No rail, break trail wrote:
Time to rail wrote:
I was at Arcadia and my first thought before seeing the first race was ‘with all the money and all the planning it takes to put on this meet, they don’t have a rail?’ WTF!
That is the takeaway here.
^^ Can't believe they don't have a rail to avoid this! There is competitor culpability too; racing basics: never give up the rail and stuff anyone who tries to pass on the inside. Winner should have elbowed into the infield. Great race though.
I will agree, surprising how 1 Canadian was able to crush the 32 top Americans. (I repeat, Providence is drooling). This kid is for real. Supposedly after the race, even through his jet-lag and near heat stroke coming from the frigid climes of Canada (he trains in an igloo-like facility the word is), Kemp was complaining how easy the 7 laps felt. Indeed, he said he was was dreaming of some "real" competition. Likely he will have to go to New Zealand or Australia to find that.
the frigid climes Canada
-------------------------------
That's pretty funny. Kitchner is no different in climate than Detroit,less snow than Buffalo eh.
YeahBut wrote:
Greatwhitenorth69 wrote:
Not surprising that a Canadian SLAPS an ENTIRE top American field with ease.
With ease?
He barely held off Mooney who has a grand total of three races ever at the distance.
(Starting this season, 9:50, 9:20, 8:50, btw)
....He took 8 strides off the track to dodge traffic and push Mooney outside. Great Northern pride?? Maybe, but that makes you the Great Northern Douche for propping up this "performance".
This is correct
oldlegs wrote:
surprising how 1 Canadian was able to crush the 32 top Americans. This kid is for real.
Ha ha. The US/Canada thing is trite. Kid is definitely for real and ran a gutsy race, but "crushed" no one. There were 10 + guys within a few seconds of him and it was lean @ the tape finish. Great race.
Dumb comment wrote:
Dumb comment wrote:
There would be no reason to change the track size, because the railing would even farther inside the line than on a rail measured track. A rail can be installed in the same position as usual, and would NOT interfere with the size of the track.
You don't get it wrote:
So, making everyone run farther than regulation is ok with you? Do the math: how much distance in curve circumference does adding 4 inches to a radius give you?
The distance would not be lengthened in the least.
You failed to comprehend the post to which you responded.
Option 1: the rail is installed on the white line of the track. This would make the track too big since the regulations state that the rail is to be 12 inches from it. If installed on the white line, runners would be running on a larger track.
Option 2: install the rail 4 inches inside the white line. This would make lane 1 ok, but the other lanes would not be regulation size. Also, there may not be enough room to install a rail 4 inches inside the line all the way around the track.
I fully understand and disagree with your premise. You can not just install a rail on a non-rail track. It simply does not meet regulation.
Here's the part that is throwing you: you can't run as close to the rail as you can a line. This is why there is a 4 inch difference between the two.
Win by an inch, win by a mile, is the old saying up here in these chilly climes.
Great race except that the "winner" ran on the infield to pass everyone and got away with it.
Great race, impressive but he barely won. Definitely did not "crush" anyone. "Crushing" would look like leading wire to wire winning by a few seconds or gapping the field in the last lap. It's like winning a baseball game 2-1 vs 10-0. The latter would be "crushing." The former would be a close game.
geez boys, seems like I should have put in the sarcasm emoji after my last post.