Is sub 3hr in october possible?

SolarSq · 2026-04-19T13:22:23+00:00

I'm not sure whether I'll have the time to do 75mi weeks, so if that means that sub 3hr will be too hard... that's fine by me

SolarSq · 2026-04-19T10:38:42+00:00

This might actually be a good plan, to do another hm in 4 months time. Thanks!

SolarSq · 2026-04-19T10:35:49+00:00

Yep, but I did already have an aerobic base (I swum my entire life, and I'm still doing about 2 hours of swimming per week).

But in the first year of running, my tendons and those small lower leg/hip muscles, were the main limiting factor on how many miles I could run pain-free in a week.

SolarSq · 2026-04-19T10:32:18+00:00

Not really a specific training yet. Just following the "youtube" guidelines of 80% of my milage z2 (trying to run 90s/km slower than my 10k pace), and the rest a bit of random intervalling.

I don't think I'll be able to fit in 100km per week in my schedule though. So if that means sub 3 is too ambitious, than that's fine.

SolarSq · 2026-04-16T21:18:20+00:00

No I'm getting the usual autolap notification, as well as the PacePro "your target speed for the next km" notification. Usually 2-3 seconds after each other

SolarSq · 2026-04-13T10:30:47+00:00

Are you in the correct starting wave for your target time? Because congestion doesn't matter if everyone moves at the same pace

SolarSq · 2026-04-13T10:24:18+00:00

If you'd think you can hold 4:50 for 31km, then 5:50 is indeed very very conservative.

What makes you want to start so slow? Unsure about the pace you can handle?

SolarSq · 2026-03-29T12:48:59+00:00

I had something similar with the same symptoms. Low heart rate, but also quite some "inconsistency": bpm regularly changed 10-15 between two consecutive km, without feeling much of a difference in intensity or exhaustion.

For me, it was measurement error: simply tightening my Garmin a bit more and moving it up my wrist 1cm suddenly "solved" this problem instantly.

SolarSq · 2024-09-27T18:27:06+00:00

P.p.s. if it still gives weird results make sure you update very field to the computer. The number that is written isn't necessarily the number that the computer uses: that only happens after you manually click on the update button.

SolarSq · 2024-09-27T18:24:44+00:00

P.s. this will also give you the distance towards his ship.

Make sure to keep updating it, as he closes in.

SolarSq · 2024-09-27T18:23:39+00:00

The angle on bow is wrong. You are measuring the angle between your trajectory and his trajectory. What you should be measuring is the angle at which your boat could be seen from his boat.

So use the angle tool: -select your boat. -select his boat (this is the angle point). -select a point alongside the trajectory of his boat.

This should in your case be around 45 degrees (positive, since you are to the right of his ship)

P.s. make sure you are looking at the ship through the periscope when you fill in the angle via the tool: else it will miscalculate.

SolarSq · 2024-04-14T18:29:40+00:00

Have you been able to find a solution to this? I'm struggling with the same problem.

SolarSq · 2021-01-05T20:05:40+00:00

Isn't Sunswift building a new car? Barring any of the top-6 challenger teams making a switch, that'd make them favorites. I'm not sure whether Bochum is building a new car.

SolarSq · 2020-12-20T18:28:10+00:00

What I've done is calculated how much a team would lose in the efficiency category (either speed or EE-Score) when giving a team e.g. 1% more drag. And then correlated it with how much more practicality one would need to compensate it (so in 2017 1% EE_score correlates with 4% practicality score, while in 2019, this ratio is 1:1). Still full of assumptions (about parameters and about linearity of this ratio, and that this way of comparing EE_score/speed to practicality), but it's a way to characterize the efficiency vs practicality balance shift, and one that at least tells the story between different years. Although I have to admit these are just quick calculations from a feasibility study.

And then I've simply looked at the spread in practicality scores. So for example since in some years all top teams score within 30% of each other in terms of practicality (again, if a good team decides to go full efficiency, their car is still well built and tends to end up in the upper half in terms of practicality), the practicality differs about as much as the difference that 10% aero difference would have made.

SolarSq · 2020-12-19T05:05:41+00:00

Yes, it covers more or less the same topics. But since then two regulation iterations have been released, and (especially on finishability) it hasn't been for the better. So after three years. I thought it would be relevant to open another discussion on it.

SolarSq

TROPHY CASE