curious: why are tracks 400 meters?

boboboblawawawlobobob wrote:

Everything is arbitrary just like every other sport. Why is a football field 100 yards?

An arena football field is 200 feet long. A Canadian football field is 110 yards long.

rewagrgrga wrote:

15mph wrote:

I agree and let's not forget the 100 second barrier. Though we did have some interesting 600 meter races this indoor season. A 70 mile per week 800 guy out kicked a speed side 800 guy and a 400 hurdler.

I wouldn't call 100 seconds for 500m much of a barrier.

Yeah, 60 second barrier maybe (but even then)?

Registry wrote:

Paul Revered wrote:

Were the imperials running distances like 110, 220, 440, and 880 then?

Yes, though the dash was 100y. Hurdles were 110. Other races were as you mentioned.

No offense, but you must be quite young.

Hurdles were 120 yards. Now it's 110 meters.

interesting.

i still think 500 meters would be better.

the only races that would benefit from a 400 meter track:

400

800

1600

3200

races that would benefit from a 500 meter track:

1500

3000

3000 steeple

5000

10000

and you can still have a 400 meter race on a 500 meter track and it would still be 1 lap.

To me it seems that the biggest factor is construction costs and logistics.

A 500m track would be harder and more expensive to build.

Also, it would be less spectator friendly.

---

Does anyone think we are over emphasizing the need for the track to fit evenly into the race distance?

Does it really matter if the 5k is 10 laps or 12.5?

I don't think it actually effects the races all that much.

Fixed

track analyst wrote:

That wouldn't work as the 400 would be 500 meters long.

lmao actually made me laugh

Registry wrote:

Paul Revered wrote:

Were the imperials running distances like 110, 220, 440, and 880 then?

Yes, though the dash was 100y. Hurdles were 110. Other races were as you mentioned.

No offense, but you must be quite young.

The hurdles were 120 yards

110 yards for the ladies.

oatmeal + water wrote:

it would seem to make more sense if tracks were 500 meters so that you can more easily calculate laps:

so for example:

5000 would just be 10 laps

10000 would just be 20 laps

And a marathon on a track would only be 84.4 laps!

oatmeal + water wrote:

interesting.

i still think 500 meters would be better.

the only races that would benefit from a 400 meter track:

400

800

1600

3200

races that would benefit from a 500 meter track:

1500

3000

3000 steeple

5000

10000

and you can still have a 400 meter race on a 500 meter track and it would still be 1 lap.

Think now - which would be easier to do? Change all the tracks in the world from 400 to 500 meters? Or just change the distances of the races to conform to the 400 meter track?

I vote we go back to the imperial distances for the tracks and the races - no more of this starting a distance race on the far corner or the top of the backstretch.

You are all wrong. The reason the track is 400m and was 400 yards is because to have an oval with equal parts it must be a factor of two. For all you letsrun dummies, that means it would need to be 200m, 400m, 800m, 1600m, 3200m, 6400m, and so on.

why?

why can't you divide 500 meters into 4 sections? 125 meters for the straight and the curve.

also, what you said made me wonder something else:

why is the track an oval with straights and curves? is it so that it can fit around a field better?

Construction costs wrote:

To me it seems that the biggest factor is construction costs and logistics.

A 500m track would be harder and more expensive to build.

Also, it would be less spectator friendly.

It would be a logistical nightmare. The 200 meter and 400 meter records would all be set on the 500 meter tracks. Colleges would schedule meets at 500 meter tracks to get their sprinters to qualify etc...

mathman wrote:

You are all wrong. The reason the track is 400m and was 400 yards is because to have an oval with equal parts it must be a factor of two. For all you letsrun dummies, that means it would need to be 200m, 400m, 800m, 1600m, 3200m, 6400m, and so on.

Tracks were 440 yds, never 400 yds.

oatmeal + water wrote:

interesting.

i still think 500 meters would be better.

the only races that would benefit from a 400 meter track:

400

800

1600

3200

races that would benefit from a 500 meter track:

1500

3000

3000 steeple

5000

10000

and you can still have a 400 meter race on a 500 meter track and it would still be 1 lap.

Steeple has its own special starts because you can't put the water barrier in the middle of the lanes. It goes either outside or inside. So steeplechase moves off the 500m benefits list.

"Steeple has its own special starts because you can't put the water barrier in the middle of the lanes. It goes either outside or inside. So steeplechase moves off the 500m benefits list."

BINGO - This is why the length of the track is irrelevant for the distance events. the Steeplechase proves this.

Hint - Once you are past the triple digits in distance, people start to think about how long it is in kilometres/miles, not laps of the track.

This also is a reason why distance races are not meant to be on the track - When you are talking about kilometres and miles, you are not thinking laps of the track. You are thinking what part of the town from home is that far away.

To the guys talking about the 100 second barrier - It is relatively weak in the 500m and 600m. However, Why is there not more talk about this one for the men's 800m?

Galen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

A better question is, why is the 1500 still run, instead of 1600. 400 meter tracks are the standard, and 4 times around the track is much closer to the traditional mile than 1500 is. 1500 is the only event involving 3/4 of a lap.

1600? That's almost as bad as the 1500. It should be the MILE.

The mile is often times called the "imperial 1500 meters" or the 'le or the "miley".

The "original" Olympic Stadium in ancient Greece was supposedly like that chariot track in Ben Hur. It had 200 meter straights and a whip-around turn to go the other way. I believe in Hal Higdon's book from the 60's he described actually running a race on that track.

I am not sure if the distance was exactly 200 on a side.

Also, the 1500 meter was chosen simply because it is "one and a half kilometers" I have heard in year's past.

Raptured wrote:

Obviously 87 meter tracks are the best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_mVzJ5M6Vg

Thanks for posting that.

Funny to see a pretty fast mile run on a tiny track with hairpin turns.