You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Context
At present, a 2 km segment with a 4:45 record pace would be ranked higher than a 500 meter segment with a 4:30 record pace. In this case, however, for most athletes the second one would be easier to beat. Searching for "compare different times running distances" and "equivalent running performance" shows this is a common concept in running.
Suggestion
Introduce a new feature that scales the segments shown as easiest to beat based on both their average pace as well as their distance. This will allow people to easier find a segment that they can actually beat.
Implementation
A cursory search for a formula that implements this, lead me towards this one: t2 = t1 × (d2 / d1)^1.06. But of course, if there is another easier or better formula, that would be fine as well
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think the other factor in this is to use GAP instead of actual pace. If you live in a hilly area (especially on trails), all the "easiest" segments are on trails that are basically power hiking for most people but the top ranked times are from absolute elite athletes.
Context
At present, a 2 km segment with a 4:45 record pace would be ranked higher than a 500 meter segment with a 4:30 record pace. In this case, however, for most athletes the second one would be easier to beat. Searching for "compare different times running distances" and "equivalent running performance" shows this is a common concept in running.
Suggestion
Introduce a new feature that scales the segments shown as easiest to beat based on both their average pace as well as their distance. This will allow people to easier find a segment that they can actually beat.
Implementation
A cursory search for a formula that implements this, lead me towards this one: t2 = t1 × (d2 / d1)^1.06. But of course, if there is another easier or better formula, that would be fine as well
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: