Hardloper wrote:
ksksi wrote:This is a matter of physics not of popular opinion. You are wrong.
Okay let's see the physics calculation that the wider turns outdoor make up for the banked turn you get indoor. Thanks.
F=Gm1m2 /r2
F = (6.67 x 10-11 Nm2 /kg2)(60kg)(10,000kg)/(5m)2 F = 1.6 x 10-6 N = 0.0000016 N = 0.00000036 lb
agip wrote:
just the facts, ma'am wrote:If you look at the best times run by the B.U. athletes themselves you will find that in most cases their outdoor times are faster than their indoor times or have been achieved at sites other than B.U..
For example, Rich Peters ran a 3:56 mile at B.U. last year, but outdoors ran 3:37 for 1500. Katie Matthews ran 9:07 for 3k and 15:46 last year at B.U., but ran 9:05 for 3k at the University of Washington and 15:42 at Fayetteville. Tewado Latty ran 46.86 at B.U. indoors, but ran 46.18 outdoors, Page ran 21.25 indoors, but 21.07 outdoors (hamstring problem).
...
1. You are ignoring the mental benefit some derive from shorter laps and much louder spectators
2. Who is in peak shape in the winter? almost no one. By that alone outdoor times should be substantially faster than indoors in aggregate.
3. ok, so weather is a factor. so what? that is one more factor that helps indoor tracks be faster than outdoors.
Those are all true, but he's forgetting the primary advantage of indoor: the BANK.
Of course the inward acceleration increases with velocity-squared, so at some point if you're going fast enough it will not be enough. So I could agree that for 200-400 it is faster. Similarly if you're going slow enough you might not need the bank and it could become a hindrance. However, somewhere around 55-65s per 400 it seems to work quite well.
just the facts, ma'am wrote:
The straightaways on indoor tracks are less than 40 meters, so for every lap run, 120 meters of it are on a curve.
So how is this better than outdoor? Outdoor straightaways are what, 80-85m depending on the track? Basically the same ratio.
ksksi wrote:
F=Gm1m2 /r2
F = (6.67 x 10-11 Nm2 /kg2)(60kg)(10,000kg)/(5m)2 F = 1.6 x 10-6 N = 0.0000016 N = 0.00000036 lb
So a 60 kg person standing on a a 10,000 kg asteroid with radius 5m experiences 0.0000016 N of gravity? Thanks.
Ha ha...I thought you said you understood physics. Asteroid indeed.
Hardloper wrote:
Those are all true, but he's forgetting the primary advantage of indoor: the BANK.
Honest question: have you ever run a distance race on a banked track? Lane one (where most of these sub-4:00 guys are running) is not banked on many tracks.
If you're running in lane three or four, then yes, there is a significant bank. But you're running more distance at that point, so it really doesn't help.
Hardloper wrote:
Those are all true, but he's forgetting the primary advantage of indoor: the BANK.
What is the advantage to having to run uphill 4x/400m?
ksksi wrote:
Hardloper wrote:Okay let's see the physics calculation that the wider turns outdoor make up for the banked turn you get indoor. Thanks.
F=Gm1m2 /r2
F = (6.67 x 10-11 Nm2 /kg2)(60kg)(10,000kg)/(5m)2 F = 1.6 x 10-6 N = 0.0000016 N = 0.00000036 lb
Wow much physics so proof
Hardloper wrote:
agip wrote:1. You are ignoring the mental benefit some derive from shorter laps and much louder spectators
2. Who is in peak shape in the winter? almost no one. By that alone outdoor times should be substantially faster than indoors in aggregate.
3. ok, so weather is a factor. so what? that is one more factor that helps indoor tracks be faster than outdoors.
Those are all true, but he's forgetting the primary advantage of indoor: the BANK.
Of course the inward acceleration increases with velocity-squared, so at some point if you're going fast enough it will not be enough. So I could agree that for 200-400 it is faster. Similarly if you're going slow enough you might not need the bank and it could become a hindrance. However, somewhere around 55-65s per 400 it seems to work quite well.
just the facts, ma'am wrote:
The straightaways on indoor tracks are less than 40 meters, so for every lap run, 120 meters of it are on a curve.
