wolverine plan, anyone?

[harrythehamster]

And the fun thing is, Mike did not even really calculate the L4 paces, he used his own training and roughly extrapolated those numbers.

Yeah, I don't think the specific paces are actually all that important so long as you increase/decrease with rate appropriately. In the end whether you row at 1:58, 1:57 or even (shock horror) 1:59 won't make much of a difference to the final result.

1 sec difference in pace around 2:00/500m makes just over 4m difference/minute. So in worst case scenario (highly unlikely) that could result in about 250 meter cap in 60' session. Personally, just like you said, I wouldn't worry about it. But it's good to be aware of it, as such a cap might rise someone's attention

[jackarabit]

Ambitious, capricious, lubricious! But not complicated.

[hjs]

Ambitious, capricious, lubricious! But not complicated.

The whole plan is a piramide aimed at 2k, in order of importance the L4 sessions are first.

[jackarabit]

At the center of this faff is the significance of the file extensions pdf and xls. Pdf stable as a woodblock print. Xls a prison with no locks on the cells! Perhaps not a big deal in terms of consequences but a waste of energy sussing out why it isn’t. Assuming L4 is worth the trouble, putting the complete tables into pdf format in the C2 document might be worth the trouble.

[jackarabit]

Harry the H writes:

Then there is the 1:27/1:28 ref pace near the top corner. That one is more strange. The reason for the different value shown on different systems is the same: The exact value in the cell is equal to 87.8 seconds. But this is not a calculated value, so it must somehow have been input with fractional seconds. Perhaps because someone originally made a calculation from a 2500m or 5000m time in full seconds and then copy/pasted the result as values in Excel.

And the duplicate of the 1:27 ref. pace noticed by MC is a row insert?

Little mousey saw your tracks today.
Little mousey wish you’d go away!
Little mousey.

[Allan Olesen]

Something still puzzless me though. First of all, I have mm:ss format in all the cells and similarly all the cells have exactly the same rounding rules. So why on earth is some of the cells rounded (or just fractions of the second ignored) inconsistently?
for example (just some pickings from the tables to show the inconsistency):

The base for your Pulp Fiction calculation is not 1:28. It is 1:27.8.

So your 88*1.167 should be 87.8*1.167=102.4626 which is rounded down.

For your example at 1:32, I have only one comment: You should never, ever question the rounding of a .5 screen value. You can't know if that .5 is .4999 or .5001 behind the screen. According to normal rounding rules those will be rounded differently.

Are you referring to a value in cell A3?

No, A4. The one being discussed earlier in the thread.

[Allan Olesen]

And the duplicate of the 1:27 ref. pace noticed by MC is a row insert?

No. If it was a row insert, 1:28 would not be missing.

I have already explained it: The value which should have been 1:28 is in fact 1:27.8. So if you use software which rounds seconds down, it will be shown as 1:27. If you use software which rounds to nearest second, it will be shown as 1:28.

So some people see a 1:28 ref. pace while other people see a an apparent duplicate 1:27 ref. pace.

[jackarabit]

I am schooled, Allan. Many thank. row replace?

[harrythehamster]

Something still puzzless me though. First of all, I have mm:ss format in all the cells and similarly all the cells have exactly the same rounding rules. So why on earth is some of the cells rounded (or just fractions of the second ignored) inconsistently?
for example (just some pickings from the tables to show the inconsistency):

The base for your Pulp Fiction calculation is not 1:28. It is 1:27.8.

So your 88*1.167 should be 87.8*1.167=102.4626 which is rounded down.

For your example at 1:32, I have only one comment: You should never, ever question the rounding of a .5 screen value. You can't know if that .5 is .4999 or .5001 behind the screen. According to normal rounding rules those will be rounded differently.

Are you referring to a value in cell A3?

No, A4. The one being discussed earlier in the thread.

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately there's still some confusion on my side. Biggest confusion comes from this: you say that value in A4 is 1:27.8, not 1:28 (2k pace in cell A4). However what I see in that cell is not 01:27.8 but 01:28 (cell format is time; mm:ss), and if change that time format to be number format then it shows that value as a friction of 24hours, as I wrote earlier (0,00100694444444444) and that calculation gives result of exact 88 (sec), not 87.8 or anything else. So, how did you get that value of 1:27.8 (as a number format you must have something else than 0,00100694444444444, maybe your last digits differ from mine?) in that cell)? The seconds question is why would Mike Caviston use 1:27.8 as a 2K ref base as they are all ment to be full seconds? That 1:27.8 as a 2K "base" pace makes no sense to me.

What comes to Pulp fiction calculations, I used Windows Calculator for those, so not much to do how excel calculates or rounds numbers. I used 2K pace (as seconds) and then multiplied those seconds by the multipliers you can see in the excels fx-bar. 92*1,125 is exactly 103,5 if you ask me. But in general I agree what you wrote about Excel roundings.

[Allan Olesen]

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately there's still some confusion on my side. Biggest confusion comes from this: you say that value in A4 is 1:27.8, not 1:28 (2k pace in cell A4). However what I see in that cell is not 01:27.8 but 01:28 (cell format is time; mm:ss), and if change that time format to be number format then it shows that value as a friction of 24hours, as I wrote earlier (0,00100694444444444)

I think you have confused cell A3 by cell A4.

Cell A3 is the one which is intended to show 1:27. It contains 0.00100694444444444. If you multiply that by 24*60*60, you get 87. So everything is fine here.

Cell A4 is the problematic one. It was intended to show 1:28, but it contains 0.0010162037037037. If you multiply that by 24*60*60, you get 87.8.

92*1,125 is exactly 103,5 if you ask me.

To you and me, yes. To a computer using floating point variables, not always.

A floating point variable is almost always a little imprecise. There may exist an exact representation of 103.499999998 and another exact representation of 103.5000000003, but there may not necessarily exist an exact representation of 103.5. So what you see as 103.5 may be a little less or a little more.

Try this for an example:
In one cell type this (without the ""): "=101.5/86400".
The cell will show 0.00117476851851852. This value is 101.5 seconds converted to days.
Change the format of the cell to mm:ss.
The cell will show 1:42. So the 101.5 seconds has been rounded correctly up to 102 seconds.

Now change the contents of the cell to this: "=103.5/86400".
By the same logic as before, we would expect it to show 1:44, right?
But it doesn't. It shows 1:43.

Keine hexerei. Nur floating point numbers...

[kcavorsi]

L4

2500m warmup

60’ 1,176 strokes 19.6 spm Ref Pace 1:41
194/196/198/194/196/198
Goal meters: 15,162
Meters rowed: 15,175

2500m cooldown

[jackarabit]

13m strong on goal. Appears that the ephemera have been subdued.

[kcavorsi]

Yeah nice to be back on track

L2

5x1500 Avg goal pace with negative splits: 1:46.2

4K warmup

1:46.4
1:46.2
1:46.2
1:46.0
1:45.9

4K cooldown

[kcavorsi]

L4

2500m warmup

60’ 1,176 strokes 19.6 spm. Ref pace 1:41
194/196/198/194/196/198
Goal meters: 15,162
Meters rowed: 15,170

2500m cooldown

[kcavorsi]

L3

2500m warmup

Continuous 18,500m
Avg pace: 1:57.1
Time: 1:12:16
Avg spm: 26

2500m cooldown