reed wrote:
i'd bet that the 100m hill isn't actually 100m. seems the most likely option. and there's no way you can run 62 off a 14.7. i don't buy that at all. unless the 400 was also a garmin measurement
if you want t measure out short distances accurately, get a wheel (attached to a bike) and count the number of revolutions, then go back and measure with tape what 1 rev gets you.
I don't know what to tell you. I've run 62-63 a few times on a track. I've cracked a 30s 200m once (barely), so maybe I just can't get rolling very well. Maybe I'm just keyed up better at times and my 14.7 track day was just a bad day and I'm capable of a bit more. I don't know.
Doesn't matter that much and I don't care that much about the hill distance. Like I said, I've seen improvements there that didn't lead to improvements elsewhere which is pretty much the problem. I know the numbers I've hit and regardless of whether they seem feasible or not, they all suck. That's the main thing.