Time gradient against 500m split

webberg · Post by **webberg** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:20 pm

ALL, The table below shows the performance gradient of my times over the various distances I have done so far.

For me (a confirmed non sprinter - too short and too light), the gradient is odd because it shows that my 500 splits over 1k and 2k are actually less than a straight 500.

Equally my 6k split is strong against my 5k.

This demonstrates that I cannot sprint but that I should be able to reduce my 500 time by a lot (I reckon at least 12 secs). Equally my 60 min distance is weak against the 10k and HM gradient.

I've done this by calculating for each distance the 500 split time and then determining this value as a percentage against the 500 split.

500m = 100% = 121secs

1000 = 96.69% (of 121 secs)

2000 = 97.93%

5000 = 102.73%

6000 = 102.48%

30 mins = 103.91%

10000 = 105.74%

60 mins = 106.7%

HM = 109.6%

I'm sure one of the IT whizz kids out there can convert this to a chart.

OK, I've shown you mine so will you show me yours?

Perhaps we could see something like this for all of us as an addition to the metre board? Might add to the motivation a bit?

alistairkbs · Post by **alistairkbs** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:08 pm

Webberg

We have similar times but my 500 PB is now 1.47.5. The rest all line up reasonably as you describe. Ill add later the detail but your 500 is the one that is way out at present.

I hate sprinting too but have to go home now and do 8 x 500 as per Pete Plan.

Alistair

Stan · Post by **Stan** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:56 pm

Interesting exercise Graham. Here are my figures.

500m =100%
1000m=111.39%
2000m=117.83%
5000m=122.16%
6000m=124.57%
30min=124.22%
10000m=125.99%
1hour=126.92%
HM=129.3%
FM=144.93%

It definitely shows your 500m is way out of line. Shows my relatively weak 6k which I have only ever done once - slower than my 30min splits. I hope to do something about this later this week when I do Jessicas joining journey.
Also shows my marathon time is weak which again I hope to do something about in October.

BigWaveDave · Post by **BigWaveDave** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:46 pm

Very interesting exercise, looks like my 500m time is well out of line considering the close range of the others - need to do a bit better on the hour distance

500m 100.00% - 1:39.0
1000m 109.29%
2000m 110.81%
5000m 118.08%
6000m 120.51%
10000m 120.61%
21097m 124.85%
30mins 120.40%
60mins 123.33%

alistairkbs · Post by **alistairkbs** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:23 pm

Just to flesh out the detail

500 100
1000 106.70
2000 111.07
5000 114.98
6000 116.00
30 mins 117.12
10000 117.58
60 mins 119.35
1/2 marathon 121.86

The 30 mins is due for an overhaul and so is the 2K. I just dont row 2k often (maybe not often enough!). 6K not great either

8 x 500 done at 1.53.0 - an improvement of nearly 1 second on previous set 3 weeks ago

Alistair

Post by **Thomas W-P** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:28 pm

I am so techy, it is sad really.

Code: Select all

m	%
500	100.00%
1,000	111.95%
2,000	114.99%
5,000	128.04%
6,000	128.85%
30 mins	128.26%
10,000	130.29%
60 mins	132.14%
HM (21097)	135.91%

Pasted from the all new performance gradient calculator! (It doesn't do graphs yet).

Later: hmmmmm, it seems you need a google account to see it. Never mind.

Mike Channin · Post by **Mike Channin** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:39 pm

You're so SAD, it's sad really

Mike Channin · Post by **Mike Channin** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:58 pm

Ok, for what it's worth, here are mine from my current SPBs (and not what's in the sig. as that needs updating)..

Distance Time Split % 500m % 2k
500 01:27.7 01:27.7 100% 85%
1000 03:17.0 01:38.5 112% 96%
2000 06:51.8 01:43.0 117% 100%
5000 17:48.9 01:46.9 122% 104%
6000 21:46.7 01:48.9 124% 106%
8065 30:00.0 01:51.6 127% 108%
10000 37:05.7 01:51.3 127% 108%
16005 1:00:00.0 01:52.5 128% 109%
21097 1:22:39.4 01:57.5 134% 114%
42195 3:01:01.5 02:08.7 147% 125%

Couple of points I'd make.

