10K was short, OK to conservatively convert?

You can call that a PR in your head, but don't share it with anyone. Nothing pisses me off than short courses, and strangely it happens for me with 10Ks when I'm in good shape.

nope sorry, the iaaf will be pissed if you do it. won't count for record-keeping purposes for your PR progression.

Why don't you use some other forms of measurement besides a completely unreliable technology for pinpoint measuring...? For instance, an online distance mapping service, or your car, or a measuring wheel. Or go talk to the race director.

The amount of people who use gps measurements as their sole source for distance before they completely make up their mind's about a race that was either too long or too short absolutely amaze me. It is very well known that there are MANY conditions that make gps signals unreliable to measure that minute of a distance.

Misleading Or No wrote:

Had a 10K this morning that was one of my big goal races for the year. The race director had to change the course and it ended up being approximately 9K (0.6 miles short).

My GPS had 5.65 miles at the finish and was right on the mile markers the whole way. My official time was 33:32, or 5:56 pace.

I ran 6:06 pace for the last 0.65, so if I add 0.6 miles at 6:15 pace (since I was slowing a bit), that is another 3:45 added to my time, making a total 10K of 37:17.

That would be a 2+ minute PR, so I want to count it, but is that misleading? Or is the distance close enough to convert and call it good? It'll be awhile until I can focus on another 10K. Ugh.

Same thing happened to me in base phase last summer. Did a 10k in 34:50. Was like "no way bro," checked my watch and it said 5.83 miles. Converted it out to 37:00. Old pr was 38:24. So I put it down as a pr but an asterisk next to it.

To try and get an official pr, I ran a 10k at the end of my winter season last week. It was 10 mph winds and there were 2 big hills. I managed 37:29. So it's little annoying. But hopefully this summer I can find a 10k that fits my schedule on a flat fast course with good competition and good weather like the short course one, that happens to measured correctly.

ekw wrote:

Why don't you use some other forms of measurement besides a completely unreliable technology for pinpoint measuring...? For instance, an online distance mapping service, or your car, or a measuring wheel. Or go talk to the race director.

The amount of people who use gps measurements as their sole source for distance before they completely make up their mind's about a race that was either too long or too short absolutely amaze me. It is very well known that there are MANY conditions that make gps signals unreliable to measure that minute of a distance.

An online mapping service or your car is not going to be any more accurate than your GPS, and probably less so. Measuring wheel is more legit if you know the proper way to measure on tangents and such.

...we all no flipping a ruler end-to-end for the entire length of the course if the BEST way to get an accurate measurement for this course. MOST legit way, less error than the wheel. good luck!!!

Good Call, bro wrote:

ekw wrote:

Why don't you use some other forms of measurement besides a completely unreliable technology for pinpoint measuring...? For instance, an online distance mapping service, or your car, or a measuring wheel. Or go talk to the race director.

The amount of people who use gps measurements as their sole source for distance before they completely make up their mind's about a race that was either too long or too short absolutely amaze me. It is very well known that there are MANY conditions that make gps signals unreliable to measure that minute of a distance.

An online mapping service or your car is not going to be any more accurate than your GPS, and probably less so. Measuring wheel is more legit if you know the proper way to measure on tangents and such.

good advice but... wrote:

...we all no flipping a ruler end-to-end for the entire length of the course if the BEST way to get an accurate measurement for this course. MOST legit way, less error than the wheel. good luck!!!

Good Call, bro wrote:

An online mapping service or your car is not going to be any more accurate than your GPS, and probably less so. Measuring wheel is more legit if you know the proper way to measure on tangents and such.

Whoever suggested using a car is way off on that one. I bet GPS watches are considerably more accurate when getting down to hundredths of a mile.

Online mapping, specifically Google Earth, has been by far the most accurate measuring technique I've found. Depending on the surface, Google Earth can be MUCH more accurate than a wheel, specifically on gravel or grass (especially when wet). Google Earth doesn't have bad days like my Garmin does.

To the OP....it's not a PR, but it's a good "I know I could've run" time. We all have those. The upside is those stories are usually more interesting to listen to than a plain old PR.

What a crappy situation, OP. I wouldn't call it a PR until you retire and if you don't break, then claim it. :)

In regards to measurement methods, I was actually having some of these same conversations with non runners this week. They had no idea. My first question is, "How the hell could Google Earth be more accurate than a wheel?" Seriously, I am not being a d*ck, how is that possible?

Secondly, why would a car not be nearly as accurate as a wheel? Calibration issues? No Calibration at all? I find that internet services (Not that I have used Google Earth, but MapmyRun, et al) seem vague because they are an internet program, and how that is more accurate than actually physically walking the course is way over my head.

Vehicles are highly regulated. Every component is inspected. Years of R&D are done on each part. Vehicle mileage counters are required to be 100% accurate for the stock tires. Tampering with mileage counters and then selling your car is an act of fraud.

I am pretty sure measuring a course with a car would be more accurate than a gps which is known even by gps watch manufactures as being spotty, prone to losing signal, and therefor not consistently accurate withing 10%. Making any conclusion regarding distance using a gps watch would be inadmissible in court.

Personally, I use :

http://www.runningmap.com/beta/

It is easy to use and as accurate as I could tell. I've tested it by creating routes that match known high-profile races included the boston marathon, Beach to beacon 10k, NYC half marathon, etc. All the routes were incredibly accurate down to what I could tell where just a matter of 10 or less feet off.

Sorry, I disagree with your entire post.

row row rowbury your boat wrote:

Secondly, why would a car not be nearly as accurate as a wheel? Calibration issues? No Calibration at all?

It is normal for car odometers to be off by a couple percent... actually the average is probably 1% long or so. I assume you don't re-calibrate it every time your tire pressure changes.

ekw wrote:

Vehicles are highly regulated. Every component is inspected. Years of R&D are done on each part. Vehicle mileage counters are required to be 100% accurate for the stock tires. Tampering with mileage counters and then selling your car is an act of fraud.

"Honda changed its odometer tolerance standard for 2007 automobiles to +/- 2.5%."

Close enough for government work, but still unreliable for running purposes...

One other very big problem using a car is that is often illegal/very difficult to drive the tangents along a course. Depending on the course, you might be driving on the wrong side of the road for the bulk of your measuring. And if you aren't driving the tangents, then just forget about it being accurate.

Yeah, I guess I'll write it down as a temporary PR for personal record keeping, but not declare it as a PR to running friends. It just stinks to have a great day coincide with a short course!

Regarding the measurement debate, I don't know why people continue to insist that GPS data isn't accurate. If you are running out in the open (I was) and you enable the GPS well before the start (I did), my experience has been it is usually

Well, my post got cut off somehow.

Regarding the measurement debate, I don't know why people continue to insist that GPS data isn't accurate. If you are running out in the open (I was) and you enable the GPS well before the start (I did), my experience has been it is usually

Eff It. I don't know why it keeps cutting off right there. Maybe it's because I used the less than symbol or percent sign, one more try.

Regarding the measurement debate, I don't know why people continue to insist that GPS data isn't accurate. If you are running out in the open (I was) and you enable the GPS well before the start (I did), my experience has been it is usually within 1 percent of the actual distance.

Further, if your on roads, you can see if your track mimics the road to make sure the signal was locked on well the entire time. If it is, then the distance is almost perfect.

The race director said the race was going to be short due to the change, I just didn't expect it to be that short. My watch was right on the mile markers, so I'm pretty confident in my GPS distance.

Misleading Or No wrote:

Well, my post got cut off somehow.

LOL. I bet you're using wireless internet to post? need I say more? Oh, the irony.

BTW, to respond to the comment about Honda's +/- 2.5%:

2.5% of a 10k (6.2 miles) is 0.155 of a mile. The GPS from the OP measured it to be 0.55 miles short which is a difference of .395 of a mile. So go out and drive the course and see what happens because as I said, driving the route in the car would be MORE accurate than your GPS watch... It is not the most accurate, but it certainly is more accurate than GPS.

I don't trust anything but a track.

You are still assuming that it is easy to drive the shortest possible route in your car. Unless you go out there at 4 AM, that is probably not going to be remotely possible. And if you do it then, you will likely be pulled over on suspicion of DUI if a cop sees you.