Free Computer

It's unfortunate that this calculator only displays pace in archaic units. In any case, it's worth noting that an online calculator based on this formula is still available on the Runner's World site. Enter a race performance in that calculator and it will compute equivalent performances at other distances -- and when it displays the results, it includes references to Pete's 1977 Runner's World article and 1981 American Scientist article. To find a link to this calculator, you can go to www.rrtc.net and follow the link at the bottom labeled "Links to Related Sites" which takes you to the RRTC Links page on the USATF site. And from there, follow the link labeled "Pete Riegel's Race Time Calculator (on Runner's World site)". The actual location of this calculator on the Runner's World site tends to move around, but at least for now, I've updated our Links page on the USATF site so this link works.

When I was doing the development work on the Race Pace Computer I was not the highly evolved person I am today. Since that time my consciousness has been raised, and if I was doing it now I’d certainly have an additional scale showing “pace, minutes per kilometer.”

Will one stamp on the envelope be enough?

In the US, one ounce requires $0.41 for regular first class mail in a standard 4x9 envelope. Any number of stamps that add up to 41 cents or more will do.

Just wanted to make sure it was less than one ounce, but now that I reread your original post I see that you already told us that.

Sounds like a nifty little gadget.

Pete, I think I've still got one of these buried in my basement somewhere. I'll definitely get another for posterity's sake.

Is it possible to get more than one?

I remember those!

Jim and others - If you want more than one we will have to work it out, but they are available.

A bit off-topic, but the topic was raised in this thread:

Regarding Bob's "archaic units" comment, and Pete's "evolved" response, how many measurers are asked to mark each kilo in a race, as opposed to mile markers?

I have yet to have a race director request marks at the kilos, but all want the mile marks. Until runners "evolve", mile marks and pace-per-mile are not archaic; they are the units in current use.

Should we mark kilos for every race, and let race directors mark them, thereby educating runners? How long do you think it would be until runners look at their pace-per-kilo, instead of pace-per-mile?

I was asked to mark each kilo in a race just this summer. Of course, the race was in Canada.

I've now been a course measurer for over twenty years, and the count of courses I've measured is now over three hundred. For the past twelve years or so, I have asked my measurement "clients" whether they would like the intermediate splits marked in miles or kilometers. In that time, I have marked the kilometer splits on exactly three courses.

The first, in 1995, was a 5K in a Chicago suburb. I asked the race director if she would prefer I mark miles or kms, and she responded that the race committee had discussed the issue and they wanted the intermediate km splits marked. A couple of weeks later I got a call from the Chicago Area Runners Association's executive director, who informed me that I was making a mistake because metric splits would only confuse the runners. I sat down with Excel and put together a pace conversion chart and sent it to the race director. As an aside, that race was forced to change its course for 2007 and I measured it again. They wanted mile splits.

The second was a 10K that I measured a couple of years later for a gentleman who was a recent immigrant from Poland.

The third was the most recent (2006) iteration of the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon course. That course has every mile and every km point marked and documented. Apparently the international runners in the field want to see the km marks.

I now calculate my constant in counts per meter. I have a 60 meter metric steel tape that I use for setting out calibration courses. As a matter of course, I mark and document the metric splits in multiples of 5K on ANY course I measure. I strongly believe the USA is foolish to maintain an archaic system of measurement that the rest of the world has long since progressed beyond.

All that being said, I do what the race director wants me to do. It's his or her course, not mine. When I measure distances to landmarks, I use a tape marked in decimal feet. Why? I want them to be able to find the marks, and chances are good that they do not have a metric tape.

While the mission of educating Americans about the metric system is a laudable one, that is not our mission as RRTC. Our mission is to measure courses accurately and increase the number of accurately measured courses. What units they're measured in is secondary.

To echo Jay Wight, we've measured over 100 courses and never been asked to mark kilometers. Race directors don't feel the need. Another example of no desire for metric data; The Race Director software calculates pace in min/km if the distance for the race is in km. Less than 1-minute after posting such data, there is a steady stream of complaints from the runners. Laudable as educating the American running public about the benefits of metric measurements may be, they don't seem to want it yet.

When I run a 10 mile race, I prefer mile marks. When I run a 10 kilometer race, I prefer kilometer marks. After I measured the Red River Run 10 K ( ND 02039 PR ), the Fargo Park District put kilometer posts at my kilometer marks. From May to October I do most of my speed work on this route. Other runners are used to pacing by kilometer on this route and now like to see kilometer marks in races. For the MSUM July 4th 10 K ( MN 06022 RR ) I marked and documented miles and kilometers.

Dale Summers

On 15 January 2008 21:04 Duane Russell said:

quote:

A bit off-topic, but the topic was raised in this thread:

Regarding Bob's "archaic units" comment, and Pete's "evolved" response, how many measurers are asked to mark each kilo in a race, as opposed to mile markers?

Duane, Non-SI units are archaic and the continued use of them creates problems for everyone. Not only in running sports but in the economy and industry. This is not a forum for this topic, so I won't elaborate further.

quote:

I have yet to have a race director request marks at the kilos, but all want the mile marks. Until runners "evolve", mile marks and pace-per-mile are not archaic; they are the units in current use.

Duane, kilo is a prefix meaning thousand. It means nothing by itself. If you are speaking of mass, then you mean kilograms. If you mean distance, then it is kilometres.

It shouldn't matter what a director wants. If he wants his course certified, then he has to have it done according to the rules and when the rules require the courses to be marked in kilometres, then kilometres it must be. The rules exist to promote fairness and those who want to go against the rules compromise that fairness.

Those runners who haven't evolved won't until they are forced to and they can be forced to simply by following the rules. When was the last time the Olympics or other international events catered to those who haven't evolved by allowing both metre and yard events? The time is long over due for requiring one set of units for all races.

quote:

Should we mark kilos for every race, and let race directors mark them, thereby educating runners? How long do you think it would be until runners look at their pace-per-kilo, instead of pace-per-mile?

The rules require all kilometres to be marked, so yes kilometres should be marked for every race or the race should not be certified. The runners will adapt quickly if the handicap is taken away. There may be some moaning and crying at first, but so what? Fairness is what is the most important.

See rule 240-4

http://www.bcathletics.org/main/rr_iaaf.htm


4. The distance in kilometres on the route shall be displayed to all athletes.

That is the rule, make sure it is followed.

quote:

Originally posted by Guido Brothers:
To echo Jay Wight, we've measured over 100 courses and never been asked to mark kilometers. Race directors don't feel the need. Another example of no desire for metric data; The Race Director software calculates pace in min/km if the distance for the race is in km. Less than 1-minute after posting such data, there is a steady stream of complaints from the runners. Laudable as educating the American running public about the benefits of metric measurements may be, they don't seem to want it yet.

It doesn't matter what you have been asked, it matters what the rules state. It may be up to you to point out the rules and inform those who may gripe that if they want their course certified legally, then they need to follow the rules and the rules require marking in kilometres.

Just because some may complain is no reason to break the rules. If the rules are broken, then fairness is compromised.

Anyway over time, the complaints will stop and the participants will adjust.

quote:

Originally posted by Dale Summers:
When I run a 10 mile race, I prefer mile marks. When I run a 10 kilometer race, I prefer kilometer marks. After I measured the Red River Run 10 K ( ND 02039 PR ), the Fargo Park District put kilometer posts at my kilometer marks. From May to October I do most of my speed work on this route. Other runners are used to pacing by kilometer on this route and now like to see kilometer marks in races. For the MSUM July 4th 10 K ( MN 06022 RR ) I marked and documented miles and kilometers.

Dale Summers

This is a perfect example that shows that when the handicap of archaic units is removed and only metric is shown that people will adapt and even prefer the proper way.

It is just a matter of enforcing the rules to ensure that there is one system of units for all participants.

Ametrica,

According the the rules you cite, standard-distance races (which the rules apply to) begin at 10 km. Therefore, a 5k race is a non-standard distance, which indicates that the rules don't apply.

I used "kilos" as shorthand, for in this discussion we all know that we are referring to kilometers.

