Skip to content
PaceSplit

Race Time Predictor

Predict your finish time at any race distance from a recent result. Uses the Riegel and Cameron formulas plus a VDOT fitness score.

Known Race Distance
Known Race Time
Prediction Model
1.06

1.06 is the standard exponent for trained runners. Lower (1.04–1.05) for elites; higher (1.08–1.12) for beginners.

Estimated VDOT

38.3

fitness score

Riegel prediction

3:59:46

5:40 /km · 9:08 /mi

Predicted Race Times
Predicted Race Times
DistanceRiegelPace /kmPace /mi
5K0:25:005:008:02
10K0:52:075:128:23
15K1:20:065:208:35
10 Mile1:26:185:218:37
Half Marathon1:55:005:278:46
Marathon3:59:465:409:08

Riegel predictions use a fatigue factor of 1.06.

Predict your finish time at any race distance from a recent result. The predictor pairs the standard Riegel formula (F5), with its customisable fatigue factor, against the Cameron model (F6), which adjusts for distance-specific endurance. Enter a recent race — a 5K, 10K, half, or marathon — and you'll see predicted times for every standard distance, a Daniels VDOT fitness index (F7), and the pace per km and per mile for each projection. Below the calculator you'll find the mathematics behind both models, their divergence patterns, what a realistic fatigue factor looks like for your training level, and the accuracy boundaries of race prediction in general.

T2 = T1 × (D2 ÷ D1)^k    ·    Riegel k=1.06    ·    Cameron uses a distance-adjusted coefficient
T1
= Known race time (e.g., recent 5K result)
D1
= Known race distance in kilometres
T2
= Predicted race time at the target distance
D2
= Target race distance in kilometres
k
= Fatigue exponent — 1.06 (Riegel); 1.04–1.08 range depending on endurance profile
VDOT
= Daniels running fitness index derived from F7 using T1 and D1

Worked example — 25:00 5K → marathon prediction

  1. T1 = 25.000 min D1 = 5.0 km D2 = 42.195 km
  2. ratio = 42.195 ÷ 5.0 = 8.439
  3. ratio^1.06 = 8.439^1.06 = 9.318
  4. T2_riegel = 25.000 × 9.318 = 232.95 min → 3:52:57
  5. T2_cameron = 25.000 × 9.022 = 225.55 min → 3:45:33 (coefficient ~0.968 of Riegel at this ratio)
  6. VDOT (F7) ≈ 45.2
  7. = Marathon prediction 3:45:33 (Cameron) ↔ 3:52:57 (Riegel) — VDOT 45.2

Riegel (F5) and Cameron (F6) agree closely at 10K → half; they diverge most sharply when predicting marathon from a 5K or predicting 5K from a marathon, because the exponent k is a single value for Riegel but distance-aware for Cameron. Both assume consistent training, a similar course profile, and a similar effort level between anchor and target.

Riegel-equivalent finish times across distances, anchored on 5K. Source: F5 with k=1.06.
5K10K15K10 miHalfMarathon
16:0033:1850:5654:481:13:222:34:22
18:0037:2957:171:01:391:22:322:53:39
20:0041:391:03:391:08:301:31:423:12:55
22:0045:491:10:011:15:211:40:523:32:12
25:0052:041:19:341:25:381:54:374:01:07
28:0058:191:29:071:35:542:08:234:30:01
30:001:02:291:35:291:42:462:17:334:49:18
33:001:08:441:45:021:53:022:31:185:18:12
36:001:14:591:54:352:03:192:45:045:47:06
40:001:23:192:07:182:16:553:03:256:25:44
Predictions assume consistent training and similar race-day conditions. Longer extrapolations carry more uncertainty.

Riegel vs. Cameron: When They Diverge

Riegel (1977)

  • Single fatigue exponent k = 1.06 across all distance ratios
  • Simple, widely adopted, easy to sanity-check by hand
  • Closest to reality for jumps of 1.5×–3× the anchor distance
  • Tends to overpredict marathon time from a short-distance race
  • Tends to underpredict 5K from a marathon result

The workhorse — trust it in the 10K→half and half→marathon windows

Cameron (1998)

  • Distance-aware coefficient; the effective exponent shifts with event length
  • Historically tuned on elite road data; middle distances most accurate
  • Matches Riegel closely inside the 10K–half band
  • Predicts faster marathon times from short efforts than Riegel does
  • Softens the penalty when extrapolating well beyond the anchor

Use as a second opinion — most valuable when extrapolating marathon from 5K

What k means, by runner profile

Elite / highly trained

1.04–1.06

High lactate threshold fraction, well-developed aerobic base; small penalty going long

Experienced recreational

1.05–1.07

Consistent weekly mileage with at least one long run each week

Riegel default

1.06

The canonical 1977 value; a sensible starting point for most adults

Newer runner with a short base

1.08–1.12

Moderate weekly mileage, limited long runs; larger fall-off with distance

Beginner / couch-to-5K graduate

1.10–1.15

Aerobic engine still developing — half and marathon predictions will likely be optimistic

Understanding Your VDOT Score

What VDOT is

Daniels' pseudo-VO2 max index — a single number that captures current running fitness. Derived from a recent race result rather than a lab test. Scale runs from about 30 (new runner) to 85 (elite).

How to use it

VDOT feeds directly into training paces — Easy, Marathon, Threshold, Interval, Repetition. Pair this predictor with the Training Pace Calculator to translate the same VDOT into daily run targets.

Its limitations

VDOT assumes you've raced close to your current fitness ceiling — use a hard, recent effort rather than a tempo run. It also doesn't account for heat, altitude, or course elevation; adjust expectations on race day accordingly.

Typical prediction error bands between anchor and target distances, based on Riegel. Source: F5 + long-run literature synthesis.
Anchor → TargetTypical accuracyNotes
5K → 10K±2%Most reliable short jump; similar energy system
10K → 15K±3%Close to threshold on both ends; still tight
5K → half±4–6%Endurance starts to matter; Cameron narrows error
10K → half±3–5%Canonical jump — both models perform well
5K → marathon±8–12%Highest-error jump; long-run volume becomes decisive
10K → marathon±5–8%Assumes a 2+ month marathon build with weekly long runs
half → marathon±3–5%Most accurate marathon prediction if fuelling is dialled in
marathon → 5K±5–7%Reverse direction underpredicts speed — top-end not trained
Error bands assume consistent training, a flat-ish course, and reasonable race conditions. Heat, altitude, and untapered efforts all widen the bands.

Explore More Running Tools

Sources

  1. 1.Athletic records and the fatigue factor (F5) — Riegel, P. S. — American Scientist, 69(3), 285–290, 1981 (accessed 2026-04-21)
  2. 2.Cameron Model for race time prediction (F6) — Cameron, D. F. — CRS Performance Tables, 1998 (accessed 2026-04-21)
  3. 3.Daniels' Running Formula, 4th ed. — VDOT tables (F7) — Daniels, J. (Human Kinetics), 2013 (accessed 2026-04-21)
  4. 4.World Athletics current world records — World Athletics (accessed 2026-04-21)