Hard to regulate your pace on a 307m track where you hardly even know when you're at a 400m (yes, they give splits there) but not at the 200s. 400m outdoors is faster, so is a banked 200m track.
Are you trying to say tighter turns don’t slow you down? Then why is there a flat track conversion factor to banked? Mald harder
There are various factors at play. Wind, Temperature, Altitude etc. So again, provide evidence for your claims on this specific track or else nobody will take your words seriously
No. A 300m indoor track with controlled conditions is not necessarily slower than an outdoor track. Not at all. And often faster.
Sure it is. Tighter turns and more turns. An outdoor track even with mediocre weather would be faster. With good weather it's one hell of a difference.
Hard to regulate your pace on a 307m track where you hardly even know when you're at a 400m (yes, they give splits there) but not at the 200s. 400m outdoors is faster, so is a banked 200m track.
Unless you are a complete newcomer most guys know exactly where the split marks are by now certainly UW guys
Answer this: conditions equal, which is faster: a 300m track or a 400m track?
Why would anyone with a brain take seriously a guy who use a red herring? The point is that there are other factors at play that affect the finishing time in comparison with outdoors. So making the statement: “It’s without question slower than an outdoor track” requires evidence. Thank you.
Answer this: conditions equal, which is faster: a 300m track or a 400m track?
Why would anyone with a brain take seriously a guy who use a red herring? The point is that there are other factors at play that affect the finishing time in comparison with outdoors. So making the statement: “It’s without question slower than an outdoor track” requires evidence. Thank you.
Can you two posters stop derailing this thread with a debate about "Is a track with tighter corners sometimes faster than a real, full-size track?"
The unbanked UW track is still very fast and has great conditions, but it is not as fast as an outdoor track if the conditions outdoors are just as good (wind and heat, etc.).
You’re nitpicking and dodging my question. Which is faster? 99% of the time outdoor conditions are perfectly fine. If you need “proof” that sharper turns are slower, you’re not worthy of debating. When you set your lifetime PR of 4:59 in the 1600, do you think you could’ve run faster on a 16 lap to the mile 100m track?
Why would anyone with a brain take seriously a guy who use a red herring? The point is that there are other factors at play that affect the finishing time in comparison with outdoors. So making the statement: “It’s without question slower than an outdoor track” requires evidence. Thank you.
Can you two posters stop derailing this thread with a debate about "Is a track with tighter corners sometimes faster than a real, full-size track?"
The unbanked UW track is still very fast and has great conditions, but it is not as fast as an outdoor track if the conditions outdoors are just as good (wind and heat, etc.).
Why are you even debating that?
And when are conditions ever going to be the same outdoors as indoors?
You’re nitpicking and dodging my question. Which is faster? 99% of the time outdoor conditions are perfectly fine. If you need “proof” that sharper turns are slower, you’re not worthy of debating. When you set your lifetime PR of 4:59 in the 1600, do you think you could’ve run faster on a 16 lap to the mile 100m track?
I have never nitpicked or dodged the question. Yes, undoubtedly when there are more turns you tend to slow down due to changing direction. But, we do not know the effect of various other factors which I have listed before. We also do not know the relationship between those other factors and the size of an indoor track, and how much faster or slower you can run outdoors. I have said this already, hence why I called your question a red herring. Because of this, you need to provide evidence for your absolute claim that dempsey is undoubtedly slower than outdoors.
You’re nitpicking and dodging my question. Which is faster? 99% of the time outdoor conditions are perfectly fine. If you need “proof” that sharper turns are slower, you’re not worthy of debating. When you set your lifetime PR of 4:59 in the 1600, do you think you could’ve run faster on a 16 lap to the mile 100m track?
I have never nitpicked or dodged the question. Yes, undoubtedly when there are more turns you tend to slow down due to changing direction. But, we do not know the effect of various other factors which I have listed before. We also do not know the relationship between those other factors and the size of an indoor track, and how much faster or slower you can run outdoors. I have said this already, hence why I called your question a red herring. Because of this, you need to provide evidence for your absolute claim that dempsey is undoubtedly slower than outdoors.
You’ve done both, but here, since you require “proof” for something that should be eminently obvious, I did ONE google search and got this.
The NCAA implemented conversion factors for oversized tracks to outdoor tracks in 2012-2013. These factors can be used to convert track and field times from oversized tracks to outdoor tracks. Conversion factors 200m: 0.9824 for men, 0.9847 for women 300m: 0.9835 for men, 0.9860 for women 400m: 0.9843 for men, 0.9869 for women 500m: 0.9848 for men, 0.9874 for women 600m: 0.9852 for men, 0.9879 for women 800m: 0.9859 for men, 0.9886 for women 1000m: 0.9864 for men, 0.9892 for women 1500m: 0.9872 for men, 0.9901 for women Mile: 0.9874 for men, 0.9902 for women 3000m: 0.9885 for men, 0.9915 for women
Why would anyone with a brain take seriously a guy who use a red herring? The point is that there are other factors at play that affect the finishing time in comparison with outdoors. So making the statement: “It’s without question slower than an outdoor track” requires evidence. Thank you.
