Why the animosity towards miles?

shels4ever

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If someone offered you 10 gallons of petrol for sixty Irish punts, would you know if you were getting a good deal or not? We do move on eventually. It just takes time.

is that metric time ?

RacoonQueen

Gringo78 wrote: »

km's or miles all the same to me but PACE has to be min/mile, I just can't compute min/km. If someone starts using min/km as pace in their training log, thats me finished with reading their log.

I'm the same - can't get running pace in km at all, I sit there trying to figure out if they were running fast or not. Don't get why people change their watch to km's for a race thats measured in kms either. Just leave it set at miles and pace yourself by the mile alerts.

average_runner

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I'm the same - can't get running pace in km at all, I sit there trying to figure out if they were running fast or not. Don't get why people change their watch to km's for a race thats measured in kms either. Just leave it set at miles and pace yourself by the mile alerts.

I usually put the distance to km for a 10k race but leave my pace on per mile basis!!

RayCun

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Don't get why people change their watch to km's for a race thats measured in kms either. Just leave it set at miles and pace yourself by the mile alerts.

Some races have people calling out the times at the markers. Which is only useful if you're using the same measurement scheme as they are.

(Plus the sound is broken on my Garmin, I don't get alert beeps)

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

Some races have people calling out the times at the markers. Which is only useful if you're using the same measurement scheme as they are.

(Plus the sound is broken on my Garmin, I don't get alert beeps)

Rathfarnham 5k being one (except they call out mile splits:D)

liamog

I have my Garmin set to vibrate but always use KM's as measurements. I'm looking forward to the Dublin 42.2 this year again :-D

murpho999

Definitely a metric person. Everything around us now is KM and it's a much more logical system.

Also, feel that miles etc is an archaic system imposed on us years ago whilst the rest of the world was metric so I use KM.

Don't understand why people can't switch as everything in metric is easier and less complicated. (14lbs in a stone, 16 ozs in a pound etc)

Time to move on people, you don't don't still think of prices in shillings and pence!

tHE vAGGABOND

I switched from miles to KM's at the start of Paris training cycle in December as all my races and targets this year are KM based and not miles...

I do love the faster feedback on pace KM gives me [ie: tempo runs I can see better where things go right and wrong, rather than over the longer mile distances]

I also like that when I was suffering at the end of Paris Marathon the KM's tick off that bit faster than miles - thus giving a small boost at a time I passed one

nerraw1111

Miles first then I swapped over to kms. I’m brainwashed now.

Pacing wise, I would’ve thought it is better to use kms than miles? Faster and more frequent feedback. Thoughts?

Or, if you’re using kms, are you’re constantly speeding/slowing down more to hit the pacing targets per km rather than a more gradual approach in miles?

Bludub

Started running based on min/km. This post explains all those blank faces when I start talking about pace.

Only use for min/mile is mental gymnastics between km markers!

Stark

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

But I would walk eight hundred and four kilometers and six hundred and seventy two metres,
And I would walk eight hundred and four kilometers and six hundred and seventy two metres more.
Song would never have gotten to number 1 (maybe metric isn't all bad).

He'd have a much easier time of it walking 500km though and the woman at the end would probably have been none the wiser.

Kurt Godel

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Fixed your post. Isn't the Ironman (pinnacle of all things triathlon) measured in 70.3 and 140.6? I'm making that shift to metric, but still like the terms 'miles' and 'mileage'. They're synonymous with training distance. I'm pretty sure that the word 'kilometerage' is not in anyone's regular vocabulary.

Sprint and Olympic Tri's are 750 m-20 km-5 km and 1.5km-40 km-10 km
Ironman is based on arbitrary distances (specific bike and swim distances in Honolulu, and a marathon).

I agree with you on the superior poetry of "mileage", can't think of a better km-based word. Kilospance?

BobMac104

As others have said distance wise i dont mind but pace has to be in minute miles for me. Frankly i think the fault should be pointed at the way we measure time. It messes everything up.

theboyblunder

BobMac104 wrote: »

As others have said distance wise i dont mind but pace has to be in minute miles for me. Frankly i think the fault should be pointed at the way we measure time. It messes everything up.

+1

metric is probably better, but we use odd measurements all the time: 60 seconds a minute, 7 days in a week, 12 eggs in a dozen, 166 TDs in a dail (subject to change)....

to me the mile is just another odd measurement I am used to now and dont want to change.

If I hear any more of this i'll switch my log to knots and nautical miles

sconhome

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Fixed your post. Isn't the Ironman (pinnacle of all things triathlon) measured in 70.3 and 140.6?

The two events half & full distance are referred to as '70.3' and 'Ironman' yet (this side of the Atlantic) are always referred to and broken down in km as 1.9 / 90 / 21.1 or 3.8 / 180 / 42.2.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the word 'kilometerage' is not in anyone's regular vocabulary.

Was gonna suggest 'kilometerage' just doesn't roll off the tongue quite like 'mileage'.

neilc

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I'm the same - can't get running pace in km at all, I sit there trying to figure out if they were running fast or not. Don't get why people change their watch to km's for a race thats measured in kms either. Just leave it set at miles and pace yourself by the mile alerts.

I changed my garmin to k's for the first time ever in Dunshaughlin last week and actually found it great. Was targeting 4:00 k's so the maths during the race worked out much easier. Funny thing was though I forgot to put it back to miles for my next training run, hadn't a clue what was going on, spent the first mile trying to work out how to turn it back:D

plodder

I couldn't say how many feet, yards or furlongs there are in a mile, but I do know the difference between 7:00 min/mile pace and 8:00 min/mile and that's all that matters imo. Look at tyre measurements (diameter in inches and width in millimetres). The systems can co-exist :cool:

Brianderunner

What about our 10 mile/5 mile pb's? They will become redundant. It will be 8k, 15k, etc.

