Martin Howell led the way with an excellent pb of 19:01 (tho he'll be a bit disappointed the official time didn't match his watch time of sub-19!) finishing in 20th position. John McBride was next home with a time of 21:42 in 68th place with Richard Lawton not far behind in 22:18 and 81st place. Stuart Waugh was pacing grandson Lewis Moir round, ...Lewis out sprinted grandad at the end to finish in an excellent pb of 23:15 in 102nd place (need to relook at the results but can't imagine anybody of his own age beat him!). Stuart wasn't far behind, finishing in 23:26 in 107th place. Next home was Hugh Simpson in 24:10 in 130th place. Russell Couper was still feeling the effects of his cold finished in 27:17 in 208th place. Apologies there are no photos of John or Hugh but didn't spot you without your vest on!
Thanks to Alison for the report 
5 comments:
Great runs from all but Martin in particular, just need to get right onto the start line next time to find those two seconds.
Davie - there seems to be phenomenon with these watches that I can't work out for the life of me. On Saturday it told me I had run for 18.57 and then when I got home and read all of the down loaded data it showed an "elapsed" time of 19.04. Where did those 7 seconds go - I never stopped the watch at any point. Could it be when the GPS loses connectivity - who knows..........
Martin, I think it is something to do with the fairly low spec processor they have to use to keep cost and power consumption down. It struggles with multi-tasking to operate the GPS, the timer, the heart rate monitor if used, write all that data in memory and up date the display screen in real time. It probably gives the on screen display update lowest priority but the data that are stored in memory are absolutely accurate. Its a compromise we have to live with to have so much technology squeezed into an affordable watch. The top of the range Garmins are better in this respect.
Alan
Martin, I think it is something to do with the fairly low spec processor they have to use to keep cost and power consumption down. It struggles with multi-tasking to operate the GPS, the timer, the heart rate monitor if used, write all that data in memory and up date the display screen in real time. It probably gives the on screen display update lowest priority but the data that are stored in memory are absolutely accurate. Its a compromise we have to live with to have so much technology squeezed into an affordable watch. The top of the range Garmins are better in this respect.
Alan
Thanks for that explanation Alan, you're probably not far from the reality of the situation. I was reading the Garmin forums and to be quite honest it was like trying to understand double Dutch. Mine is a Forerunner 620 - quite high end with tons of features.
Post a Comment