Can you two posters stop derailing this thread with a debate about "Is a track with tighter corners sometimes faster than a real, full-size track?"
The unbanked UW track is still very fast and has great conditions, but it is not as fast as an outdoor track if the conditions outdoors are just as good (wind and heat, etc.).
Why are you even debating that?
You seem like you are the nice arrogant dude who is quite nice and very controlling.
I have never nitpicked or dodged the question. Yes, undoubtedly when there are more turns you tend to slow down due to changing direction. But, we do not know the effect of various other factors which I have listed before. We also do not know the relationship between those other factors and the size of an indoor track, and how much faster or slower you can run outdoors. I have said this already, hence why I called your question a red herring. Because of this, you need to provide evidence for your absolute claim that dempsey is undoubtedly slower than outdoors.
You’ve done both, but here, since you require “proof” for something that should be eminently obvious, I did ONE google search and got this.
The NCAA implemented conversion factors for oversized tracks to outdoor tracks in 2012-2013. These factors can be used to convert track and field times from oversized tracks to outdoor tracks. Conversion factors 200m: 0.9824 for men, 0.9847 for women 300m: 0.9835 for men, 0.9860 for women 400m: 0.9843 for men, 0.9869 for women 500m: 0.9848 for men, 0.9874 for women 600m: 0.9852 for men, 0.9879 for women 800m: 0.9859 for men, 0.9886 for women 1000m: 0.9864 for men, 0.9892 for women 1500m: 0.9872 for men, 0.9901 for women Mile: 0.9874 for men, 0.9902 for women 3000m: 0.9885 for men, 0.9915 for women
1) What would you be thinking and what would you do if you were Lex and Leo?
2) What is UW doing so perfectly that no other school has ever done? Nine guys under 4! That is insane! And finally...
3) What is Roger Bannister's ghost saying right now? Literal randos (#24) are breaking four minutes. It is a madhouse! A guy breaks 4:00 in a collegiate, early-season, indoor race and gets 18th!
1) I'd be thinking wow I ran way faster than this in high school, and my teammates that went to NAU are some of the best in the country, I should go there. Or look at the 10 UW athletes ahead of me and think I should go there.
2) They have crack in the water bro idk 10 guys under 4 is insane. They've won every 1500/mile title since 2022 outdoors right? With Waskom and Houser gone, Green was the only top guy (meaning NCAA champ lol) they had left and no obvious replacement after he graduates (maybe this year idk his outdoor eligibility). Green just ran .99s faster than Houser's facility record he set right before winning NCAAs. McMahon-Staggs just ran 3:51, and they have 2 more guys that just ran 3:55 in January. Also it's so great to see Daschbach finally running well, he was the first HSer I watched go sub-4, and I remember thinking no one was gonna get it before he dropped a 56 last lap. I'd love to see him build on this fitness and get down to the 3:51 shape that it's gonna take to be competitive at NCAAs against his teammates, Strand, Sahlman, and whoever else is up there.
It also might be worth looking at how many of the guys are transfers, although I'm not even sure it matters. Waskom, Houser, and Green all grew up within like an hour of campus. Something super special is going on there, and if I was a top high schooler (or even at a college like Stanford), I'd seriously want to run there.
3) "If I had supershoes and those nice college facilities with no job I could've run 3:40"
1) I'd be thinking wow I ran way faster than this in high school, and my teammates that went to NAU are some of the best in the country, I should go there. Or look at the 10 UW athletes ahead of me and think I should go there.
2) They have crack in the water bro idk 10 guys under 4 is insane. They've won every 1500/mile title since 2022 outdoors right? With Waskom and Houser gone, Green was the only top guy (meaning NCAA champ lol) they had left and no obvious replacement after he graduates (maybe this year idk his outdoor eligibility). Green just ran .99s faster than Houser's facility record he set right before winning NCAAs. McMahon-Staggs just ran 3:51, and they have 2 more guys that just ran 3:55 in January. Also it's so great to see Daschbach finally running well, he was the first HSer I watched go sub-4, and I remember thinking no one was gonna get it before he dropped a 56 last lap. I'd love to see him build on this fitness and get down to the 3:51 shape that it's gonna take to be competitive at NCAAs against his teammates, Strand, Sahlman, and whoever else is up there.
It also might be worth looking at how many of the guys are transfers, although I'm not even sure it matters. Waskom, Houser, and Green all grew up within like an hour of campus. Something super special is going on there, and if I was a top high schooler (or even at a college like Stanford), I'd seriously want to run there.
3) "If I had supershoes and those nice college facilities with no job I could've run 3:40"
McMahon-Staggs had a 3:54-hi mark coming in but still large progress.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.