So how is this better than outdoor? Outdoor straightaways are what, 80-85m depending on the track? Basically the same ratio.
yeah - but lane 1 isn't banked very much is it? I suppose the higher bank in lanes 2-6 can help when passing tho.
I don't think any of his athletes will break a senior American record at the "fast" BU track in the next few weeks (Mary C might get a junior record in the 1k or 800).
I'm not going to try to show any math or physics here but I think they are equal.
I believe the torque of a 57m banked turn is equivalent to the torque of a 115m flat turn at middle distance speeds
Yes, there is still a bank in lane one.
It's easier to handle the turn going slightly uphill and you get a little downhill push coming off the turn that compensates for the wider large track turn.
It's pretty amazing that the indoor WR for 200m is 19.92.
Of course, that is a net downhill from an outside lane.
Still, running 28s laps wouldn't seem to have a great effect.
Empirical evidence is hard to gain because indoor season is a short season to begin with and nobody peaks their year for it.
But we still see a number of guys run sub 4 indoors that don't go sub 3:42 outdoors.
I ran on BU's track once. I had a blister on my foot and just couldn't push it but I ran a 4:10 with seemingly very little effort.
So my sample doesn't help but at least I have run there have an idea.
My conclusion is that you can't take anyone's indoor mile time and say it is "worth" a faster time outdoors.
I don't see how any conversion can be justified.
Hardloper:
A bank mitigates the decrease in speed that an increased angle of a turn brings. It doesn't change the fact that you are changing directions more frequently.
To answer your physics thingy, we would need very exact measurements of BU's banked track and even then it would only be relevant in comparison to an outdoor track of similar predetermined and exact specifications.
In short: does it really matter?
I am just going to repeat what I said earlier, because only one person seems to be even interested it, even though it explains more than anything else anybody has said:
I have watched an indoor 5k and the mass of the runners moving in a constant circular path created a tailwind for every step of the race from about 1 mile on.
If a bunch of people run/swim around the outer perimeter of a pool for a few circuits, then change direction, the current they created will knock them back.
The same thing can/does happen on an indoor track, but not an outdoor track.
I don't know, but I don't think physics has determined outdoor is faster.
casual commentary wrote:
Hardloper:
A bank mitigates the decrease in speed that an increased angle of a turn brings. It doesn't change the fact that you are changing directions more frequently.
Right, but an outdoor track is not banked at all. An outdoor track with a slight bank might be faster, though there are other variables not mentioned yet.
A track is measured 30 cm from the rail. When rounding the turn, you might hug the line 20 cm from the rail. Actually your center of mass might actually be INSIDE the rail.
If you're 20 cm from the inside of the rail on an outdoor track, you ran 0.10 * 2pi * 4 = 2.5m short of a mile. On an indoor, you ran 0.10 * 2pi * 8 = 5m short of a mile. So you get 2.5 m less, which would save you .38 seconds.
If it's really the center of gravity that matters, and your center of gravity might be right on the rail because you're leaning inward on the turn, you could run .3 * 2pi * 4 = 7.5m less, or a whopping 1.13 seconds. This may be the case in Rupp's time trials, where he can stay on the inside the whole time. Of course the opposite is true for tactical races indoor where you have to move outside a lot. But you could argue that even a banked 200m track is "faster" than a banked 400m track because of the way tracks are measured.
toro wrote:
I'm not going to try to show any math or physics here but I think they are equal.
I believe the torque of a 57m banked turn is equivalent to the torque of a 115m flat turn at middle distance speeds
Yes, there is still a bank in lane one.
It's easier to handle the turn going slightly uphill and you get a little downhill push coming off the turn that compensates for the wider large track turn.
It's pretty amazing that the indoor WR for 200m is 19.92.
Of course, that is a net downhill from an outside lane.
