|
May 2016
7:12pm, 10 May 2016
1,104 posts
|
stuart little
Discounting human error, there's no issue with the calibration of the wheel (within acceptable tolerances for a running race) as each click must be a fixed distance.
A laser sight would still require calibration (particularly ones bought for peanuts of Amazon), and thus still has the same possibility for inaccuracy.
Whatever the method of measurement, the only way to eliminate human error is to check the consistency of the measurement with two independent measurements bring performed (as the IAAF recommend)
|
|
May 2016
7:38pm, 10 May 2016
12,804 posts
|
jennywren
I've had an email too, about my 2013 result. They've added 7 minutes to my time, which makes it worse than my 2012 time  I think I'll ignore it...
|
|
May 2016
8:55pm, 10 May 2016
12,805 posts
|
jennywren
Actually I've replied to them because 7 minutes is ridiculous and just plain wrong! If they've done this to a few people they're going to be even more unpopular than they already are!
|
|
May 2016
9:05pm, 10 May 2016
266 posts
|
simpleeeee
lol, 5 minutes added to my time, i know i was going slowly towards the end, but im sure i was quicker than 20 minute / mile pace
|
|
May 2016
9:06pm, 10 May 2016
1,794 posts
|
K5 Gus
Have you still got a note of your 20 mile split from the race jennywren ?ANd can you then work out your average pace for the last 6 miles ?
The additional time is supposed to be based on your average pace since the 20 mile mark. As it was about 0.25 mile short, that would imply you were doing 28 min/mile pace over the last 6 miles ??
Mine works out about right, up from 3:03:18 to 3:05:00, so an extra 102 secs for 0.25 mile, ie 408 secs for a mile, ie about 6:48 m/m pace
|
|
May 2016
9:09pm, 10 May 2016
12,806 posts
|
jennywren
Exactly Gus. I do have my Garmin splits and my average pace was 11.13 pace over the last 6 miles, not 28 min miles! This is what I've pointed out to them so perhaps they'll recalculate. Not exactly holding my breath though.
|
|
May 2016
9:11pm, 10 May 2016
267 posts
|
simpleeeee
maybe the 20m mat was at 18m or something - who knows with these guys
|
|
May 2016
9:13pm, 10 May 2016
329 posts
|
davelord
I was runnng that fast at the end my calculated time for full is less than my time for the short distance well almost, they added 1:31. Gutting thing is if there were 400m more i reckon i could of caught and passed the other v50s
|
|
May 2016
9:17pm, 10 May 2016
12,807 posts
|
jennywren
I've just remembered that my result was wrong - the people doing the timing had transposed my number with someone else's, meaning she had my time and I had hers. Hers was 4:34 something and I knew that was wrong so I did a bit of detective work and eventually sorted it out. I'll bet that's what's happened though - the 20 mile time is still hers, not mine! Forgodssake!
|
|
May 2016
9:20pm, 10 May 2016
268 posts
|
simpleeeee
thats possible... though at 28min mile pace she would still have taken nearly 3 hours for the last 6 miles which doesnt fit with a 4hr 34min marathon.
|