1. The 500m is probably a BAD time to base everything else off, because it is prone to anomalous results for a large percentage of individuals. It is possible to be either very good or very bad at 500m without it really reflecting the rest of your rowing times. A better benchmark is the 2k, as this is THE race distance, and also (theoretically) one of the better indicators of your overall rowing ability.

2. Fit Lwts will tend to show much less variation over the range of distances than big, strong but not necessarily fit heavyweights.

3. Split times themselves are a bit misleading, because the distances between splits are not even when you consider the actual power (in Watts) required to get them. The relationship is cubic, and the power in Watts required goes up rapidly as the splits come down. A better overall measure is the Power in Watts required for each time.

4. I believe there is a spreadsheet somewhere which plots Wattage for each distance against the log of the distance for an Olympic rower, and the chart gives pretty much a perfect straight line. I have a 'magic' spreadsheet which is a variation on this idea, but even after 2 years tweaking, it is far from perfect.

An interesting exercise all the same though!

(Oh, and that table above looks great until the forum software rips out all the formatting.

)

webberg · Post by **webberg** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:40 am

So what have i got wrong here?

My split at 5k is 1243 secs/10 = 124.3.
My 500 time is 121 + change

Therefore I think the calc is right.

All you guys have splits over 115% at that distance and mine is much less.

I suppose I interpret this as having a really bad 500 time and I should do something about it?

If I track down the scores for our "high" performers and post them is this acceptable or should I let them do this?

Mike Channin · Post by **Mike Channin** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:37 am

Graham, your calculations are fine.

The point I am making is that expressing performance at all distances RELATIVE to anyone's 500m time is prone to issues because the 500m distance itself tends to produce unusual results.

What I suggested was taking the RELATIVE percentages from the 2k time instead as this is a distance that nearly everyone will have done flat out, and is a better distance to represent rowing performance. My last column of figures shows the other distances RELATIVE to my (current SPB) 2k time.

(Actually, in my case, the 2k time used is itself a weak time at the moment, which makes all my other times look relatively good, but once I do a proper 2k this should go away)

Does this all make sense now, Graham? Did I explain it any clearer this time?

webberg · Post by **webberg** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:03 am

Mike, that's fine.

In October when the ELM board clears a bit I'll post a challenge for the smallest differential between 2k time and say 5k time.

Based on your numbers this should be around 4% so it will have to be done to 2 or 3 decimal places.

johnglynn · Post by **johnglynn** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:38 pm

I'm a sucker for all this pace based comparsion stuff

I'd be very much a sprinter with my 500m then 1K been my top Nonatlon times

500m =100%
1000m=110.20%
2000m=117.83%
5000m=127.02%
6000m=128.81%
30min=130.85%
10000m=130.70%
1hour=134.94%
HM=136.40%

I've a spreadsheet that works well on longer distances
http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/conten ... r%20V2.xls

I'm going to do a write up on it soon

johnglynn · Post by **johnglynn** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:39 am

webberg wrote:If I track down the scores for our "high" performers and post them is this acceptable or should I let them do this?

I don't see why not

Post by **Thomas W-P** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:51 am

webberg wrote:If I track down the scores for our "high" performers and post them is this acceptable or should I let them do this?

Go for it. I think it would be really interesting. All we need really is Jonathan to create an all singing all dancing grapher that picked times from our log books and we'll be away!

webberg · Post by **webberg** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:07 am

OK.

Things are a trifle busy here at the moment so I'll get on to this as soon as I can.

Following Mike's suggestion and with BIRC coming up, I'll use the 2k time as a base.

In the meantime if anybody out there DOES NOT wish to have their times over the ranking distances displayed then let me know.

I'll ask Mr Lemon what he can do but I suspect that it will be limited to those of us who share our logbooks.

Otherwise keep your eyes open.