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?
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?
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.
you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about- i.e. talking out your a$$. "a few tenths"?????
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.
In Bob Schul's book "In the Long Run", he states the difference is 2 seconds/400m lap.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...I ran 1:41 and 3:45 for a mile in trainers on a cinder track....
Concrete is faster then both, but not as fast as grass.
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.
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.
I took a golf ball and bounced it on an a synthetic track and it gives back; cinder track doesn't...Also, roll a ball on both tracks and see on which it goes further...
There's an article from Harvard University that found times to be 3% faster on modern tracks...
It's much less resistance on steroid tracks!
What about concrete?
What about rubber?
Back in HS ('93-96) our track was an old concrete/asphalt monster...if you fell in lane one you were getting scabbed up. Did a 20 x 400 on that thing...lots of pounding. My jr year they resurfaced to a synthetic chopped up rubber surface. We had meets at some schools with grass growing through cracks across the lanes. The only time I ran on a mondo surface was at the state meet. There was a cinder track on the grounds of a local college. Not at all well maintained. In parts it was heaven. But over time it wore on you.
I miss the scratching sound of spikes digging across concrete.
Alan
Hey guys look a semi pro we havent scared away yet
marathondude wrote:
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.
I competed mainly on cinder in high school. Tracks started to go to all weather about 2 years after I got out.
They used to say 0.5 per lap. Then, tracks started getting faster- now I've heard 1 second per lap.
If that's true I would have been a sub 50/1:57 guy in high school.
I've been doing long interval workouts on both cinders and rubber this spring. . We've been aiming for 5:20 pace.
On rubber, it's been spot on
On the wet cinders with a headwind, 5:20 feels like 5:10 or faster. It's an old track and I suspect it's a 440 so that adds to it as well.
Nobody has ever broken 5 on my highschool track (cinder)
1.5% for a well maintained cinder track