Damn, I'm late coming to this party! Looks like everything worth saying has been said. I do like Malmo's telephone pole suggested response to Garmin naysayers, though.
Damn, I'm late coming to this party! Looks like everything worth saying has been said. I do like Malmo's telephone pole suggested response to Garmin naysayers, though.
malmo wrote:
The debate would begin and end by asking to measure from "here to that telephone pole with your garmin. If it's right I'll give you a hundred bucks, if not, you give me a hundred.
dukerdog wrote:
How far away is the telephone pole and how "right" do I have to be?
Malmo, you didn't answer my question. I may want to take your bet.
Technology (or information, for that matter) in the hands of half-wits will always result in a poor understanding of said technology (or information). It's something new for the Flat Earth Society to take up.
malmo wrote:
Keith Stone wrote:Answer: GPS watches (or any GPS device) aren't considered accurate enough for measuring a course, so we don't recommend notifying anyone. I
I can't believe their was ever any question about the accuracy of a Garmin, by ANYONE. The debate would begin and end by asking to measure from "here to that telephone pole with your garmin. If it's right I'll give you a hundred bucks, if not, you give me a hundred.
Measure this wrote:
You obviously missed the fact that two rider's measuring at the same time was something those posing questions here did not think about. Not everyone has read the "manual" as you stated. You need to work on your communication skills. Give yourself bonus points for using "superfluous" as your word for the day.
Friend, it'd been established on pg 3 of this thread that 2 rides must be w/in .0008 (which is about 4+') per mile to be valid. It doesn't matter if it's the same rider taking 2 rides, 2 riders covering the same course or 22 riders doing the same - you take the shortest 2 and compare them. I caught the poster had said 2 riders. What he had to say is mildly interesting - 2 different riders, but the part about being 30' different & it being a problem had already been covered on pg 3.
I made reference to the manual and on an earlier thread page, the website was posted. Whether you or anybody here wants to take a look is your/their business. To summarize, measuring is a whole lot about numbers and careful bike handling. How's that for communication and thanks for the bonus points on my 'super' word - I only use it when it's the most fitting term.
dukerdog wrote:
malmo wrote:
The debate would begin and end by asking to measure from "here to that telephone pole with your garmin. If it's right I'll give you a hundred bucks, if not, you give me a hundred.
dukerdog wrote:
How far away is the telephone pole and how "right" do I have to be?
Malmo, you didn't answer my question. I may want to take your bet.
What part of "here to that telephone pole" aren't you understanding?
What part about a guy who runs four laps around a track and his garmin is 80meters off?
A garmin is a toy for boys to play with. It isn't a measuring device.
scotth wrote:
Friend, it'd been established on pg 3 of this thread that 2 rides must be w/in .0008 (which is about 4+') per mile to be valid. It doesn't matter if it's the same rider taking 2 rides, 2 riders covering the same course or 22 riders doing the same - you take the shortest 2 and compare them. I caught the poster had said 2 riders. What he had to say is mildly interesting - 2 different riders, but the part about being 30' different & it being a problem had already been covered on pg 3.
I made reference to the manual and on an earlier thread page, the website was posted. Whether you or anybody here wants to take a look is your/their business. To summarize, measuring is a whole lot about numbers and careful bike handling. How's that for communication and thanks for the bonus points on my 'super' word - I only use it when it's the most fitting term.
Scott if two different riders came up within the acceptable 0.0008 measurement, wouldn't one of them have to reride the course anyway to be certified?
It must be Ground Hog Day!
Haven't we been down this road about a dozen times already?
Now the party can really get started seeing that we have most of the "nerds" on this thread.
Get a life!!!!
When you find one, direct me to it......I don't have one either.
David Katz
Top Nerd
I recommend that you drive it again after you properly inflate your tires. When you get to 13.1, stop the car and mark the spot. Now you know where the race should stop and nobody else does. Put on a surge near the "real" end and stop right after you cross this spot. If you are not acknowledged to be the winner, hire the best attorney you can get and sue the race organizers. Im sure many attorneys would take your case pro bono just for the tremendous publicity it would generate. Good Luck sweetie.
What part of "here to that telephone pole" aren't you understanding?
The approximate distance to the telephone pole and the level of accuracy you are requiring to be "right." I thought I mentioned that.
What part about a guy who runs four laps around a track and his garmin is 80meters off?
Irrelevant. The only thing that matters in the current discussion is how accurate I can be with my Garmin. If you think I can't be MUCH more accurate than that guy, then I'd like to take your bet.
A garmin is a toy for boys to play with. It isn't a measuring device.
It IS a measuring device with a expected level of error that is smaller than you think. The fact that people running races wearing Garmins don't follow the SPR, and random anecdotes about a measurement that was 20% off, say nothing about the actual accuracy of the device.
malmo wrote:
Scott if two different riders came up within the acceptable 0.0008 measurement, wouldn't one of them have to reride the course anyway to be certified?
No. Here's why - two measurements are required to certify a course. The 2 different riders qualifies as the 2 measurements. Example: measurement of the Detroit Free Press Marathon takes participants back/forth across the international border (bridge & tunnel) which is a pain to set up. I've accompanied the main measurer in recent years so he wouldn't have to come back on a separate day to take a second ride.
Great idea, thanks. I have been planning on learning how to measure. I will need to purchase two of those Jones counter things. Someone else in my running club will be happy to learn also.
Close only countsin horseshoes wrote:
One obvious method would be two folks measuring simultaneously. Each rider calibrate and figure out what your Jones counter(s)should read at one mile. Each rider stop at one mile. If your bikes are at the same spot at one mile, then you are doing fine. If one rider is thirty feet ahead/behind then something is wrong. Yes, Pete taught me this. Also, a hard tire is best.
scotth wrote:
malmo wrote:Scott if two different riders came up within the acceptable 0.0008 measurement, wouldn't one of them have to reride the course anyway to be certified?
No. Here's why - two measurements are required to certify a course. The 2 different riders qualifies as the 2 measurements. Example: measurement of the Detroit Free Press Marathon takes participants back/forth across the international border (bridge & tunnel) which is a pain to set up. I've accompanied the main measurer in recent years so he wouldn't have to come back on a separate day to take a second ride.
The 0.0008 agreement seldom comes into play - I think I've only had it happen a few times in all the measurements I've done, and usually it was b/c the 2nd rider "helping" me wasn't doing a good job riding the tangents, etc. Course certification is perhaps one of the most effective areas under USATF's purview, and probably b/c the people involved aren't political appointees like on all the other committees.
JimG wrote:The 0.0008 agreement seldom comes into play - I think I've only had it happen a few times in all the measurements I've done, and usually it was b/c the 2nd rider "helping" me wasn't doing a good job riding the tangents, etc.
I've had a few helpers chicken out when I've held a line through traffic. I think "are you f**king nuts" was the term one of them used. Tends to mess up the measurements.