Km may have been force fed to us the last few years in Ireland but its not everywhere. Look at horseracing, thats still in furlongs and miles.

I cant see the US switching to Km's in the next 100 years, the common person over there has no idea how far 1km is.

fiddy3

ecoli wrote: »

Good point. But can you name any athlete at the Championships who has used km in an interview regarding their training

Even track elites refer to their training as mileage and I cannot think of any interview or discussion with any elite track athlete who has used km's in discussion of their training

That's probably because you read a lot of news concerning American and British athletes. The majority of athletes at the Europeans will work in KM, not miles, in terms of training. The Spanish, Russians, French, Italians, for example, all train using Kilometres. From what I read of Kenyans and Ethiopians, they are the same, always saying what pace they run per kilometre, not per mile. In fact, the vast majority of the running world deal in kilometres, it's just that in Ireland we consume so much media from the UK and US that miles seem to be more popular than they are. They'll die out eventually, but not any time soon.

walshb

No matter what measure is used the most famous and prestigious race will always be the mile. Screw you, metric!

Condo131

ecoli wrote: »

But thats crazy talk 1600m races way to close to the mile to not run the extra 9m the whole time

....9.344!!:rolleyes::D

TFBubendorfer

walshb wrote: »

No matter what measure is used the most famous and prestigious race will always be the mile.

What year are you in, 1955? :rolleyes:

walshb

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

What year are you in, 1955? :rolleyes:

Not quite.

There's a scene in Minority Report where Agatha (Samantha Morton) talks about Anderton's son. She mentions that he loves to run. "He runs the two mile and the long relay." She said this in the year 2054.

Pisco Sour

Brianderunner wrote: »

What about our 10 mile/5 mile pb's? They will become redundant. It will be 8k, 15k, etc.

Km may have been force fed to us the last few years in Ireland but its not everywhere. Look at horseracing, thats still in furlongs and miles.

I cant see the US switching to Km's in the next 100 years, the common person over there has no idea how far 1km is.

In Australia you will not find a 5 mile or 10 mile race anywhere (or if you do find one you it would be a rarity). It's all 8km and 15km here.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

No matter what measure is used the most famous and prestigious race will always be the mile. Screw you, metric!

The mile isn't that prestigious anymore. They rarely run them anymore. Certainly not to the same degree they did back in the 50s - 90s.

Pisco Sour

fiddy3 wrote: »

That's probably because you read a lot of news concerning American and British athletes. The majority of athletes at the Europeans will work in KM, not miles, in terms of training. The Spanish, Russians, French, Italians, for example, all train using Kilometres. From what I read of Kenyans and Ethiopians, they are the same, always saying what pace they run per kilometre, not per mile. In fact, the vast majority of the running world deal in kilometres, it's just that in Ireland we consume so much media from the UK and US that miles seem to be more popular than they are. They'll die out eventually, but not any time soon.

Agreed. I wouldn't base the whole world around Letsrun. Christ, from reading that site you'd swear Galen Rupp was the second coming of Jesus Christ! Absolutely ridiculous hype over guys who will not medal in London (IMO) while no talk about all the brilliant athletes they have who WILL medal at the Games.

foxyboxer

Bannister et al didn't pre-occupy themselves with trying to break the "1.609344 kilometer" barrier.

It's a similar frustration to those of us who play golf. Yards vs Metres.

Being a 'yards' man, playing a course designated with Metres is a pain in the proverbial.

ecoli

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Agreed. I wouldn't base the whole world around Letsrun. Christ, from reading that site you'd swear Galen Rupp was the second coming of Jesus Christ! Absolutely ridiculous hype over guys who will not medal in London (IMO) while no talk about all the brilliant athletes they have who WILL medal at the Games.

Who said I was. Despite your reference to Oz races in Km you will find that most training talk still comes in terms of mileage:

http://forum.runnerstribe.com/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=8bb930f19e895c4246d48bbb082af7b3

Reading an article a while ago on Yuki Kawauchi translated from a Tokyo newspaper and he talked how race panned out and how he only made his move around the 20 mile mark (I suppose the translator could have making the conversions themselves)

or sources such as the Kenya Standard,Le Monde and Antonio Cabral are just some sources which sprang to mind.

So the assumption that my perception is derived only from lets run is not quite accurate. Though I take fiddy's point the fact that I am not multilingual does create bit of bias towards english speaking media (and odd bit of French)

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

The mile isn't that prestigious anymore. They rarely run them anymore. Certainly not to the same degree they did back in the 50s - 90s.

I agree that it is not as prestigious. Still a legendary distance and race.

I could be wrong but I bet if one was one to ask all the great men what distance they would like to have a WR in for their time, either the 1500 or the mile, most would select the mile.

walshb

foxyboxer wrote: »

Bannister et al didn't pre-occupy themselves with trying to break the "1.609344 kilometer" barrier.

It's a similar frustration to those of us who play golf. Yards vs Metres.

Being a 'yards' man, playing a course designated with Metres is a pain in the proverbial.

The golf example is brilliant. Even today I don't hear anyone using the word metres in relation to distances. I know there are metre and yard distances on courses, but I never ever hear folks/commentators/players speaking about metres.