Is it planned that this should take a total of 3960 seconds (66 minutes) to complete this loop?
No - read the loop conditions.
Ah, now I see it... But it makes no sense to use the "for" loop then.
This would do the same, but not confuse as much. When I see a loop, I expect it to do some looping, not only do what is inside once then move on.
pos = 180;
Or maybe make it even shorter and just say.
Because the "pos" is set to 180 in the next loop anyways.