Why don't we have kilometer markers during 5k, 10k, etc. races?

JimG wrote:

Technically, we ARE metric - the inch is OFFICIALLY defined as 2.54cm - everything else flows from that.

Wrong. 2.54 cm per inch is an approximate conversion. It is not the definition of the inch. Even if it was, you still have to explain liquid measure and mass.

As far as the need to explain to the average American why we should go 100% metric, I think the NIST quote is sufficient. How can we lead if we're the "odd man out"? Our refusal to do so is symptomatic of a larger problem.

Actually, I should be more specific (and this is just another reason to go metric). There IS something called the International inch which IS defined as 25.4 mm (2.54 cm). However, this is not the historical inch which was defined as 1/36th of an imperial yard. This begs the question "What is a yard?" Again, we have multiple answers. Recently it has been redefined it terms of a metric equivalent. It is important to note that what we have here are imperial units based on metric standards that are approximations to earlier (nonconsistent) imperial "standards". This mess exists simply because countries such as the US couldn't get off of their asses and get with the plan.

Finally, it is entirely incorrect to say that you're using metric just because there may be a precise conversion between the metric system and your system. One of the beauties of the metric system is that everything is based on powers of ten. Further, there is only one unit for any particular quantity (e.g., scalar distance is meters instead of feet, inches, rods, miles, etc.) THAT'S what makes metric so nice and efficient.

The only thing that confuses me is what exactly you think you're "proving" here? That I didn't look up my 1% mark in the Statistical Abstract of the United States? Congratulations, Sherlock, you found the hidden clue!

I think I'm starting to get a more complete picture of you now: It's a cloudy, dark day. The wind is blowing. The air pressure has dropped. There is thunder and lightning. But the ground is still dry. You are heading out the door and the weather man on the radio calls for rain. "NO!" you shout at the radio. "You can't PROVE that it's going to rain, CAN YOU?!".

AHA!

It implies no such thing. You inferred it. In your own words, "Learn the difference sometime."

The phrase "know a pace by experience" does not mean a runner can just mentally "dial it in" and turn off his watch. It means that when he goes by his one mile split and the watch (still on) says "5:20", he has some basis for comparison. He's run thousands of miles in practice over the years, he's gone by 5:20 splits (or thereabouts) hundreds of times. He is used to making the adjustment for that pace.

But when he goes by the 1 kilometer mark and the clock says, "3:19", well that doesn't quite do it for him. He hasn't checked his watch at thousands of KM splits over the years. He doesn't have the same feel for the difference that, say, 3:15 is going to make over 3:19 as the miles (or kms) start to pile up. It's one thing to "do the math". It's another to have felt it and been there many times before.

It is specious to imply that it will take thousands of km splits before a runner "gets used to them". It's simply a matter of associating a feel with a number. I would guess one season would be more than sufficient. After all, when your condition changes between seasons that feel changes with respect to the clock. It's a continual adjustment.

But hey, I understand you like your miles. You grew up with them. The imperial system might be clumsy, awkward, out of tune with the rest of the planet and a long term detriment, but as long as you don't absolutely have to change, why bother, right?

I am implying no such thing. Maybe it will take hundreds. Perhaps one season IS sufficient. Whatever. My point is that most Americans don't practice their splits in KMs. Chalk it up to tradition, to convenience, whatever. It doesn't matter.

When I say that Americans prefer miles, I am stating how things ARE, not how I think they should be. You yourself identified the two different debates here. Have you anywhere in this thread seen me say that I think mile splits are somehow inherently better than KMs? Sure I don't think there is a problem with keeping them and it's apparent that we don't NEED km splits but what of it?

You need to stop reading what I'm saying as a recommendation. I am describing what I have seen and what I see, every race, every workout, every track meet. The irony is, I would be fine with Kms. I've done both. But I've had a VERY long time at running to get used to both.

Having both types of splits in a race would be the ideal but that's not going to happen -- what race director wants the bother?

My college coach was the first person to get me to think metrically. We all thought of our race paces in terms of kilometers. It took me less than one season of xc to figure it all out.

I still count my running in miles per week, but before every race, I figure out my k pace, as well as mile pace.

yardage wrote:

The irony is, I would be fine with Kms. I've done both. But I've had a VERY long time at running to get used to both.

Before someone tells me I'm implying here that people need a "very long time" to get used to kms, no, I am not. I didn't. I was just old before I ever felt the need to try.

yardage wrote:

When I say that Americans prefer miles, I am stating how things ARE, not how I think they should be.

Right, but if we continue to do things based simply on the reason that "that's the way we've always done it", nothing will ever improve.

