mathemaggician wrote:
I used calculus and found that they had allowed for latent heat capacity of the surface. In warm weather the track expands. Even in cold weather it is more than 400 meters. So, given that Cheptegei ran his 12.35 in warm weather, he actually ran more than 5000 meters.
Integral or Differential?
rosewc wrote:
The IAAF Track and Field Facilities manual (2019), section 2.2.1, says the line of running for lane 1 is 30 cm outside the kerb. A "standard" 400m track is 398.116 m along the kerb and 400.001 m along the line of running. However, you measured the inside long axis on both tracks (Monaco and FBK)
the iaaf track and field facilities manual from 2019 says, in section 2.2.1, the "theoretical" running line, not the ACTUAL running line of the person. i want you to take a ruler, put it on the ground, and tell me that you don't run closer in a pack in an event like the 1500. so let me just recap what i just said and further things mentioned in the iaaf manual:
1. the actual track size should be 398.116m and not 400m, according to iaaf
2. the "theoretical running line" is 400.001m and not 400m, according to the iaaf
3. every other lane is basing it off of 20cm from the adjacent lane and not the 30cm like the first lane
4. the owners of fbk are frauds and should be punished
Assuming your measurements are accurate (*), and assuming two straights and two semi-circles, and that both tracks have a curb, with a curb factor of 0.3m, then both tracks are short ("mathemetician" got that right).
A standard track will have straights of 84.39m and two semi-circles with radius 36.5m.
Therefore your long axis measurement should be 157.39m.
You measured 156.57m for FBK and 155.94m for Monaco.
I see a lot of math results in this thread, but none of it seems to add up, but maybe I made different assumptions.
Adding the curb factor of 0.3m to a standard track gives 400.001219m.
If the long axis is truly short we must determine if the radius is short, or the straight is short (or both). Still assuming a curb factor of 0.3m:
FBK:
Short straight: Straight=83.57, Radius=36.5, Long Axis=156.57, 1 lap=398.361, short by 1.639m
Short turn: Straight=84.39, Radius=36.09, Long Axis=156.57, 1 lap=397.425, short by 2.575m
Monaco:
Short straight: Straight=82.94, Radius=36.5, Long Axis=155.94, 1 lap=397.101, short by 2.899m
Short turn: Straight=84.39, Radius=35.775, Long Axis=155.94, 1 lap=395.446, short by 4.554m
(*) There are several reasons to doubt whether your google maps method is accurate. Even if we assume the maps are to correct scale, and no overlapping photo errors, there is the issue whether you clicked the right endpoints of your long axis, which must be both exactly at the inside curb, and at the mid-point of the curves, and the accuracy with which you can do that from an image on your computer with a mouse. Your FBK measurement is measurably off-center, closer to one straight, and it looks like you made the same error on the Monaco track. Furthermore, it looks like your Monaco endpoints don't quite reach the curb at each end. And obviously, if the track is not two straights with two semi-circles, then all bets are off.
Could the distance not be made up by the width being greater?
mathematician wrote:
rosewc wrote:
The IAAF Track and Field Facilities manual (2019), section 2.2.1, says the line of running for lane 1 is 30 cm outside the kerb. A "standard" 400m track is 398.116 m along the kerb and 400.001 m along the line of running. However, you measured the inside long axis on both tracks (Monaco and FBK)
the iaaf track and field facilities manual from 2019 says, in section 2.2.1, the "theoretical" running line, not the ACTUAL running line of the person. i want you to take a ruler, put it on the ground, and tell me that you don't run closer in a pack in an event like the 1500. so let me just recap what i just said and further things mentioned in the iaaf manual:
1. the actual track size should be 398.116m and not 400m, according to iaaf
2. the "theoretical running line" is 400.001m and not 400m, according to the iaaf
3. every other lane is basing it off of 20cm from the adjacent lane and not the 30cm like the first lane
4. the owners of fbk are frauds and should be punished
There are many assumptions being made here and several are incorrect.
First, it is impossible to achieve the level of accuracy you are looking for by using Google Earth...end of that story.
