How Much Faster is Track than Road?

Use the conversion factors:The conversion factor for the road varies from 1.02-1.04. In this case we will use the average, 1.03The spikes conversion factor is .98 for roads to track (this is different than track to grass, as previously mentioned in this thread: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3513437)So, if you run a 5K in 18:00 flat on the track, it would be as follows on the roads (assuming the roads were relatively flat, with no major hills):18 minutes= 1080 seconds1080*1.03 + (1/.98)*1080=2214.44 second2214.44/2=1107.22 seconds=18:26 5K on the roads. 1107.22 seconds/5000 meters= 4.54 meters/second 1080 seconds/5000 meters=4.63 meters/secondSo the answer to your question:

ITBS wrote:

How much faster in meters per second is track than road?

Is 4.63-4.54=.09 meters/second faster.

Interesting and it seems to adhere to my experience. Of course there should be individual differences. In your opinion, what would the difference be on a very hilly course?

qdtrole wrote:

Interesting and it seems to adhere to my experience. Of course there should be individual differences. In your opinion, what would the difference be on a very hilly course?

Slower on the uphills and faster on the downhills. The precise difference depends on the grade.

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjj wrote:

An accurately measured road course is faster than a track of the same distance.

This is where you provided no evidence.

I'm not ignoring your contention that the marathon has a faster road record than track record. I just disagree that it supports your statement above. Maybe I was rash to capitalize ANY in my post, but I assumed that we would try to keep our posts vaguely related to the original question.

If we want to determine what effect the surface (or venue) has on running speed, it makes sense to look at events that are often contested on both surfaces by similarly qualified participants. I don't think you can claim that the history of track marathons is long or deep, so the fact that the road time is better doesn't support your statement that the roads are faster.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think you're right, but I'm not holding my breath. And by the way, it's called a discussion board. I'll shut up when I'm ready, and if you don't like it, you can stop reading.

I figured that much but thanx...

Buffalo Orange wrote:

Please provide ANY example of a road world best time that is faster than the equivalent distance track world record time. I think you won't find one.

If you want to call me out for not providing evidence for my initial post, then I will counter with your first post which avoids your same requirement while squarely putting the onus on someone else to do your own research.

The question was "How Much Faster is Track than Road?" The answer is that it depends on the length of the event. Evidence has been reported in this thread that clearly indicates longer races have faster records on the road than on a track. You can whine all you want about the frequency of such events, but the fact stands that road records are faster for longer races. I'm not claiming a 100 m road race is faster than a track race.

You want reasoning? There are two major ones: 1) a road returns more energy to the runner, and (2) the value of wearing spikes declines as distances lengthen and subsequently running velocities decline. It's called physics. Look it up.

Buffalo Orange wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think you're right, but I'm not holding my breath.

Are you planning to explain WHY you think you are right?

wondering wrote:

Are you planning to explain WHY you think you are right?

Actually, I did. Maybe you missed it:

Tracks are faster than the roads predominantly because they're dead flat. Not having to deal with potholes, the crown of the road, etc. is probably good for some time, and stadia are often more sheltered from the wind than road courses. Spikes and a consistent surface to run on help, too.

That's why I think I'm right. Let's see why you think roads are faster.

So you're now changing your argument from "roads are faster" to "long races on roads are faster."

This is clearly not true up to 10k, so your initial statement is demonstrably false. It may be true for events longer than that, but the data pool on very long track races is small, so any conclusions drawn from it are a bit suspect.

I still maintain that energy return and spikes are minimal factors, and that simply running on a level surface is the biggest factor. Even energy output is the best way to run fast times, and having a dead flat, consistent surface to run on is the best way to ensure that every step is as much like every other as possible.

The correct answer is "depends." It depends on whether or not the runner is trained to run on the track or the road. I'm not surprised at all that top-end elites have faster 10K times on the track. They TRAIN there, run in in spikes frequently, etc. It's not the surface that has intrinsic speed, it is the performer being trained to take the best advantage that the surface offers. The track can be and is slower for performers who aren't trained for it.

Back in the day I was always surprised by guys who would run very creditable road 10K's (say sub 29:30) but then would not be able to run within a minute of that on the track. Undoubtedly, some of that had to do with inaccurate courses, running shorter tangents, etc. But a big part of that was that they simply did not race or train much for the track surface.

Squid wrote:

I'm not surprised at all that top-end elites have faster 10K times on the track.

Neither am I.

The conversion factors prove that the track is a faster surface. Refer to above.

Any credibility to this cause?:

In a track 10K, hugging the inside curve most of the time, you are likely to actually run close to 10,000 meters. On the roads, there is nothing guiding you to a perfect tangent, the movement in a pack of runners isn't as efficient, etc., so maybe you tend to actually run farther.

Other causes: using spikes, constant checking of splits so better pacing, faster and more uniform surface

This is my first post to this thread.

It's a bogus question in the first place.

the track should be faster (because it is shorter) but it does depend on the person (some runners are better road racer - not most but some).

Track races are shorter because the track is measured in the middle of lane one - so if you hug the curve the whole way - you do end up runner less than 400 meters per lap. In a road race, they are supposed to be measure from tangent to tangent - so if you run the tangents you can never run less than 400 M per 400 meters...and many runners don't run the tangents well so they end up runner more than 400 meters per 400 on the roads.

track is also faster for most because there can be better drafting, more controlled pace setting, and splits every 400 meters. the gradient changes in road racing can also help or hurt depending on how, when and where they occur on a course...and sometimes turns can help if you know how to accelerate into them, but other time they are so sharp or even 360 degree (on some out and back courses) that you almost have to come to a stop in the middle of the race = not good for your rhythm or overall time...

Added all up - the track is going to be faster for most top runners. However true road racers on a fair road course can run faster on the roads.

where would he get the gun? i don't think firearms are permitted in IAAF competition

and how would he keep running with a hole in his head?

I am pretty sure that when it comes to running fast times at 15k and up, the track would not help. It's not just a boredom issue. At those paces, you can run just as fast on the road as on the track. You are moving slowly enough you are not bothered by minor bumps and unevenness on the road.

In the mile/5k/10k however, you are trying to maintain a fast pace and those bumps in the road can be disruptive.

The flatter the faster.

Tracks are completely flat.

The road course has to be a loop for direct comparison.

If you have a one loop completely flat oval for a 5K or 10K course I would think that it would be faster than racing on a track. You would have two turns instead of 25 or 50.

X-Runner wrote:

The flatter the faster.

You've obviously never run downhill.