BlazerRunner86
cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 2:34PM Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
How much does a cinder track affect the time of a runner?

If a runner runs 5:11 mile how much faster do you think he would be if he ran on an all-weather new track? What would the conversion be?
nameless
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 3:14PM - in reply to BlazerRunner86 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Depends on the condition of the cinder track. If it was a really good surface, just treated, maybe not so much. If it was a mediocre surface, all chewed up from races, maybe a few tenths per lap.

But, I also would say that the longer the race, the greater the differential would be. Kind of like how a strong wind wears people down in long races, whereas in a shorter race a guy can power through the wind with a less of a slowdown happening.
use a name
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 3:52PM - in reply to nameless Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about- i.e. talking out your a$$. "a few tenths"?????
marathondude
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 4:04PM - in reply to nameless Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I'd say about 1 second per lap, so four seconds total. Maybe closer to 6 seconds if the track isn't in great shape.
A victim of the times
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 4:48PM - in reply to marathondude Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
In Bob Schul's book "In the Long Run", he states the difference is 2 seconds/400m lap.
Off the Grid
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 8:22PM - in reply to marathondude Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
We used to calculate 1/lap if the cinders were in good condition, 2-3 if it was raining.
e.g. I won a HS invitational in '83 against several 9:2x guys. It was pouring, and lane 1-2 were flooded. I won in 9:57. In better conditions (or on a modern track) that could be considered ~9:30, the usual winning time for the meet.
Castalia
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 8:45PM - in reply to A victim of the times Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Does that mean Bob Hayes 10.05 Tokyo64 = 9.55 on Mondo?

A victim of the times wrote:

In Bob Schul's book "In the Long Run", he states the difference is 2 seconds/400m lap.
nameless
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 8:53PM - in reply to use a name Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I trained and raced on cinder tracks and on synthetic tracks and I'll stand by my statement.

A good cinder track if it's in proper shape can be pretty quick. Why would I say that? I had some of my fastest races on cinder tracks. I also ran on some very slow cinder tracks.

The idea that a cinder track would be 2 seconds slower than a synthetic track would only be remotely accurate if the runner was running in flats. But once you put on long spikes, the cinder track isn't so much off.

Still, I will say in longer races - those 3k and longer, the a signficant gap starts to open up, especially if the cinder track is in poor shape.

Please don't tell me that I'm talking out my @ss again. If I could really do that, I'd be a Hollywood star making millions and not having time for LetsRun patter.
use a name
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 9:41PM - in reply to nameless Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
nice opinion, but i'll say whatever i want to say based also on my personal experience. i also trained and raced on both cinder as well as synthetic tracks. i can tell you that it was a night and day transition. even more so, the mondo surfaces that are utilized these days are even light years above the original synthetic tracks that began to trickle in originally. my best season ever, i ran 4.03 three times on cinder (rolled hard packed and well maintained) and 3.58.8 on the old synthetic track (before it was moved) in berlin. believe that it is more than a few tenths. though, we will agree to disagree i am sure. i also ran 1.47.9 only 2 weeks later on a synthetic track in helsinki (also a significant pb). i had never been under 1.49 previously.
JRexxxing
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/5/2009 10:34PM - in reply to use a name Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
...I ran 1:41 and 3:45 for a mile in trainers on a cinder track....
Concretin runner
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/6/2009 6:49AM - in reply to JRexxxing Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Concrete is faster then both, but not as fast as grass.
nameless
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/6/2009 9:10AM - in reply to use a name Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I do believe that some runners benefit more on synthetic than others. I think that my stride happened to be well suited to dirt and I didn't pick up as much speed as some others did when we moved to synthetic. I suppose it's a bit like high winds, some people are less affected in windy conditions than others. I always believed that I would do relatively best in high winds, a dirt track, and about a 2 degree angle up hill. Maybe that's telling.
Squid
RE: cinder-track vs. all-weather track times 4/6/2009 1:29PM - in reply to nameless Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Simply too many variables at play to settle on a figure. Even the same well-maintained cinder track changes tremendously. What would have been a perfect cinder surface in May nearly as good as synthetic is often baked to a crisp by the end of a long hot summer.

Some cinders I have run on have been an absolute dream. But it's impossible to fix a set figure on the advantage gained by a good synthetic.