Author Topic: Tinman Running Calculator  (Read 6433 times)

jumpsss234

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Tinman Running Calculator
« on: May 03, 2012, 01:09:15 PM »
Does the Tinman Running Calculator replace the charts that are found on this website?  I've noticed some differences between the paces the calculator spits out and the older charts, so I was wondering which method to use.  I assume that the new Calculator more accurately reflects Tinman's current thinking regarding training paces, but just wanted to check.  Same thing with the older 2400 to 5k conversion chart.  Should I plug the time it takes me to run a 2400 meter time trial into the calculator and use those paces, or use the older chart?  Any ideas are appreciated.  Thanks.

Tinman

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4004
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2012, 07:12:06 PM »
Use the Tinman Running Calculator att www.runningprs.com
Tinman
(coaching available)
Inquire via email:
runfastcoach@gmail.com

rxb

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2012, 06:15:41 PM »
Just saw the calculator on Tinman's website for the first time today.  Interesting story:  two years, I ran 800m/1500m/mile races on the track.  My mile time was 4:52.93; Tinman's equivalent race performance calculation for the 800m is 2:12.94.  Anyone care to guess my precise time in the 800m the week before?   :)

I think maybe the 100m, HM and Marathon equivalent times are a bit fast compared to the other common distances. 

Also, when I enter an 800m time, the 800m time that is listed in the equivalent performances is not the same as the one that I enter-- it's several tenths faster, and the equivalent times are accordingly faster, too.  Just a little bug that needs to be fixed. 


Tinman

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4004
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2012, 12:33:01 PM »
I'm short on time, since I am writing a term paper for my MBA course called The Global Manager.

The times for the 100 and half-marathon are spot-on. Remember, the times in my calculator are equivalencies - not your equivalence for those distance, but how those times would stack up on a relative performance level. Type in 12:37.34, which is Keninisa's Bekele's world record for 50000m on the track. You'll see the equivalent 100m time is 9.42 seconds, which is close to the world 100m record now, which is 9.58. Using the maximum allowable tail wind of 2.0 meters per second, the equivalent 100m world record should be 9.42 seconds. I believe Bolt, given a 2.0m/s tail wind, can run 9.40 seconds, if he runs all the way through the tape. Remember, when he ran 9.58 seconds, he seemed to coast the last 10m to the finish, raising his hands.

There is one caveat: The assumption in my calculator is that the the equivalent times are not related to help/assistance. That is, the performance are as if there is no pacer. In the case of Bekele's world record, he did have a pacer to follow, and the pacer reduced Bekele's air drag/energy cost for at least a portion of the race. I'd have to go back and review the tape and see how close Bekele was to the pacer and for how long, in order to determine how much help he got. I am sure his 5,000m time would be slower by a few seconds. Let's say he saved 1% energy for the race because he had pacers. That means his individual time would equate to 12:44.91. The equivalent 100m time to that (where there are no pacers), would be 9.51 seconds (bolt ran 9.58 seconds).

Gotta go!

Take care,

Tinman
« Last Edit: May 05, 2012, 12:39:31 PM by Tinman »
Tinman
(coaching available)
Inquire via email:
runfastcoach@gmail.com

rxb

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2012, 03:52:04 PM »
I'm short on time, since I am writing a term paper for my MBA course called The Global Manager.

The times for the 100 and half-marathon are spot-on. Remember, the times in my calculator are equivalencies - not your equivalence for those distance, but how those times would stack up on a relative performance level. Type in 12:37.34, which is Keninisa's Bekele's world record for 50000m on the track. You'll see the equivalent 100m time is 9.42 seconds, which is close to the world 100m record now, which is 9.58. Using the maximum allowable tail wind of 2.0 meters per second, the equivalent 100m world record should be 9.42 seconds. I believe Bolt, given a 2.0m/s tail wind, can run 9.40 seconds, if he runs all the way through the tape. Remember, when he ran 9.58 seconds, he seemed to coast the last 10m to the finish, raising his hands.

There is one caveat: The assumption in my calculator is that the the equivalent times are not related to help/assistance. That is, the performance are as if there is no pacer. In the case of Bekele's world record, he did have a pacer to follow, and the pacer reduced Bekele's air drag/energy cost for at least a portion of the race. I'd have to go back and review the tape and see how close Bekele was to the pacer and for how long, in order to determine how much help he got. I am sure his 5,000m time would be slower by a few seconds. Let's say he saved 1% energy for the race because he had pacers. That means his individual time would equate to 12:44.91. The equivalent 100m time to that (where there are no pacers), would be 9.51 seconds (bolt ran 9.58 seconds).