If we are measuring a course for international competition, I would agree that kilometers should be marked. However, most of our courses are measured for local (American) runners, who are accustomed to calculating their pace in minutes per mile. Therefore, to deliver to the client what they are seeking, we need to mark and record the mile splits. To do otherwise could irritate runners who have calculated their pace per mile, and cause those runners to not return the following year. That is a disservice to our client.

Watching the Olympic marathons, they had the mile splits marked. I didn't see any kilometer markers, although that does not mean they didn't exist. One of the women took-out the 1 mile marker, as it was set on the course, not off to the side.

Until there is a request from runners or race directors for splits to be in kilometers, I will continue to mark only the mile splits on 5k courses. Marathon courses have multiples of 5k marked, which seems to be the standard.

Most if not all Euro marathons are marked in kilometers rather than miles (probably the same in Asia and Africa). Friends who have run them say it makes the race seem to go by much quicker. My wife has said the same thing about several 10km courses I have marked w/ km splits, so if it keeps her happy . . .

Jim, do they mark every kilometer, or just multiples of 5k? I think it is interesting that the races seem to go by quicker, and I wonder if it is due to each kilometer marker going by with shorter intervals than each mile, or if it is because they only see a marker every 5k, so they are not constantly reminded how far they have gone/have to go.

Interesting.

A quick reply to Ametrica. We've never been asked to mark kilometers is the important statement. Even if the measurer identifies the location of the intermediate kilometers, the race director is responsible for marking them on race day. If they are not to be used, why expend the extra effort?

That said, I've run many races in Canada, marked only in kilometers. It took about 1 race to figure out that an 8-minute mile is about a 5-minute kilometer and the race does go by faster with less likely hood of loosing focus. As a runner, I favor the international marking. As a measurer, I try to give the race director s what they want.

However, maybe the change needs to start with us. Are the certifiers going to start requesting or requiring kilometer splits on maps?

FOLLOWING THE RULES

I am in sympathy with some of the points Ametrica makes. I believe that many aspects of the metric system are superior to the imperial system we use. It would certainly make measuring easier if we could deal exclusively in one set of units or the other.

As for the runner who thought she was at 4 km instead of 4 miles, I wonder where her head was. It normally doesn’t take a runner long to spot a misplaced split, especially one with a difference as big as this. When you race in a foreign country it is not unreasonable to learn a bit about its customs. In the US the custom is, and has been, to mark each mile and sometimes each 5 km point in a road race. I have never heard of a major US road race with metric splits. Oklahoma, because of metric-advocate Bob Baumel, former Oklahoma certifier, has many races marked in kilometers. I’ve never heard of any problem arising from this. Echoing Guido Brothers, however, it makes little sense to lay out marks in which the race organization has no interest.

Custom is stronger than rules, especially when those rules were made without consultation with the people affected. Road running and road course measurement were present long before IAAF and USATF decided to make rules concerning them.

IAAF has legitimate concern that the rules are followed when the race is affiliated with IAAF, such as is the case with World Championships and Olympics, and some other high-profile events. If a race is concerned that its results will be recognized by IAAF it should be prepared to abide by IAAF rules. In the case of small races held in small towns, the legitimacy of IAAF’s concern is less clear. It has long been a maxim in the military that one should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.

As course measurers, we strive to help the race organization obtain documented, accurate courses, measured to a respected, accepted standard. As the runners in the US are conditioned from birth in the use of miles, this is what they want to experience in their race courses. Race directors know this. The runners are their customers, and the race directors are sensitive to their desires.

Anything we do as measurers to make the race director’s job harder will not be welcomed. If we pile on extra rules and regulations as a condition of getting a course certified, we will see fewer race directors seeking accurate courses. I’ve rarely attended races I’ve measured, except when I ran them. Should it be my duty to become a member of each race organization, and see that they are following all the IAAF rules regarding race conduct? Shall I hector the Podunk Squash Festival 10k to be sure they are conducting drug testing? What shall I do if they ignore my advice?

Course measurement in the US has historically embraced any race which wishes to have an accurate course, and we don’t tell them how to conduct the race, unless requested to do so. By including many minor races, we opened the door to recruiting many people who had never measured a race course before, some of whom have become highly competent measurers, and certifiers. Without these many small races on which to learn and practice our craft, we would now have far fewer measurers. Who then would be available to measure the high-profile races?

