Thanks Johnny! I am not a sprinter as you can tell!johnnybike wrote:Francois, interesting formula. Of course if you follow that logic then the sub 18:30 sub 7 formula comes into play so Dougie proves that as he has gone Sub 7 already. So 18:30 5k is nailed on Dougie
Nice 60' Francois. That is a tremendous effort relative to say your 2K time and in relation to my sub 15600 60' best.
Tom, 2 nice records in one effort. well done. Sub 90 is the big target I assume.
The rule 10K ~ 5K x 2 + 1:00 comes from the race-time predictor chart of the book "The Competitive Runner's Handbook" by Bob Glover and Pete Schuder. The times for longer events do not translate well for erging IMO. For instance, based on your 60' row, you would do 10 miles (16,093m) in 60:01:59, which according to the table would predicts a 10K in 37:11.4
If I use the tables in "Daniels' Running Formula" by Jack Daniels, then, based on your 10K, your 5K should be at 18:13.2, your HM in 1:23:38 and your 60' row would be about 15,495m. Using curve fitting between the times for the 1500m, the mile and the 3000m, your 2K would be at 6:49.5. Clearly, there is more variation in speed in running that in erging. Even for distances of 5k and 10k the relationship (in Daniels' book) of 10k ~ 5K * 2.0741, which translates to adding 1:20 to 5K x 2 for a 5K in 18:00 is pessimistic in my view. Note that Paul's law of "double the distance add 5 to the pace" is even more pessimistic since it implies that 10K ~ 5K x 2 + 1:40. It might be valid for fatties at short distances, but not for us, LW with endurance to boot!
Cheers!
Francois