Running Time Prediction Calculator

Here is a way - or rather a number of ways - to calculate it. Just enter two distances and the time you think you are able to run them, and your time needed to finish a third distance will be calculated.

Distance 1 (in m): 

Time for distance 1 (hh:mm:ss,100sec): : : ,

Distance 2 (in m): 

Time for Distance 2 (hh:mm:ss,100sec): : : ,

Distance 3 (in m): 
Another calculation method is based on the value of VO2max. VO2max is the maximum rate at which someone can use O2. Leave it "0" if you don't know it:

Result time for distance 3 (hh:mm:ss,100sec): : : ,

See for an explanation of the method of this calculation.

There's some more methods to calculate one time/distance pair from another, as is explained here:
Following Pete Riegel's method from this site and your first time/distance pair, your time to finish the third distance would be:
: : ,
And using the second pair:
: : ,

Riegel does not distinguish between sprinters and endurance runners. Whoever two people having the same 10 km time would finish all distances with the same time. This is why he only needs one time/distance pair for his calculation. If you want to distinguish between sprinters and endurance runners, you need at least two pairs. Then you can calculate the exponent(see link above), which Riegel fixed to 1.06. In this case the result will be between the two results given by Riegel, if distance 3 is between distance 1 and distance 2 and will else be more extreme:
:: ,

Dave Cameron tries to predict finishing times for everyone from top athletes performance properties. His method as well does not distinguish sprinters and endurance runners:
Based on time and distance 1:
:: ,
And based on time and distance 2:
:: ,

Concerning the method that is based on VO2max, it will enter the prediction calculation, if you've entered anything but 0 in the corresponding field above. If you gave a zero, it will be calculated from the two time/distance pairs.
With your given value for VO2max OR with time/distance pair 1:
:: ,
An based on time/distance pair 2:
:: ,

These are quite a few predictions. Which one is right? Probably it's safe to say that if they all lie close by, you can trust every one, but if they give largely different results, it's better to trust none. After all, it's not only the calculation methods that could be bad, but also the quality of the data. If your two time/distance pairs stem from different times or are both outdated, or you've run them with very different physical state of day, the prediction method cannot fix that problem. And after all: trying to predict times for distances which you never do in training almost has to fail.