We who measure courses are performing a fundamental task. We provide the venues to be used. I’ve always considered it to be the job of the race organization to comply with other rules which they may care to obey.

Ametrica, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. A "course" being certified is different from a "race" being certified. This group certifies courses. What is displayed to the racers has nothing to do with whether a course should be certified as having been accurately measured.

I think a majority of measurers would prefer to work exclusively in metric, but it is not what we are asked to do, and it is not what we are required to do.

This is an issue for race directors, not course measurers.

Duane, it's every km, and the reason the distance seems to go by is b/c the splits come up so quickly. Marathoners are often given the advice "just think about getting to the next mile, rather than the whole distance" so metric marking breaks the race up into even smaller, more easily mentally digestible chunks.

In the 10km races I've marked, I also put down mile splits, so the intervals are even smaller - that's why my wife likes it

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Russell:
Ametrica,

According the the rules you cite, standard-distance races (which the rules apply to) begin at 10 km. Therefore, a 5k race is a non-standard distance, which indicates that the rules don't apply.

I was referring to long distances races such as the 42.195 km marathon.

quote:

I used "kilos" as shorthand, for in this discussion we all know that we are referring to kilometers.

You can use an even shorter shorthand when writing even though it isn't technically correct and that is just use km. Or you can use the military term "klicks".

quote:

If we are measuring a course for international competition, I would agree that kilometers should be marked. However, most of our courses are measured for local (American) runners, who are accustomed to calculating their pace in minutes per mile. Therefore, to deliver to the client what they are seeking, we need to mark and record the mile splits. To do otherwise could irritate runners who have calculated their pace per mile, and cause those runners to not return the following year. That is a disservice to our client.

That is hogwash. All races should be treated the same, whether they are national or international. You almost make it seem like Americans are to dumb to comprehend or even learn to time themselves in metres.

American runners can just as well become accustom to calcualting their pace per kilometre. Let them be irritated. Some will pout and throw tantrums for a time, then once they realized they are being ignored, then they will either adjust or no longer participate. It is more of a disservice to the runners who want to move forward instead they are held back by dinosaurs and Luddites.

quote:

Watching the Olympic marathons, they had the mile splits marked. I didn't see any kilometer markers, although that does not mean they didn't exist. One of the women took-out the 1 mile marker, as it was set on the course, not off to the side.

I would be very surprised if the Olympic Committee allowed non-metric numbers to be displayed, unless someone without authorization put them up. The Olympics has a history of keeping non-metric units out of their competitions.

quote:

Until there is a request from runners or race directors for splits to be in kilometers, I will continue to mark only the mile splits on 5k courses. Marathon courses have multiples of 5k marked, which seems to be the standard.

There may have already been many requests, but the dinosaurs might have wined too fiercely and the requests were ignored. The change has to start at the top and be pushed all the way to the bottom.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Most if not all Euro marathons are marked in kilometers rather than miles (probably the same in Asia and Africa). Friends who have run them say it makes the race seem to go by much quicker. My wife has said the same thing about several 10km courses I have marked w/ km splits, so if it keeps her happy . . .

I would say the whole world outside the US.

It should be this way everywhere. Eventually most will find it better. It is just a matter of adjusting. Those who don't want to adjust should not be an obstacle to those that do.

quote:

Originally posted by Guido Brothers:
A quick reply to Ametrica. We've never been asked to mark kilometers is the important statement. Even if the measurer identifies the location of the intermediate kilometers, the race director is responsible for marking them on race day. If they are not to be used, why expend the extra effort?

Do you always need to be asked to do the right thing? Maybe you need to explain to the director that metres are the standard and you will measure according to the standard. You almost have to make themfeel like they are behind the times and part of a small minority.

quote:

That said, I've run many races in Canada, marked only in kilometers. It took about 1 race to figure out that an 8-minute mile is about a 5-minute kilometer and the race does go by faster with less likely hood of loosing focus. As a runner, I favor the international marking. As a measurer, I try to give the race director s what they want.

