Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does this race equivalency calculator look right?

  • 31-03-2025 04:19PM
    #1
    Supercell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,641 ✭✭✭✭


    I was looking at https://sporttracks.mobi/labs/race-finish-time-predictor today and was interested to see how the Dublin Half times might predict a full marathon.

    So for example the winner in the M55-59 category had a chip time of 1:22:42 which translates to a full of 3:01. I'd of thought it would be lower than that but what do I know, are these realistic? Just curious what super humans can do in my, soon to be, age group mainly!

    image.png
    https://www.loughlinstown.ie/

    Have a weather station?, why not join the Ireland Weather Network - http://irelandweather.eu/



Comments

  • #2
    Trampas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,210 ✭✭✭Trampas


    1:22 half id expect mid 2:50’s depending on the course but easily under 3 hours on a normal marathon course



  • #3
    crisco10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,338 ✭✭✭crisco10


    My PBs are all from last 6 months and in that range:

    5k: 17:51 (at Jingle Bells, not sure that counts!)

    10k: 36:51

    10M: 1:01

    Half: 1:21

    Full: 2:56

    so table generally looks similar, bar the 5k times.



  • #4
    Itziger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,052 ✭✭✭Itziger


    Agree, that the Half to Full is off. Nobody who runs a 1.22.** would be happy with anything other than a sub 3. The old H*2+10=Full doesn't work for everyone but I prefer it to the one above. My pbs are incredibly similar to Crisco's and my Full I would consider my weak point at 2.57.



  • #5
    Murph_D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,763 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    Well it does say there’s an assumption of slower longer distances - so it’s allowing a ‘fade’ like some calculators do. In that sense it’s probably pretty accurate for many runners, but maybe less so at the sub-3 level. Twice HM plus 14 mins is my own mid pack standard (1:33 HM, 3:20 M).



  • #6
    brick tamland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,564 ✭✭✭brick tamland


    Just noticed that Strava have added a projected race times based on your training/milage. Not sure how long it's been there



  • Advertisement
  • #7
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,997 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    One thing I find about race calculators is that they rarely qualify/contextualize what type of race they're considering. There's a huge difference between someone specifically targetting a half-marathon and dedicating a training block to it and only it versus someone running a half-marathon 10/12 weeks into an 18 week marathon training block. The latter is what a large proportion of amateur runners do, but most race calculators appear to assume the former.

    If you dedicated an entire training block to a half marathon and ran 1:22, I think 3:01 is a realistic (maybe slightly conservative) marathon equivalent. If you ran 1:22 mid-training block 6 or 8 weeks out from a marathon, I'd expect you to easily go sub-3, and possibly targetting sub-2:50.

    The last time I set a marathon PB, it was only 60 seconds slower than my HM time doubled, which I had run 5 weeks previously.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #8
    Trampas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,210 ✭✭✭Trampas


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123383840#Comment_123383840

    I just checked mine and it be close enough. 7 seconds faster than 5k last week in Kilkenny and I’d be hoping for a few seconds faster in Johnstown bridge. 10k around what I’d expect along with half. Full no idea as none done a run over low 20k since finishing marathon in Valencia. It’s close enough to what Garmin has predicted also. I always wear a chest strap for every run



  • #9
    witnessmenow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,341 ✭✭✭witnessmenow


    Strava one seems relatively realistic for me at least and seems to be correctly adapting to the fact that apparently I'm worse at marathons than my shorter races pace suggest according to race pace equivalent calculators

    IMG_20250425_060057_347.jpg

    5k: haven't raced one in a long time, my current "PB" is 24:30 in a 8k last summer so probably realistic

    10k: raced one in December 50:36, didn't have ideal prep but generally went pretty decent so their guess seems accurate.

    Half: Last one I raced was last summer 1:59. Didn't go to plan, in different circumstances I felt I could do better. I think I'd be aiming for sub 1:55 if doing a half , not sure if I'd end up at Strava time, but maybe

    Full: I'll let you know next week, but it's close to what I was thinking. Current PB is 4:45, At least some race equivalent charts give me a sub 4 if I put in my 10k pb.

    Edit: although the one from the op is pretty similar to the Strava times if I put in my 10k pb. I've definitely seen ones before that were way more ambitious



Advertisement