"I believe the BU track is as fast or faster than an outdoor track" -Alberto Salazar

The intensity level of an indoor meet is tremendous. Watch Rupp's run at BU last winter: near-riot conditions within arm's length of the track. Now switch to an outdoor meet with a barren back-stretch, a handful of people on the infield, and the crowd sitting in the stands 20-30 meters away.

While completely unquantifiable, the kind of atmosphere that is created in an indoor facility, even for the non-elites, can make a difference.

sandybeaver wrote:

Most of the talk here has to do with the pure physics argument, but there is more at play here. The weather indoors is always perfect with no wind and typically good temperature with no precipitation. With mondo 200m indoor tracks that are built up on trusses (faster than hydraulic tracks due to the extra bounce) the energy losses from the turns are pretty damn small. Overall I think all of the conditions from each scenario almost even out, with outdoors being a little faster but the margin is much closer than the record books suggest.

...

I am of the opinion that the only reason indoor records are noticeably slower than outdoor records, especially in middle distance, are because the money is on the track in the summer, not in the winter.

I agree with your post here.

ksksi wrote:

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?

That calculation was a secondary thought, not the primary reason indoor tracks are as fast if not faster.

The real reason, for the nth time, is that indoor tracks are banked and outdoor ones are not. So on a flat 400m track you will put some lateral on the muscles strain when turning, but on a properly-banked turn, you will not. You still have to reverse your momentum twice as often, but you get much of that energy back on the bank.

No one has a calculation for this because it involves complicated biomechanics. That's why I am going by empirical evidence. It has been shown many times that if you dedicate yourself enough to indoor running (as many collegiates but few international professionals do), you can achieve faster times indoors.

krispy kremlin wrote:

The intensity level of an indoor meet is tremendous. Watch Rupp's run at BU last winter: near-riot conditions within arm's length of the track. Now switch to an outdoor meet with a barren back-stretch, a handful of people on the infield, and the crowd sitting in the stands 20-30 meters away.

While completely unquantifiable, the kind of atmosphere that is created in an indoor facility, even for the non-elites, can make a difference.

Agreed, I prefer indoor track to outdoor, both for spectating and running. I actually think a 200m banked track outdoor would be cool.

I've read that a physics prof calculated the advantage from the return of the boards at a Boston indoor tracks (harvard--the one where Coghlan went sub 4 as a master, also the same place I ran my mile pr) as a whopping 8 seconds per mile!

I can't find the study right now but this was on the board here at one time.

Hardloper wrote:

TAA wrote:

Salazar didn't say "or faster". He only said he thought they were as fast. He's still wrong.

Now lets see who has run faster indoors: Coghlan

Who has run faster outdoors: Everybody else

-Geb

-Most college kids (who take indoor seriously

I don't understand how you can look at that and still think indoor tracks are just as fast. The more times your body changes directions, the slower you run.

It is BANKED.

How do Geb's 3k and 5k prs indoors compare to his outdoor? O they're slower...

Do you have any scientific evidence that banked tracks make up for the more turning?

Indoor is faster for me.

Perfect in every way. The only possible thing that can go wrong is the air being a bit dry for my tender lungs.

But have any of you guys ever run at BU?

My PRs are far faster there than anywhere else. It leads me to conclude that the track is short.

Definitely faster.

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.

I can attest to the "tailwind" effect having just ran an indoor marathon yesterday. The runners change directions every 30 minutes and that first lap had some serious wind resistance.

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.

Addressing point #2. Schedule an indoor meet during outdoor season, like June/July, and have our top milers run there in pursuit of lifetime bests. Or use the indoor track during peak phase to chase the A-standard. For example, Matt Elliot could have chased his W.C. standard without traveling to Europe and hoping to get a lane assignment.

is sal perpetually walk around in a dour look on his face and pretending to be in deep thought. is he protecting something don't get it - shouldn't their be some levity in the regimine

BU's track is just as fast as an outdoor track. If you have ever run on the track then you know this. If you haven't then just take Alberto's word because he knows more about track than you do.

I have run at the Armory, Penn State, and Virinia Tech. They don't compare. BU feels like you are running on a damn trampoline. I am 6'7" so I would benefit more from an Outdoor vs. Indoor track than almost anyone, but I would still prefer the Boston Track. If you don't believe me sign up for a meet there and be ready to run fast.

I'll dumb down the physics for you. You turn twice as many times. Turning requires adding centripetal acceleration, instead of maintaining constant velocity in a linear direction. It doesn't matter if it's banked. More energy in each step will be exerted changing the body's direction, all the while the athlete tries to maintain their original speed. This isn't possible unless they expend more energy on the turns than on the straightaways. Sooner or later, though, that will catch up to you.

Great. Rupp will run 13:05 and Levins 13:08.

If AlSal actually said that, he is absolutely incorrect.

Basic physics says that you lose speed on the turns and the more turns you have, the more speed you lose. Period! Also, the races tend to be more congested, which forces you to chop your stride, runners are more likely to be lapped, which means you are more likely to have to go around runners, the temp is usually not optimal and the air quality is not the same as outdoors. With all of that said, sometimes the temps can be better than outdoors and you don't have wind to deal with and some runners are just naturally good at indoors just some basketball played are better at 3 on 3 versus full court.

It has been proven you can run fast indoors, Frank Fredericks ran an amazing 19.92 on an indoor track and the 200m is the most difficult indoor event, but overall indoor track performances tend to be about 5% slower than outdoors. If there truly was no difference, Rupp would be shooting for 12:53 instead of 13:06. (Case Closed)

trackcoach wrote:

If AlSal actually said that, he is absolutely incorrect.

Basic physics says that you lose speed on the turns and the more turns you have, the more speed you lose. Period!

INDOOR IS BANKED AND OUTDOOR IS NOT!!! I do not understand how people keep missing that simple concept.

trackcoach wrote:

It has been proven you can run fast indoors, Frank Fredericks ran an amazing 19.92 on an indoor track and the 200m is the most difficult indoor event, but overall indoor track performances tend to be about 5% slower than outdoors. If there truly was no difference, Rupp would be shooting for 12:53 instead of 13:06. (Case Closed)

Nonsense. Rupp has never indicated he can run 12:53 outdoor. Recent history is full of world-class runners running faster indoor than their outdoor PBs, Rupp included.

Hardloper wrote:

INDOOR IS BANKED AND OUTDOOR IS NOT!!! I do not understand how people keep missing that simple concept.

I do not understand why you keep ignoring the negative effects of banking and shorter tracks that I and others have proffered.

Would an outdoor track be faster if it was banked...?

Exhibit A: Rupp runs a 13:01 season opener in January. Score another for Eamon Coglann and the indoor track engineers.