Who is the idiot that decided high schoolers should run the 1600?

800 on Maths wrote:

100

*2

200

*2

400

*2

800

*2

1600

*2

3200

^^ makes most sense

Nope. Because

*2

6400

*2

12800

*2

25600

*2

51200

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Tracks are 400 meters around (they have to be even number to work). It would be too challenging to start at the mile mark for every meet. Officials would be apt to starting in the wrong place.

When I was in high school all tracks were 440 yards. The had different starting places for 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 and managed to do it correctly without any trouble.

congratulations on the completely irrelevant post

Have you been to an American High School track meet recently? These coaches/directors/officials can't keep track of 4/8 laps that start and finish at the same line. Could you imagine if the start line was different than the finish line? Football coaches that do track for a side hustle wouldn't be able to handle it.

NCDistance wrote:

Have you been to an American High School track meet recently? These coaches/directors/officials can't keep track of 4/8 laps that start and finish at the same line. Could you imagine if the start line was different than the finish line? Football coaches that do track for a side hustle wouldn't be able to handle it.

And... since the 2 mile is longer than the 3200m, more people would get lapped causing more confusion.

The poor lap counter would need another card for the first lap when they still have 8 to go.

Weeping Willow wrote:

It’s not 1500. And it’s not the mile.

Same with the 3200. It’s not two miles.

Okay so it’s easy because it’s 4 laps around the track, but the time/distance means nothing.

If I would come into contact with the person that decided this, I would spit in his/her face.

It is all about the money. The same hedge fund that owns the name "Ironman" also owns the "mile", "2 mile", "3000" and "1500". The state athletic associations run the 1600 and 3200 to avoid paying royalties every time they call runners to one of those races.

mazel tov wrote:

No'sense wrote:

Nope. Because

*2

6400

*2

12800

*2

25600

*2

51200

congratulations on the completely irrelevant post

Congratulations on your completely ignorant comment. The point is entirely lost on a pea-brain like you. You picked an arbitrary point when top stop doubling while claiming that doubling is the "makes most sense" solution. Then you whine the doubling has to restart at some point. Imbeciles like you keep trying to create base 10 looks to base 2 distances.

If you want it to make sense then try:

100

200

500

1000

2000

5000

10000

20000

50000

Only the values 1, 2 and 5 are used to set up distance. Too bad tracks ovals were not set originally at 500 metres. Then it would be simple matter to run the above distances. Distance runners would be less confused counting laps because 1000m is 2 laps, 2000m is 4 laps. 5000m is 10 laps. Start and end where you started for all distances except 100m and 200m.

No'sense wrote:

Distance runners would be less confused counting laps because 1000m is 2 laps, 2000m is 4 laps. 5000m is 10 laps. Start and end where you started for all distances except 100m and 200m.

What would you do with the relays like the 4x100 and 4x400?

HS track meets already have a hard enough time finding officials, so you couldn't change the 4x100 to a 5x100 because you would add an exchange zone thus requiring another official. So you would have to make it the 4x125. This would be confusing since the sprinters are used to a 100. You might have some of them stopping after 100m and never reaching the exchange zone.

No'sense wrote:

Congratulations on your completely ignorant comment. The point is entirely lost on a pea-brain like you. You picked an arbitrary point when top stop doubling while claiming that doubling is the "makes most sense" solution. Then you whine the doubling has to restart at some point. Imbeciles like you keep trying to create base 10 looks to base 2 distances.

If you want it to make sense then try:

100

200

500

1000

2000

5000

10000

20000

50000

Only the values 1, 2 and 5 are used to set up distance. Too bad tracks ovals were not set originally at 500 metres. Then it would be simple matter to run the above distances. Distance runners would be less confused counting laps because 1000m is 2 laps, 2000m is 4 laps. 5000m is 10 laps. Start and end where you started for all distances except 100m and 200m.

Why would this make any sense? Even on a 500m track your sequence of relative distances looks like *2, *5/2, *2, *2, *5/2,... and your sequence of lap numbers is 1/5, 2/5, 1, 2, 4, 10, 20, 40, 100. What's natural about either of those patterns?

