Back on the gravel bike round the reservoir forest tracks, picking out some hills to go hard at (which isn't very fast with me) as part of my training for running - some high heart rate climbs without damaging my legs. Came out at 37k and 850m ascent.
Don't roll with a pig in poo. You get covered in poo and the pig likes it.
37K and 850m.
Haven't a clue what you are talking about Moley!
Visibility good except in Hill Fog
Miles and feet, please.
Luke Appleyard (Wharfedale)- quick on the dissent
Well I'd rather have the metric and save myself the bother of having to do the mental maths of converting it back to imperial! However, I do admit to liking beer in pint glasses...
Pete Shakespeare - U/A
Going downhill fast
Distance in miles. Pace in km
Climb in feet (of course)
It's strange (certainly in the groups that I mix with) how imperial distance measurement even in the younger age groups seems to be more prevalent with cyclists than runners. I guess I converted a long time ago - it just seems to make more sense when all mapping is in metres.
What I do find annoying though is when you enter a 10k and then they put out mile markers - is it only me?
Last edited by PeteS; 14-11-2022 at 02:53 PM.
Pete Shakespeare - U/A
Going downhill fast
It's what my garmin thing says and I can seldom be bothered to convert. Must admit I still can't relate properly to metric.
Don't roll with a pig in poo. You get covered in poo and the pig likes it.
Grab the next young person you see passing and they'll sort it in a jiffy. But make sure its not Chris the Crafty Cockney off the Fast Show, coz he'll nick anything!Originally Posted by molehill
Visibility good except in Hill Fog
If you look at the 2011 Calendar most races are shown to the nearest mile with a few to the half mile. Hardly any pretended any greater accuracy.
If you look at the 2012 (metric) Calendar most races are shown to the nearest tenth of a kilometer. Nonsense.
When the Calendar was metricated the FRA suggested that all RO remeasure their races but hardly anyone did
- they just divided the Calendar miles (which were not the same as statute miles) by 0.62, give or take - and the result is what we now have. Those that did remeasure, like Dave Parry, got a bit of a surprise and amended their race lengths accordingly.
One can argue that it's just fell running and doesn't really matter but given that 0.5k is only 500 meters, with a few short exceptions, I think race lengths to the nearest 0.5k is accurate enough.
Particularly for runners who like to go walkabout in races anyway.
Last edited by Graham Breeze; 14-11-2022 at 07:14 PM.
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
So was metrication was a waste of time and money?
Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote