I was thinking something similar. And make the sport amateur again. I'd rather watch a tiny number of real events contested honestly for the glory than where shyte like this is going.
I said recently to a long, long time track fan (he's in his 80's and has seen a LOT of athletics) that I would pay to see today's athletes running, just for once, racing on a cinder track for the whole meet. 1500, 5,000, 800, 200, 100 with basic spikes. Can you imagiune watching the cinders fly in HD behind some of today's best runners?
And TV could market the hell out of throwback track.
I actually think that Jakob would be one of those who'd sign up. He doesn't duck competition but actually enjoys it. No way would Syd show up. Some of the Brits probably like Muir. A few of the Americans... maybe.
Yep. May the best MAN win. Not man and his high-tech material aids.
Not only can its sensors provide a raft of real-time data that would be transformative to athletes, coaches, fans and media, but early testing has pointed to an energy return that is some 20 per cent greater than existing tracks.... “We believe we are creating the first major advancement. With our track, we anticipate that it will be 20 per cent faster than the Paris Olympic track, depending on athlete ability and external conditions. Our vision is to have the track become the universal standard all over the world. We have the world’s fastest running surface," said Alvina Chen, who is the founder and chief executive of Feldspar.
Full disclosure: Feldspar sponsored our Paris Olympic coverage but we never spoke to any execs about the track.
"One of the only sports where I’d go, ‘Where is the technology?’ would be athletics. When did we last have some form of technology that isn’t a shoe?"
.
.
.
THAT IS A GOOD THING, YOU IDIOT!
Why is the continuous addition of new technologies (rather than progression in actual training and performance) seen as positive, let alone necessary?
Exactly, this feels like a classic case of a solution in search of a problem. Given how rapidly world records have been falling of late, it’s not exactly like track needs to goose times.
Not only can its sensors provide a raft of real-time data that would be transformative to athletes, coaches, fans and media, but early testing has pointed to an energy return that is some 20 per cent greater than existing tracks.... “We believe we are creating the first major advancement. With our track, we anticipate that it will be 20 per cent faster than the Paris Olympic track, depending on athlete ability and external conditions. Our vision is to have the track become the universal standard all over the world. We have the world’s fastest running surface," said Alvina Chen, who is the founder and chief executive of Feldspar.
Full disclosure: Feldspar sponsored our Paris Olympic coverage but we never spoke to any execs about the track.
This is quite simple - unless they are going to pour/mount these tracks on some kind of elastic substrate or structure (like the plywood of an indoor track a la BU) then this is just a stupid claim - and the type of claim that sounds exactly like it comes from an executive or "media voice" that latches on to one piece of data and constructs their own narrative out of it. But of course nobody who actually knows has the guts to say "yeah so the 20% means this, but it doesn't mean that" sort of situation.
The displacement needed in a track to improve energy return by 20% means an entirely new way of building the track and that has nothing to do with Feldspar.