By giving them what they want you are only perpetuating a problem that need not be. Since you prefer kilometres, why not let your preference and the preference of the majority be a guide in convincing the directors to move forward?

quote:

However, maybe the change needs to start with us. Are the certifiers going to start requesting or requiring kilometer splits on maps?

Exactly. It has to start at the top and it needs to be enforced. But the enforcement need only be for a short time. Once the minority adjusts, they will forget their old habits and the old habits will die off quickly. Metre splits will be second nature to them.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Gerweck:
Duane, it's every km, and the reason the distance seems to go by is b/c the splits come up so quickly. Marathoners are often given the advice "just think about getting to the next mile, rather than the whole distance" so metric marking breaks the race up into even smaller, more easily mentally digestible chunks.

I guess this sort of proves that metre splits gives runners a better feel and thus will improve their performance. Another good reason to insist on it.

quote:

In the 10 km races I've marked, I also put down mile splits, so the intervals are even smaller - that's why my wife likes it

How do you treat a mile? Do you measure it as 1500 m as in the Olympics or 1600 m as in high school sports? I wonder why there is a 1500 m mile as that is not an increment of 400 m.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Riegel:
FOLLOWING THE RULES

I am in sympathy with some of the points Ametrica makes. I believe that many aspects of the metric system are superior to the imperial system we use. It would certainly make measuring easier if we could deal exclusively in one set of units or the other.

Pete, in the US, the imperial "system" is not used. The US uses what is known as USC. That stands for United States Customary Units. It is actually not a system but a collection of unrelated units. The only true system is SI (The International System of Units). Metric is just the slang name for this system.

Imperial and USC share some units, and most unit names, but the dimension of those unit names vary. An example is the gallon. In the US it is equal to about 3.75 litres and in the UK it is equal to 4.55 litres. The problem that might exist do to a misunderstanding of which gallon was intended is now reduced due to the fact the imperial gallon has virtually disappeared from use.

The strict use of SI, especially in economics would remove a lot of intrinsic trade barriers and increase the livelihood of millions of Americans and even reduce costs and wastage. But that is a different issue outside the scope of this forum.

I can't think of one logical or sensible reason to retain obsolete measurement units.

quote:

As for the runner who thought she was at 4 km instead of 4 miles, I wonder where her head was. It normally doesn’t take a runner long to spot a misplaced split, especially one with a difference as big as this. When you race in a foreign country it is not unreasonable to learn a bit about its customs. In the US the custom is, and has been, to mark each mile and sometimes each 5 km point in a road race. I have never heard of a major US road race with metric splits. Oklahoma, because of metric-advocate Bob Baumel, former Oklahoma certifier, has many races marked in kilometers. I’ve never heard of any problem arising from this. Echoing Guido Brothers, however, it makes little sense to lay out marks in which the race organization has no interest.

In defence of the runner from Kenya, I would say that it is not always practical to learn every custom. Especially the custom of road races. If you race in multiple countries and everything is virtually the same why would you even entertain the thought that the US would be different?

This brings me to my original question I asked in another part of the forum is how is the Cleveland race allowed to be certifier if it doesn't comply with the IAAF rule about kilometre markings?

If I was that racer from Kenya, I would have made an official complaint and had the entire race decertified fro non-compliance. Then make sure that all future Cleveland races were inspected more thouroughly for compliance. No compliance, then no IAAF blessing.

quote:

Custom is stronger than rules, especially when those rules were made without consultation with the people affected. Road running and road course measurement were present long before IAAF and USATF decided to make rules concerning them.

The rules are there for fairness and different custioms make it impossible to compare results. Who is to say no one was consulted? Maybe they were but those that didn't agree were the ones that were ignored. Rules are not made in a vacuum, but are made with the interests of the majority, not the minority.

quote:

IAAF has legitimate concern that the rules are followed when the race is affiliated with IAAF, such as is the case with World Championships and Olympics, and some other high-profile events. If a race is concerned that its results will be recognized by IAAF it should be prepared to abide by IAAF rules. In the case of small races held in small towns, the legitimacy of IAAF’s concern is less clear. It has long been a maxim in the military that one should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.

