If tracks could vary in slope, could you make one faster than a flat one?

The way to make it faster would be the opposite of your idea. You want to have as much distance as possible at a negative slope.

Also, climbing 20ft in 100m is a pretty significant hill.

My dream is to build a private linear track up to 1 mile (or maybe up to 10k). No turns. This would be the best way to set PRs. Add a little tailwind and small downslope, and you would be flying.

I'd make an M C Escher inspired oval that went continuously downhill. My new PR would rock.

It's called cross country and it depends because hills can help break up your rhythm and keep you legs fresher but the downhills help a lot less than the uphills hurt too.

Hey well if you guys figure it out, let me know. I have a pair of Heelies that still fit that could bring me to a new PR!

For a 400 m race the first 20 meters should be uphill and the rest downhill.

Has to be 400 and shaped like a standard track. Only change can be in the slope.

I'm now leaning toward 10ft incline for 100 m, flat for 200m, downhill for 100. Again, I think this would help me in the 400 and maybe 800. Not so sure about anything over that.

The first 40 meters at a 37 degree angle then the rest downhill at a constant rate.

A steep 4 foot deep valley every 3 feet.

The actual length of the track would still be 400 meters, but you would stride along on top of the peaks so you would only have to run like 80 meters.

uppers and downers wrote:

For a 400 m race the first 20 meters should be uphill and the rest downhill.

Completely wasting your drive phase won't help your 400 at all.

The best thing to do is put a steep hill at the end. Suppose your 20m hill costs a runner about 10% of their speed. At the end of the track, that's 10% of a fast flying 20m interval, which is less time lost than 10% of a 20m interval at the start. Besides which, the 10% you lose at the start continues to affect your speed well beyond that first 20m - at 30m and 40m you're still going slower than you otherwise would have.

This is similar to a question I posed last year about whether it's faster to start a 400 upwind or downwind. I think the downwind start is probably best.

I thought it was common knowledge that you never get as much back from a downhill as you lose from the uphill. Likewise for wind.

Just because it's common knowledge doesn't mean it is correct, I suppose, but flat courses are typically the fastest for a reason. The only possible exception is in longer races, such as the marathon, where you might want a little bit of gradual elevation change so you can draw on some different muscle fibers.

btw you could easily test what I wrote. Time your 20m block start, and then your last 20m of a flat 400. Then time your block start up a 20m hill and run a 400 with a timed finish on that hill.

Mr E wrote:

I thought it was common knowledge that you never get as much back from a downhill as you lose from the uphill. Likewise for wind.

Just because it's common knowledge doesn't mean it is correct, I suppose, but flat courses are typically the fastest for a reason. The only possible exception is in longer races, such as the marathon, where you might want a little bit of gradual elevation change so you can draw on some different muscle fibers.

It's common knowledge and correct. It's been studied quite a bit. Nothing without a net downhill is faster than a flat course/track.

Take a look at these videos and reconsider:

http://youtu.be/_GJujClGYJQ

http://youtu.be/H2QPMO6bo4E

Dips optimized in shape and length for how long a good downhill runner can carry speed might be faster than a flat track. It would be interesting to construct a real track with dips to see what the results might be for different runners.

I'm a really good downhill runner in comparison to others on an up/down cross country type course, and can really "roll" the downhills and carry the speed for a good advantage, so it's possible a track with dips would be faster for me.

Wouldn't the answer be taking indoor banked tracks and expanding them to 400 meters? High banks on the curves, runner can decide "how much" they want to use.

The sections of your race are in series and for a series combination the slows hurt your average more than the fasts help it. It's math: harmonic mean.

zzzz wrote:

Take a look at these videos and reconsider:

http://youtu.be/_GJujClGYJQhttp://youtu.be/H2QPMO6bo4E

Dips optimized in shape and length for how long a good downhill runner can carry speed might be faster than a flat track. It would be interesting to construct a real track with dips to see what the results might be for different runners.

I'm a really good downhill runner in comparison to others on an up/down cross country type course, and can really "roll" the downhills and carry the speed for a good advantage, so it's possible a track with dips would be faster for me.

A cool video, but runners do not maintain momentum that they gathered (maybe for a few strides). Running down a hill at 6.5 m/s (4:06 pace) does not mean the runner will be able to sustain 6.5 m/s on the flat after.

Running is not about speed. It is a repeated application of force against negative forces.

The question needs to bee physiological, not physical. What is the best way to sustain the bodies ability to produce power?

Prove it. What studies?

Guppy wrote:

Mr E wrote:

I thought it was common knowledge that you never get as much back from a downhill as you lose from the uphill. Likewise for wind.

Just because it's common knowledge doesn't mean it is correct, I suppose, but flat courses are typically the fastest for a reason. The only possible exception is in longer races, such as the marathon, where you might want a little bit of gradual elevation change so you can draw on some different muscle fibers.

It's common knowledge and correct. It's been studied quite a bit. Nothing without a net downhill is faster than a flat course/track.

Standard flat track with strategically placed high velocity fans along the straights and turns to maximize tailwind.