Gotta go!

Take care,

Tinman

Thanks for the reply.  I knew upon first glance that they were true equivalencies to establish equal times across all distances, rather than estimates for middle/long distance runners or for specialists at the particular distance that was entered. 

On second glance, the half-marathon times are close, maybe a touch fast.  But I still think that the marathon times need to be slowed somewhat.   Based on the HM WR time, the calculator's equivalent for the marathon is 94 seconds faster than the actual WR.  I know you've said in the past that you felt the marathon WR was a bit soft but I think any slack is not that considerable, especially given that more and more elite runners are moving more quickly and fully to the event at a younger age. 

At the other end of the distance spectrum, I also still believe that the 100m times are too fast.  Re: Bolt, it was the 9.69 at the Olympics where he coasted/strutted and raised his arms early; when he ran 9.58 in Berlin he kept on to the finish.  And if he can improve on his 100m record, so too could he (or perhaps Blake) improve on his 200m record.  The 100m record tends to be very close to exactly half of the 200m record.  Since the advent of electronic timing, the 100m WR has never been faster than half -.02 of the 200m WR.  Most of the time, it's been a little slower than half, whereas your table has it more than .20 faster than half. 

I don't consider 9.58 to be close to 9.42; just as I wouldn't consider a 9:35 steeplechaser close to a 9:25 steepler (same difference in % terms).  That's a large gap. 

Plus, Bolt's existing 100m and 200m records are already probably slightly superior to Bekele's.  Bolt's 9.58 is more than 1% superior to any other time recorded at that distance; whereas both Geb and Komen ran within less than 0.5% of Bekele's record.  Demanding almost 2% better still as an equivalent for the 100m seems questionable. 

On the whole, your calculator is superior to any other I've seen in terms of its layout and most of its equivalency calculations.  I just find evidence that a couple of distances could be revised to bring them more in line.  I hope you know that it's intended as helpful feedback.  (Given how distance-oriented mass running is, it's largely a theoretical discussion re: 100m as probably very few if any of the people who visit your site will ever sprint anyway.) 


RunningTy

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2012, 05:18:05 PM »
rxb,

It looks like you missed the main point about the 9.42 figure. 

Tinman wrote:

"Using the maximum allowable tail wind of 2.0 meters per second, the equivalent 100m world record should be 9.42 seconds."

rxb

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2012, 02:19:44 AM »
rxb,

It looks like you missed the main point about the 9.42 figure. 

Tinman wrote:

"Using the maximum allowable tail wind of 2.0 meters per second, the equivalent 100m world record should be 9.42 seconds."

No, I didn't miss that.  Regardless, the 100m WR time tracks 50% of the 200m WR time very closely.  Each event has been contested many, many times by elite runners, thus the effects of wind even out in the longer term and a relational pattern is established between those distances.  (Note: Bolt's 9.58 came with a slight tailwind, while his 19.19 involved a tiny headwind.)  Based on decades of historical data, the 100m equivalent isn't as fast compared to the 200m as what is currently in the calculator.   And both of those existing records are strong; Bolt's 2008/2009 form was superb. 

Tinman's a very smart guy, very thorough and precise and he gets it right most of the time.  I certainly don't pretend to have the same level of running knowledge as he does and I haven't put anywhere near the time into working out every one of the formulas.  But I'm quite adept with numbers, so occasionally I notice things.  Tom is free to consider or not consider my suggestions as he chooses. 

RunningTy

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2012, 05:21:02 AM »
rxb,

I don't think your arguments about the 9.58 record hold up as long as you ignore a factor that Tinman explicitly says you should account for.

Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Sciences John D. Barrow claims that Bolt should have been able to run 9.45 with ideal wind, reaction time and altitude:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120404102537.htm

You may disagree with the professor and Tinman on these adjustments or you may argue that 9.45 is not close to 9.42, but I think that's a fairly poor argument for changing the calculator.

However, it's important to know what these calculators tell us.  Assuming your arguments about the 100m vs 200m times are correct, we know that Tinman's calculator does not express purely statistical measures, but rather his informed opinions about what should be possible.

