new calculator - predicts all times

(^a clickable link)

Pretty cool. Similar to Ventolin's calculator, which I have found pretty accurate. One suggestion: Can you add longer distances, both for input and output? Say 10mi, half marathon, marathon, etc. It is useful to see how the long endurance stuff changes with the shorter stuff and visa versa.

100 0:14.33

200 0:26.28

400 0:55.81

800 2:00.19

1500 3:59.0

1-mile 4:19.23

3000 8:32.60

2-mile 9:13.39

5000 14:54.0

10000 31:38.93

Nice. Put in my 1500 and 5k and it got everything except 3k and 10k within a second.

stats.gangsta_the_real_1 wrote:

http://timescalculator.appspot.com

(^a clickable link)

doesn't work. pops up a message saying there's an error

crete wrote:

doesn't work. pops up a message saying there's an error

I was re-uploading the website. Should work now.

Put in a 58 400, and a 2:20 800. Says my 5k time would be 21:21.43.. Not accurate

100 0:10.0

200 0:19.15

400 0:41.79

800 1:32.62

1500 3:09.13

1-mile 3:24.73

3000 6:52.60

2-mile 7:26.33

5000 12:10.12

10000 26:17.0

hahahaahaha

Brandon?

It needs work on 400m and under but the higher distances are decent.

plugged in 200m and 5k

100 0:13.15

200 0:25.2

400 0:55.82

800 2:04.99

1500 4:17.21

1-mile 4:38.64

3000 9:25.15

2-mile 10:11.75

5000 16:44.0

10000 36:20.41

actual times at that point

100m: 12.1

200m: 25.2

400m: 56.7

800: 2:12

1500m: 4:43

3k: 10:03

5k: 16:44

10k: 35:23

1/2: 1:18:34

plugged in current PRs for 5k and 200m

100 0:13.40

200 0:24.1

400 0:55.87

800 2:04.14

1500 4:14.00

1-mile 4:35.01

3000 9:15.14

2-mile 10:00.62

5000 16:24.0

10000 35:26.04

actual PRs

100m: 12.1

200m: 24.1

400m: 53.2

800m: 2:02

1500m: 4:17

3k: 9:43

5k: 16:24

10k: 35:12

1/2: 1:17:58

As you can see there are some serious discrepancies like having a predicted 100m slower than my 200m/2 and a really slow 400m prediction

Swag Lord wrote:

As you can see there are some serious discrepancies like having a predicted 100m slower than my 200m/2 and a really slow 400m prediction

As a distance runner, your 100m SHOULD be slower than 200m/2. Also, looking at OP's tip #2, you shouldn't use 200m as input yet. If you use your 5k and another time like your 800m time, then the numbers look fine compared to your actual PRs.

Swag Lord wrote:

actual PRs

100m: 12.1

200m: 24.1

400m: 53.2

800m: 2:02

1500m: 4:17

3k: 9:43

5k: 16:24

10k: 35:12

1/2: 1:17:58

As you can see there are some serious discrepancies like having a predicted 100m slower than my 200m/2 and a really slow 400m prediction

Whoa how is your 3k nearly the same pace as your 5k???

Put in my 800 and 1500 times from last year:

100 0:10.70

200 0:20.97

400 0:49.16

800 1:55.0

1500 4:03.5

1-mile 4:24.77

3000 9:10.19

2-mile 9:57.02

5000 16:34.66

10000 36:41.39

Not quite I'm afraid...

Hit and miss accuracy.

Try again.

exquisite corpse wrote:Pretty cool. Similar to Ventolin's calculator, which I have found pretty accurate

it's very good attempt but not quite accurate

using something like komen's possible shape in rieti of 3'30.0 / 12'40.0, this app gives

7'20.06

26'27.60

whereas calculator i use gives

7'20.73

26'29.09

the app's predictions seem a little too quick to me, but it is still a commendable effort

( btw i don't it's realistic to predict 100/200 times for a middle/distance guy )

Swag Lord wrote:

As you can see there are some serious discrepancies like having a predicted 100m slower than my 200m/2 and a really slow 400m prediction

same here!

Even the 400m estimate is way off. I think a calculator should be able to estimate a 400m time based off 1500m and 800m performances. Most people that know anything about track running could hazard a guess which is much closer to the real mark than these calculators get, Jundo.co.uk included.

Hmm... wrote:

Put in my 800 and 1500 times from last year:

100 0:10.70

200 0:20.97

400 0:49.16

800 1:55.0

1500 4:03.5

1-mile 4:24.77

3000 9:10.19

2-mile 9:57.02

5000 16:34.66

10000 36:41.39

Not quite I'm afraid...

Can you be more specific? Which times don't match up?

Not Cool Bro wrote:

Hit and miss accuracy.

Try again.

Difficult to try again without knowing what you think the problem is. Can you provide an example of "hit and miss accuracy"?

ventolin^3 wrote:

( btw i don't it's realistic to predict 100/200 times for a middle/distance guy )

I don't agree. Put in 44.5 and 100.7 (aka David Rudisha) and the 100/200 times look reasonably realistic to me, no?