Second, all sports establish their own set of rules and in this case World Athletics has adopted protocols and rules for how tracks are to be measured and constructed.
This includes:
A 400 meter track must have an accuracy between 400.00 and 400.04 m utilizing the detailed surveying methods outlined in the World Athletics Facilities Manual.....not by a measuring wheel, Google Earth or someones smart phone.
The 400 m distance is determined by measuring a line that is 0.30m from the right side of the curb (kerb for my European friends). And 0.20 m from the right edge of the left line for lanes 2+. Note: World Athletics does not certify 400 m tracks without a curb. Only 200 tracks may be certified by World Athletics with or without a curb.
There is flexibility on the length of the straights and the turns. The "standard" World Athletics track has a radius of 36.5 (curb) & 36.8 measured line with straights of 84.39 m. But there are some tracks that have a radius of over 39 m. The only limitation is that the outer most lane does not exceed 50 m (running line 0.20 m from the left line) for a standard radius track (slightly different for double radii tracks) for records or qualifying performances.
In addition, the track (and field venues) must meet specifications for levelness.
And as I mentioned in a previous posts, there are several points on the track that line up that must be correct otherwise hurdlers would be crashing into hurdles if the track was not accurate.
D.Katz wrote:
Sir George Everest wrote:
I am sure our Internetsherlock didn't take into account the curvature of the earth.
Or Plate Tectonics!
But you have to assume that the Monaco track is on the same tectonic plate. :-)
Why are there so many replies taking the op serious?
D.Katz wrote:
There is flexibility on the length of the straights and the turns. The "standard" World Athletics track has a radius of 36.5 (curb) & 36.8 measured line with straights of 84.39 m. But there are some tracks that have a radius of over 39 m. The only limitation is that the outer most lane does not exceed 50 m (running line 0.20 m from the left line) for a standard radius track (slightly different for double radii tracks) for records or qualifying performances.
This flexibility means (theoretically) that even if the google maps long axis measurements were accurate, the tracks could still be 400m:
FBK: straight 82.134m, radius 37.218m
Monaco: straight 80.400m, radius 37.770
Tracks are not standardized regarding respective length of straights/curves. The only standard is the 400m length measured (I believe) 20 cm out from the curb if there is one.
Les wrote:
Tracks are not standardized regarding respective length of straights/curves. The only standard is the 400m length measured (I believe) 20 cm out from the curb if there is one.
A 400m track MUST have a curb to be certified.
D.Katz wrote:
There are many assumptions being made here and several are incorrect..
First, it is impossible to achieve the level of accuracy you are looking for by using Google Earth...end of that story.
Second, all sports establish their own set of rules and in this case World Athletics has adopted protocols and rules for how tracks are to be measured and constructed.
This includes:
A 400 meter track must have an accuracy between 400.00 and 400.04 m utilizing the detailed surveying methods outlined in the World Athletics Facilities Manual.....not by a measuring wheel, Google Earth or someones smart phone.
The 400 m distance is determined by measuring a line that is 0.30m from the right side of the curb (kerb for my European friends). And 0.20 m from the right edge of the left line for lanes 2+. Note: World Athletics does not certify 400 m tracks without a curb. Only 200 tracks may be certified by World Athletics with or without a curb.
There is flexibility on the length of the straights and the turns. The "standard" World Athletics track has a radius of 36.5 (curb) & 36.8 measured line with straights of 84.39 m. But there are some tracks that have a radius of over 39 m. The only limitation is that the outer most lane does not exceed 50 m (running line 0.20 m from the left line) for a standard radius track (slightly different for double radii tracks) for records or qualifying performances.
In addition, the track (and field venues) must meet specifications for levelness.
