case of Pete K running with Jon K on the distance of 70 miles, the two watches can show a discrepancy of 0.43 miles.
Back to estimating miles to go using Google Maps point A to point B, foot route.
Point A: Day 40 finish location: Stewart Farms, 6605 IL-126, Yorkville, IL 60560
819 miles to
Point B: Fort Lee, NJ
+ 13 miles from Fort Lee across the GW Bridge to City Hall
= 832 miles
To finish in 53 days + hours + mins:
14 days remain
58 miles a day for 13 day
78 miles on the last day
To break the record of 64 days and finish in 62 days + hours + mins:
23 days remain
36 miles a day for 22 days
40 miles on the last day
To break the Guinness World Record of 69 days, 2 hours and 40 minutes
29 days remain
28 miles a day for 28 days
408 miles on the last day
If Sandy is clocking away at 60 miles per day in 14 hours, why is she not continuing at that pace? Why did she go 56.7 miles in 13:15 today.
Side note: if you put point A to point B for Sandy's running route today on Google Maps, it says 56.6 miles
Math is hard wrote:
Side note: if you put point A to point B for Sandy's running route today on Google Maps, it says 56.6 miles
And I posted ~56-1/2 but my Google Map distance is actually 56.6 miles. I do not post the exact Google number because people think it is an exact number. Today was close, but on other days there is a larger variance.
For today I also have:
538 ft of elevation gain
699 ft of elevation loss
991 ft highest point
574 ft lowest point
relatively flat for a 55+ mile run.