How is the hardness tested? Just at one place? Is the place known ahead of time?
You could perhaps push the hardness of the track by making 25% way hard and the remainder standard. Then even if they happen to test the out of spec area, you say "huh, that's weird, let's test somewhere else" and get acceptable values.
A track with Chinese characteristics.
And how will you know that the measure wheel is correct? I'd say someone bring a measure tape into the measure wheel factory instead! ;-)
You do know that time and distance are different things, right?
Short 0.15 seconds per 100 meters is a function of speed as much as distance.
On the bright side, letsrun has taught me that I didn't miss out on much by not going to Yale.
I'm no math guru but how can you equate Bolt's pace per 100m (for a 200m race that is sub 20) with Eaton's pace (for a 400m race that is 45.00)?
all in the details wrote:
AKMarmoset wrote:Yeah, if their credibility is immutable...
I'd trust the IAAF before I'd trust amateur track certifiers who can't even proofread their own message board for simple grammar.
The one that accepts bribes? Oh, yeah, trustworthy.
The simpler answer is it's a doping free for all.
Why talk? Get the data.
I ran a race once in China, advertised as a 5km, but my Chinese friend found out (they knew) it was 5.6 km. Times added up (19:30) as I would have expected to run around 17:20-30. After the race they insisted it was 5km...
Tiananmen measurer wrote:
I 'm sure the Chinese would be delighted to have a random dude enter the stadium and start rolling.
You're going to end up just like that Segway driver if you're not careful.
If we had a wheel it would be pretty easy to wheel it at night. Last night (drunk) people were racing on the track while we were finishing up our articles.
I was surprised they weren't kicked off as you'd think they could scuff the track pretty bad with their shoes.
*********
The Air density and hardness make sense
*********
And don't blame Yale for the original post. That has Princeton (rojo) written all over it. I was actually covering the women's marathon while he was sleeping in wondering if the track was short.
And you all are right- Eaton CRUSHED everyone in that race.
all in the details wrote:
I'd trust the IAAF before I'd trust amateur track certifiers who can't even proofread their own message board for simple grammar.
Evan if the measure it write, how well we no! There right up will be so garbled nobody well be everybody able to understand it to able will be.
A problem this is wrote:
all in the details wrote:I'd trust the IAAF before I'd trust amateur track certifiers who can't even proofread their own message board for simple grammar.
Evan if the measure it write, how well we no! There right up will be so garbled nobody well be everybody able to understand it to able will be.
Seriously? What is this?
A measuring wheel is not the right tool. Not even close. It's ridiculous to suggest it. It's not even acceptable for road courses.
What's next, suggesting using somebody's Garmin?
You'd need a trained surveyor with proper equipment.
If it matters, I've measured dozens of road courses for certification, and have spent time as a land surveyor.
David Kate will no doubt come on here and set everybody straight.
runtime wrote:
A measuring wheel is not the right tool. Not even close. It's ridiculous to suggest it. It's not even acceptable for road courses.
They use a calibrated cycle wheel for road courses. Hugh Jones on a bicycle. Yes, a scary ginger bloke with weird hair, anorak and not-even-particularly-modern-looking bicycle. It's not about how fancy your kit looks. I think a surveyor's wheel would be good enough to disprove the theory.
Maybe they mean Claudia?
who done be dat wrote:
LetsRun.com wrote:Schiffer's massive .40 pb only is a .10 pb.
Do you mean @dafneschippers or someone else?
You know, the IAAF use laser technology for jumps and throws nowadays for top level meets and champs - I'd say if it's reliable and good enough for a 92.72 meters javelin throw it should be good enough for a 100.00 meter track check too. Or is that where they calibrated it? ;-)
You have to much time on your hands.
Just buy some thin inelastic nylon rope/cord and measure a straight and a turn. Takes you 5 minutes.
For the turns you should measure 10cm from the rail. One guy may hold the rope tight and another guy pull the thread along the rail with a 10cm spacer. Or you can just lay the rope along the rail and add 2*pi*0.1 to the full track distance.
You could even just measure half a straight and half a turn, cut the rope, and check that the other pieces of the track are identical.
If you want to keep the rope as proof you can mark it in both ends with a pattern that will show if it gets cut. For example, you can put marks on the rope at 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16 and 22 cm from both ends. The marks can be tiny cuts or paint that sticks. Videotape it all.
Thinking about it, you should get a fairly thick rope, perhaps around 1 cm as it may stretch over 100 or 200m.
Haha "0.15 seconds short per 100m"! I guess if you jog around the track you are also only 0.6 seconds quicker than usual and so won't notice? Please don't tell me you did math at college haha!