On the other hand, the sequence the other poster suggested always follows a *2 pattern, and the number of laps is always just 2^n, which seem very natural.

Yeah, 512 isn't very natural in base 10, but 2 and 5 aren't too appealing from this stance either. It seems like a bigger leap to argue that the sequence 1, 2, 5,... is natural in base 10 than to argue that powers of 2 are actually kinda nice, no matter what base you're in.

FFF wrote:

RF wrote:

... that seems like a bad reason because we switched to 400m tracks and distances that make sense on them for all the earlier events.

Not exactly correct. The tracks pre-400 "switch" were 440 yards. When I started high school in 1980, our school records still included times for

100 yard

220 yard

440 yard

880 yard

Mile

Two mile

Does that make more, or less sense than what we have now (other that Iowa)?

I makes more sense. Those are all internationally recognized distances. 1600 and 3200 are not.

The world is racing metric distances of 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 3000. We decided to "go metric" like the rest of the world. Then we choose distances no one else runs. But, hey, we're metric. We might has well ran the 1609.34 and the 3218.69. That's metric too.

It was a completely stupid decision. That fact that most of the people here can not understand it's stupid (and in fact support it) is no surprise.

The local high school coach has his kids setting 1600 and 3200 school records which are significantly slower than the mile and 2 mile school records set back in the 60s! Sad!

The point is base 10 and complete laps. You are trying to force 2^n on base 10 distances. That does not work in any way.

512 is entirely base 10: 5 = 10/2; 1 = 1 ; 2 = 2x1. Then repeat for longer distance.

As I stated: Running an even number of laps for distance is the key. You can only do that in a 5-1-2 system with track ovals set at 500m.

Well, then we should run the 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800. However, even imperial runs 100, 220, 440, 880, 1mile, 2mile, 3mile,6mile. Why not 110, 220, 440, 1/2 mile, mile, 2 mile, 4 mile, 8 mile (that would be a race).

If you are metric, the once you get to a Kilometer, then everything should be in multiples of that: 100, 200 (or 300), 500, 1k, 2k, 3k, 5k, 10k would be logical distances to run.

My high school TODAY has all sorts of online resources listing records, and they all start in 2011.

I started at that school in 1980, and ran a faster 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 than their records state.

I'm too dumb to follow what the heck you're saying, but it seems to me that maybe this idiocy is something bros, or us, can help end?

The solution here isn't any obvious metric derivative, it's what the rest of the world does.

On the high school level:

100

200

400

800

1500

3000

5000 XC (or anything close to that, it doesn't really matter in XC)

Does anyone here know Ted Cruz or Cory Booker or somebody who can propose evil government intervention to set things right?

blort wrote:

If you are metric, the once you get to a Kilometer, then everything should be in multiples of that: 100, 200 (or 300), 500, 1k, 2k, 3k, 5k, 10k would be logical distances to run.

For distances your 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 ... would result in an even number of laps IF a track oval was set at 500 meters—what I think they should have been originally set at. A 400 meter track is what causes confusion, and leads to lap miscounts errors.

So the reason you think 2 and 5 are natural in base 10 is because they have to do with doubling and halving other nice numbers? I'll take it for granted that 1 is nice and in base and 10 is nice from the fact that we're using base 10. But then saying 2 and 5 are also nice requires first arguing that doubling and having nice numbers keeps them nice. So why not just have 1 and keep doubling it instead of having to worry about halving 10 as well?

FFF wrote:

The solution here isn't any obvious metric derivative, it's what the rest of the world does.

On the high school level:

100

200

400

800

1500

3000

5000 XC (or anything close to that, it doesn't really matter in XC)

The 400 meter track distance was an ARBITRARY choice for a track oval.

From an ancient LRC post by Bad Wigins: "They [track ovals] were 500 meters once, during the primitive days of track. It's because of 500 meter tracks that events like 1500 and 3000 are run. … 500 meter tracks had 150 meter straights and 100 meter turns."