Is the UW Indoor track faster than the new UW outdoor track?

I'd expect the outdoor track to be notably faster, given that it doesn't look like there is much wind protection (meaning many of the sprints will likely be wind-aided).

Too bad, was hoping the new facility would rival Hayward Field - with all the money coming in, you'd think they'd commit enough to provide a top-notch facility.

indoor track is faster than most any outdoor track.

Watchout, you'll have to develop a speed rating for distance events held at this track. I would estimate that its slower by 1 second per lap compared to your average outdoor surface.

You Dubstep wrote:

Watchout, you'll have to develop a speed rating for distance events held at this track. I would estimate that its slower by 1 second per lap compared to your average outdoor surface.

A track is a track... any difference (in dimension) would not be significant enough to factor IMO (a 160m track would be bound to be slightly slower than a 400m track, but how much slower? an amount probably not worth considering).

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the opinion I've always held, and why I treat indoor times the same as outdoor times.

What im saying is that the surface is like running across a mattress. When you climb aboard for the first time you'll see what I mean. This track will mean the end of stress fractures for UW but workouts and races will be noticeably slower.

You Dubstep wrote:

What im saying is that the surface is like running across a mattress. When you climb aboard for the first time you'll see what I mean. This track will mean the end of stress fractures for UW but workouts and races will be noticeably slower.

Given the problems they've had keeping people healthy, can you really argue with that?

Ah, interesting... I'd have no idea how to quantify that. But if that's the case, then I hope the HS State meet doesn't get moved there eventually (Mt. Tahoma in Tacoma or McKenzie in Vancouver would be the two best options).

I feel like the speed of the track is not a significant issue. It is indeed a softer surface but after running on it for countless workouts and a race or two I wouldn't say it "slows you down". It sure isn't making anybody run faster but to say there is any measurable amount of difference is quite a stretch.. A track is a track after all. It's no Hayward field, but all in all its a great facility and can't complain with what we've got!

Actually, it has to do with malnutrition and coaching (IMHO)

Flowin wrote:

I feel like the speed of the track is not a significant issue. It is indeed a softer surface but after running on it for countless workouts and a race or two I wouldn't say it "slows you down". It sure isn't making anybody run faster but to say there is any measurable amount of difference is quite a stretch.. A track is a track after all. It's no Hayward field, but all in all its a great facility and can't complain with what we've got!

I'm glad this thread came back. I haven't heard any feedback about how the track has performed during the outdoor season.

It sounds like you're on the team and would know your workout paces well enough to know whether it's slow but that sensation of being *soft* tells you that, on paper, it has to be slower. That's just physics. The fastest tracks are a thin layer of mondo appliws over concrete while others are built-up out of softer layers and absorb more force from each stride. A soft track keeps you healthy but the hard track is the one you want to compete on. Unless it's a 10k.

Softest track I have ever run on, so I would say its indeed slow. The turn at the start of the 200 is noticeably softer than the rest of the track, too. But should probably help UW's injury prone athletes.

a coug runner wrote:

Softest track I have ever run on, so I would say its indeed slow. The turn at the start of the 200 is noticeably softer than the rest of the track, too. But should probably help UW's injury prone athletes.

That is strange it is softer in one particular area. They must have goofed when laying the track.

You Dubstep wrote:

That outdoor track is soft. Especially at a point 160m from the finish.

On a board dominated by distance runners UW is the University of Wisconsin, not U Dub, the University of Washington. It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about.

26mi235 wrote:

You Dubstep wrote:

That outdoor track is soft. Especially at a point 160m from the finish.

On a board dominated by distance runners UW is the University of Wisconsin, not U Dub, the University of Washington. It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about.

Touché. I've been living out west too long. I get OSU wrong too now. It's only Oregon State in the PNW.

How hard would it be for a common Seattleite to jump on the track and give it a try?

I heard from my coach that UW has to redo the entire surface of their new track.... such a waste of money!