Still, running 28s laps wouldn't seem to have a great effect.
Empirical evidence is hard to gain because indoor season is a short season to begin with and nobody peaks their year for it.
But we still see a number of guys run sub 4 indoors that don't go sub 3:42 outdoors.
I ran on BU's track once. I had a blister on my foot and just couldn't push it but I ran a 4:10 with seemingly very little effort.
So my sample doesn't help but at least I have run there have an idea.
My conclusion is that you can't take anyone's indoor mile time and say it is "worth" a faster time outdoors.
I don't see how any conversion can be justified.
Exactly. I had no idea the 200m indoor record was that fast, but they can change the angle of the bank at some tracks to be ideal for the speed of each event.
dfsdfsdfsf wrote:
I am just going to repeat what I said earlier, because only one person seems to be even interested it, even though it explains more than anything else anybody has said:
I have watched an indoor 5k and the mass of the runners moving in a constant circular path created a tailwind for every step of the race from about 1 mile on.
If a bunch of people run/swim around the outer perimeter of a pool for a few circuits, then change direction, the current they created will knock them back.
The same thing can/does happen on an indoor track, but not an outdoor track.
I don't know, but I don't think physics has determined outdoor is faster.
??? How has no one said anything to this? This is great
dfsdfsdfsf wrote:
I am just going to repeat what I said earlier, because only one person seems to be even interested it, even though it explains more than anything else anybody has said:
I have watched an indoor 5k and the mass of the runners moving in a constant circular path created a tailwind for every step of the race from about 1 mile on.
If a bunch of people run/swim around the outer perimeter of a pool for a few circuits, then change direction, the current they created will knock them back.
The same thing can/does happen on an indoor track, but not an outdoor track.
I don't know, but I don't think physics has determined outdoor is faster.
This is good, for some reason earlier I misread it as "I think physics has determined outdoor is faster..." which didn't make sense with what you said above. Very plausible.
It ain't about the track! It's about the NOPe dope.
Hardloper wrote:
ksksi wrote:F=Gm1m2 /r2
F = (6.67 x 10-11 Nm2 /kg2)(60kg)(10,000kg)/(5m)2 F = 1.6 x 10-6 N = 0.0000016 N = 0.00000036 lb
So a 60 kg person standing on a a 10,000 kg asteroid with radius 5m experiences 0.0000016 N of gravity? Thanks.
I did note write that. Someone is impersonating me. But where is your calculation Hardloper? As it stands, you sound like a fool for basing your conclusion on Salazar's opinion. Where is an actual calculation to back up your opinion?
Never mind, I see your post now. Where are you getting these seconds from? Have you mentioned a pace? Also, how have you taken into account the effect of the tighter turns on an indoor track?
Hardloper wrote:
casual commentary wrote:Hardloper:
A bank mitigates the decrease in speed that an increased angle of a turn brings. It doesn't change the fact that you are changing directions more frequently.
Right, but an outdoor track is not banked at all. An outdoor track with a slight bank might be faster, though there are other variables not mentioned yet.
A track is measured 30 cm from the rail. When rounding the turn, you might hug the line 20 cm from the rail. Actually your center of mass might actually be INSIDE the rail.
If you're 20 cm from the inside of the rail on an outdoor track, you ran 0.10 * 2pi * 4 = 2.5m short of a mile. On an indoor, you ran 0.10 * 2pi * 8 = 5m short of a mile. So you get 2.5 m less, which would save you .38 seconds.
If it's really the center of gravity that matters, and your center of gravity might be right on the rail because you're leaning inward on the turn, you could run .3 * 2pi * 4 = 7.5m less, or a whopping 1.13 seconds. This may be the case in Rupp's time trials, where he can stay on the inside the whole time. Of course the opposite is true for tactical races indoor where you have to move outside a lot. But you could argue that even a banked 200m track is "faster" than a banked 400m track because of the way tracks are measured.
You failed to account for the reduced stride length necessary for indoor turns. Please try again.