ATimmins

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
    • Running Log
    • Email
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2012, 02:07:45 PM »
This is an interesting discussion, but I think we can't see the forest through the trees on this one.  Its nice to have a calculator.

With that being said, constructive criticism to overall structure, layout, and function would be greatly appreciated.  It is very much a work in progress.
Forced into running and loving every minute
1.5 Mile:
First = 13:38
Current = 7:10
Powered by Powerbar - www.powerbar.com
Dressed for Success in Brooks - www.brooksrunning.com
Running log - http://www.logarun.com/calendars/atimmins/
Running Blog - http://www.powerbar.com/blog/atimmins.aspx

SomeWeirdSin

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2012, 02:56:29 PM »
I think a drop down box of typical race distances (800, 1500, mile, 2 mile, 5k, 10k, HM, Marathon, etc.) would be better than the current format of inputting number+unit.

It'd be nice to be able to input easy pace and get the output of 'equivalent' race times.

It'd also be helpful if the race splits were updated based on the distance chosen 400 splits, etc. aren't super useful the longer distances, whereas it'd be nice to get 5k, 10k, HM, etc. splits for the marathon


RunningTy

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2012, 07:58:00 PM »
First off: tremendous calculator.  The visibility has also been greatly enhanced lately.

Some notes:

Equivalent performance at 10km lacks hour digits (29 minutes for 5k displays an equivalent 10k time of 25 minutes).

3200 meter and 3000m staples always show the same value.  Is this intentional?

It would be nice to have the paces per km and per mile under each equivalent performance.

I'd like to have the Half Mary in the metric distances too, not only in the imperial section.

I second SWS's note on an input drop-down menu.  Some wheels to roll the numbers would also be great.  (Let's save our energy for running. ;-) )

When I type in time digits, I'd like the Return key to update the calculator.

Race splits and 1600-1000 training paces have a trailing zero that's not significant.  Either it should be removed or it should show the right value.  The format for all times should preferably always show the desired number of significant digits, not leave them out when they're zero.

The pop-up format is neat, but it doesn't scale.  I suggest making the calculator a standard web page.

Thanks for bringing us this great tool!

ATimmins

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
    • Running Log
    • Email
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2012, 02:32:21 PM »
Some great ideas, which after discussing with tinman I am sure we will add. 

There is some limitations to the actual coding that prevents some things though, including the enter key update and inserting it into the actual webpage, but i'm still trying to find a work around.

Didn't notice the trailing zeros are still on there good catch, i'll clean that up in the next build.

Drop down menu is possible, but tinman was going for the most complete calculator you could build.  I am working on a scaled down version for quick reference and ease of use on cell phones.

10k will be updated in next build as well.

"It'd be nice to be able to input easy pace and get the output of 'equivalent' race times. "  as for that, i understand the need, but is a disaster waiting to happen.  Basing race times off of easy pace could be catastrophic. 

Forced into running and loving every minute
1.5 Mile:
First = 13:38
Current = 7:10
Powered by Powerbar - www.powerbar.com
Dressed for Success in Brooks - www.brooksrunning.com
Running log - http://www.logarun.com/calendars/atimmins/
Running Blog - http://www.powerbar.com/blog/atimmins.aspx

SomeWeirdSin

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2012, 07:31:04 PM »
An idea:

Since it all works from just equivalent times, just let the user push 'plus' or 'minus' and show all of the paces as they adjust.


RunningTy

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2012, 07:37:28 AM »
Good stuff.

I was thinking that it might be possible with a drop-down menu that just filled in the custom entry field for distance that's already there.

Also, instead of having many predefined training paces, it might be an idea to only show them by default for say, 1 mile, 1 km and 400m, and then have an entry field where you can input a custom training distance yourself.  Ditto for race splits.

(Another tiny detail: unless somebody disputes Tinman's copyright, it's his copyright now, it's not pending.)

Please do not take this as criticism.  As a former software guy, I'm used to state my opinions quite unemotionally.  But I do know how much work even small changes may need.

blon

  • Guest
Re: Tinman Running Calculator
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2012, 05:13:40 PM »
Thanks for a great calculator! What kind of heart rates do you have for "very easy", "easy" and "moderate"?

 




Facebook Comments