I would say that if a race bears the name Olympic ot Marathon, then the rules should, no matter what the size or exposure.

quote:

As course measurers, we strive to help the race organization obtain documented, accurate courses, measured to a respected, accepted standard. As the runners in the US are conditioned from birth in the use of miles, this is what they want to experience in their race courses. Race directors know this. The runners are their customers, and the race directors are sensitive to their desires.

You can help the race directors even more by moving them into this century. You can also help the runners by reconditioning them to start thinking in metres and forget miles. I would also think that with high scholl track and field events as well as college being in rounded metres for a generation now, the runners should already be accustom to metric times.

quote:

Anything we do as measurers to make the race director’s job harder will not be welcomed. If we pile on extra rules and regulations as a condition of getting a course certified, we will see fewer race directors seeking accurate courses. I’ve rarely attended races I’ve measured, except when I ran them. Should it be my duty to become a member of each race organization, and see that they are following all the IAAF rules regarding race conduct? Shall I hector the Podunk Squash Festival 10k to be sure they are conducting drug testing? What shall I do if they ignore my advice?

You will actually make the race directors job easier int he long term. There are no extra rules. The rules are the same as they ahve always been. They just need to be applied.

quote:

Course measurement in the US has historically embraced any race which wishes to have an accurate course, and we don’t tell them how to conduct the race, unless requested to do so. By including many minor races, we opened the door to recruiting many people who had never measured a race course before, some of whom have become highly competent measurers, and certifiers. Without these many small races on which to learn and practice our craft, we would now have far fewer measurers. Who then would be available to measure the high-profile races?

We who measure courses are performing a fundamental task. We provide the venues to be used. I’ve always considered it to be the job of the race organization to comply with other rules which they may care to obey.

Whose ever job it might be should get involved and assure compliance such as in drug testing and the following of other rules. This is all important to assure fairness for all.

Is there a way to open the reply box in a standard window as it seems to be impossible to preview a post before it is sent or to run my spell checker to look for typos.

The best way to avoid errors is to compose your reply offline, in whatever word-processing program you use. When you are happy with it, copy-and-paste into the reply box.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Riegel:
The best way to avoid errors is to compose your reply offline, in whatever word-processing program you use. When you are happy with it, copy-and-paste into the reply box.

I thought that this forum worked like others and I just didn't know how to operate the editing features.

Posted by Ametrica:

quote:

How do you treat a mile? Do you measure it as 1500 m as in the Olympics or 1600 m as in high school sports? I wonder why there is a 1500 m mile as that is not an increment of 400 m.

I treat a mile as exactly what it's defined as - 1609.344m. I learned this from Hugh Jones, who lives and measures in the original "Imperial" measurement nation, England, and it's become automatic now.

As to why there is a 1500, I have read that in the early days of T&F, there was a move to make tracks 500m long, and some were actually built that size (I'm not sure if there's any truth to this story). From a logistical standpoint, starting a race at the beginning of a 100m straightaway rather than at the beginning of a curve gives runners a chance to spread out and get to the rail more smoothly.

Jim, I think the French for a time there had 500m tracks, which (perhaps) encouraged the 1,500m to be run. (Chris Lear had this footnoted in his book "Sub 4:00: Alan Webb and the Quest for the Fastest Mile") I'll have to look at Krise/Squires "Fast Tracks: A History of Distance Running."

After a couple of years of training/training with international runners I quickly learned to translate min/mi to min/km.

Now I spend much time explaining to persons who live in my neck of the woods that four laps of a 400m track is "almost" a mile. They can't quite get their head wrapped around that additional 9.344m...all in good time.

My understanding is that this was a compromise between the British and the French, The British wanted the Imperial distances they had always run. The French wanted Metric distances that were nice round numbers. So the sprint distances ended up being metric equivalents of Imperial distances. The distance events were straight Metric. Tracks are 400 meters.

I understand that the track used for the 1904 Olympics in St. Louis was 500 meters in length.

It also makes you wonder what the distances of track races would have been had the French prevailed; My guess:

100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000

The relays might be interesting; I can see a 4 x 500 easily, but I'm not sure how well 4 x 100 works on a 500 meter track. 4 x 125, maybe?