Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[abdominizer]

We did have a long discussion about the pace and pace1K a time ago. GPS accuracy is limiting the pace-calculation. If you want to have the pace more sensitive, the reliability will be not good. I think the solution could be a foot pod, but not to have other algorythms for GPS because you canīt use them. The pace value will jump in a big range.
Regards

Longjog

If for example three standard settings for pace averaging is implemented its up to the individual user to decide if they are usable or not. When running a fartlek or intervals I would rather have a pace value jumping a bit than the pace that is in the watch now, which is useless unless you keep a constant pace. (With a constant pace I could just as well use the average pace function to se how fast I'm running, or just do the match in my head based on the lap splits.)

Regards,
Jonas

[TWG_TECH8]

A new "short pace" or maybe "pace 60 seconds" which uses a shorter time for averaging. I know this will create a pace that jumps more up and down but it will be very useful for pacing in intervals and speedplay!

Sincerely,
Jonas

Hi Jonas,
this short time will create such a big error, that Pace-Values will jump in such big steps you canīt use it.
To have reliable values you will need a distance for calculation around 600 meters. If you can run as fast, no problem.
You can make a test yourself: the speed is 1/pace. Take your bike and drive at a low speed of 10 km/h (=6 min/km Pace) and watch the speed in display. It is jumping in a relative big range. Than drive 20 km/h. Range is getting smaller.
Result:
You canīt use GPS-signals for sensitive pace-calculation at running-speeds.
Solution for this could be a foot-pod.
Regards
Longjog

Maybe GH-505 pace-alogrithm still has problem. Next week our team and I will do field test to find out the problem.

Sincerely,
Geoffrey

[zingo]

Next week our team and I will do field test to find out the problem.

Must be a nice view when you all will be running like mad people around in TW

[Longjog @ GS-Sport-Servicecenter]

Maybe GH-505 pace-alogrithm still has problem.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey

Why do you think so? I do not, if GPS-Problem will be solved, pace will be improved also.

@ Jonas: Have you tested Lap Pace for interval training?
It is the real pace over the actual lap distance and lap time. A pace smoothed over the time of 1, 2 or 3 minutes (with parts of recover-times between the fast running parts) canīt be more correct than this. The longer the lap distance is, the more exactly (less jumping) will the Lap Pace be.

Regards

Longjog

[TWG_TECH8]

Why do you think so? I do not, if GPS-Problem will be solved, pace will be improved also.

I hope it is the real reason, but I just feel there might has hidden reason.


Sincerely,

Geoffrey

[Longjog @ GS-Sport-Servicecenter]

I hope it is the real reason, but I just feel there might has hidden reason.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey

Dear Geoffrey,

PACE works fine actually. I donīt understand why you think it does not. "The others" only are looking for a pace which is more sensitive when changing running speed. But the problem is still and ever sensivity versus accuracy.

And itīs also clear, that PACE is shown to fast, when distance which is measured by watch is longer than in real.
The to long distance comes from the snakeline instead of a straight trackline. But this topic is "GPS-accuracy" and accordingly "different distances GH-505/GH-625". I will write some more in the distance-topic.

Regards

Longjog

[abdominizer]

@ Jonas: Have you tested Lap Pace for interval training?
It is the real pace over the actual lap distance and lap time. A pace smoothed over the time of 1, 2 or 3 minutes (with parts of recover-times between the fast running parts) canīt be more correct than this. The longer the lap distance is, the more exactly (less jumping) will the Lap Pace be.

Regards

Longjog

Longjog,
I just recently thought about using lap pace and I have tested it during two interval workouts during the last week! As you say It works better with longer intervals, but I think its useful even running 400m intervals at around 65 seconds.

I guess you could use lap pace when running a continous speedplay (fartlek) also, so there would be no real reason to implement different smoothing algorithms. I'm fine with using lap pace for now!

Sincerely,
Jonas

[AndersBrontosaurus]

Hello!
This is a very interesting thread. I wonder which impact Sirf-IV has on it with its higher sensitivity. (I know the question doesn't really belong in gh-505thread so we could open up a similar topic in 625xt if someone else than me is interested.)

BR
Anders