I certainly understand why people are used to miles: They're surrounded by them in their cars. But doesn't anyone find it curious that the vast majority of races in the USA are integer multiples of km? Here we are, living in this weird split identity world of miles and kilometers, gallons and liters. We're the cold-footed bachelor who can never commit.

During my first canadian marathon, ALL the splits were in kilometers - was significantly more tolerable than mile markers once I adjusted (ohhh, about 11-12K in, 'bout 3.56-4 min)

People with track and field backgrounds would probably prefer miles. Few get splits at the 1k mark (the clocks are usually at the 400m start and not the 200m start). If I'm trying to run a 29:10 10k evenly, I run 4:40 for the first "mile" (of course its actually 1600m). Then I run 9:20 for 2 miles. Then 14:00 for 3 miles, etc., etc.Now if I were in a road race, where giving 400m or 800m splits would be absurd, miles are close enough to 1600 that I know I'm going at the right pace. I know some complain that a mile split is too long before you know you're off-pace. This is valid, I suppose, but could be remedied with half mile splits, which I've seen in some races. In fact, given those complaints about a mile split, half-mile splits would make more sense than k's in that theyre shorter. But why not use .5 k's then, which would give you an even faster warning if youre off-pace? Because 500 meters is quite awkward on a 400 meter track (1 1/4 of a lap). It's an indoor distance sometimes, but I'm willing to bet very few with track backgrounds know what a 500m pace should be, even though in a 5k road race its exactly 1/10th the distance. And, Jim, I'm not arguing that the imperial system is better than the metric, just more convenient for those of us who are unfamiliar with it. Especially those who run on 400m tracks. Remember, every single distance is arbitrary, just metric makes more sense because it is so easy to convert.

JimFiore wrote:

yardage wrote:

When I say that Americans prefer miles, I am stating how things ARE, not how I think they should be.

Right, but if we continue to do things based simply on the reason that "that's the way we've always done it", nothing will ever improve.

I certainly understand why people are used to miles: They're surrounded by them in their cars. But doesn't anyone find it curious that the vast majority of races in the USA are integer multiples of km? Here we are, living in this weird split identity world of miles and kilometers, gallons and liters. We're the cold-footed bachelor who can never commit.

The inch that we use is NOT the historical inch. It is exactly 2.54 cm. (Thus, the mile is EXACTLY 1609.344 meters)

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Inch.html

Cute. You're right, weathermen have no formal scientific training and don't refer to credible statistical sources to aid them. Instead, typical weather updates typically go like this: "In my 35 years of living on earth, sun has followed rain so that's what's gonna happen, folks! It might seem like I'm doing nothing more than relying on my gut feelings, but despite that and the fact that I prefer sun to rain you can trust me on this."

Apparently I must be dealing with someone who isn't that familiar with the English language. What does "by experience" mean to you? As in, "the boy knew by experience that if he threw a brick directly up that it would come back down on his head." Does that mean to you that the boy needs to see it hit his head to know that it'll happen the next time he throws it directly upwards? Why would runners practice pace in workouts if they "need" splits? Oh, here's some more....

Says who, you? And what would turning off a watch have to do with it? I've never turned off my watch, it's always on. ;-)

If he truly, actually has gone by 5:20 splits "hundreds of times" then why has he failed to learn what it actually feels like until he sees a readout on the watch? Are you implying that runners are too dense to easily learn to associate 3:19 with that same "feeling"? If so, why?

Exactly because.... ?

And is incapable of learning and incorporating such a simple change, right?

He apparently doesn't have a feel for what a 5:20 mile is (despite supposed extensive experience) either without a split and a watch readout to tell him.

However, the scenario you describe involving mile splits above nothing more than "do the math". It's dealing with numerical input rather than sensory input (aka "feel"). It's unclear why you're choosing to misuse terms, but you might want to stop because you're looking like a fool here.

I was one of the people who was forced to change from imperial measurements to metrics in my late teens.

After learning about pints and gallons,and times tables up to 12x12(by memory),someone decided to change the system.

We went from pounds,shillings and pence to dollars and cents on 10 july 1967.

I believe the U.S.A probably never changed because of the huge cost.Tooling for industry,road signs,measuring tools.

Even the cost of changing records such as land surveying etc was an expensive exercise. As a Motor Mechanic I needed tools that covered Caterpillar as well as Mercedes vehicles and machinery.

I doubt anyone really gives a toss what us runners thought then or now.

The good news, for a slow old bugger like me, is that I can do Kilometre repeats under 4 minutes, which is a lot easier than trying to run miles in 4 minutes.