And as I mentioned in a previous posts, there are several points on the track that line up that must be correct otherwise hurdlers would be crashing into hurdles if the track was not accurate.
rosewc wrote:
B. IAAF-approved 400 m tracks are allowed to have variable dimensions (within specified ranges), as long as the length along the line of running in lane 1 is 400.000 to 400.040 m. The ends, when semicircular, may have radii from 35 to 38 m. The ends are not required to be semicircles. They may have multiple radii of curvature (IAAF T&F Facilities Manual, section 1.2.3). These "double-bend layouts" are used to fit a soccer field or US football field or rugby field inside a 400 m track. Therefore you must carefully map out the entire track, rather than assume semi-circularity, to get an accurate length estimate. The Monaco track encloses a soccer field, so there's a good chance that it is a double-bend layout.
Summed up, the two main errors in the premise of this thread are.
1) Google is not a measuring device
2) The curves must be semicircles with a fixed radius. Notable example, Stockholm, although I think Stockholm had an extreme example of a multi-radius curve that was fixed in the last renovation. Mr. Katz, do you know the specifics?
interested reader wrote:
The OP measured the "diameter" of the track. Guffaw
Katz made the best post, imo.
He should. He's the only known expert on track (and road) certification who has ever posted on LRC.
I have a challenge. Zoom in Stade Louis II and try to use Google to measure the dimensions of the 18yd box on the football pitch. This has well known standardized dimensions, but you'll be lucky if you're within 30cm of the proper measurements. Google maps just simply isn't precise enough for this kind of work.
Look, a lot of Monaco results seem too good to be true, but the track has been checked with a lot more accuracy than you will ever get from satellite photography. Maybe it is short, but a dodgy Google Maps measurement isn't even remotely close to being proof.
malmo wrote:
Summed up, the two main errors in the premise of this thread are.
1) Google is not a measuring device
2) The curves must be semicircles with a fixed radius. Notable example, Stockholm, although I think Stockholm had an extreme example of a multi-radius curve that was fixed in the last renovation. Mr. Katz, do you know the specifics?
As you can see above, even assuming perfect measuring and perfect semi-circles, we cannot conclude the track is short, as we still have a degree of freedom in the radius of the semi-circles.
malmo wrote:
D.Katz wrote:
There are many assumptions being made here and several are incorrect..
First, it is impossible to achieve the level of accuracy you are looking for by using Google Earth...end of that story.
Second, all sports establish their own set of rules and in this case World Athletics has adopted protocols and rules for how tracks are to be measured and constructed.
This includes:
A 400 meter track must have an accuracy between 400.00 and 400.04 m utilizing the detailed surveying methods outlined in the World Athletics Facilities Manual.....not by a measuring wheel, Google Earth or someones smart phone.
The 400 m distance is determined by measuring a line that is 0.30m from the right side of the curb (kerb for my European friends). And 0.20 m from the right edge of the left line for lanes 2+. Note: World Athletics does not certify 400 m tracks without a curb. Only 200 tracks may be certified by World Athletics with or without a curb.
There is flexibility on the length of the straights and the turns. The "standard" World Athletics track has a radius of 36.5 (curb) & 36.8 measured line with straights of 84.39 m. But there are some tracks that have a radius of over 39 m. The only limitation is that the outer most lane does not exceed 50 m (running line 0.20 m from the left line) for a standard radius track (slightly different for double radii tracks) for records or qualifying performances.
In addition, the track (and field venues) must meet specifications for levelness.
And as I mentioned in a previous posts, there are several points on the track that line up that must be correct otherwise hurdlers would be crashing into hurdles if the track was not accurate.
rosewc wrote:
B. IAAF-approved 400 m tracks are allowed to have variable dimensions (within specified ranges), as long as the length along the line of running in lane 1 is 400.000 to 400.040 m. The ends, when semicircular, may have radii from 35 to 38 m. The ends are not required to be semicircles. They may have multiple radii of curvature (IAAF T&F Facilities Manual, section 1.2.3). These "double-bend layouts" are used to fit a soccer field or US football field or rugby field inside a 400 m track. Therefore you must carefully map out the entire track, rather than assume semi-circularity, to get an accurate length estimate. The Monaco track encloses a soccer field, so there's a good chance that it is a double-bend layout.
Summed up, the two main errors in the premise of this thread are.
1) Google is not a measuring device
2) The curves must be semicircles with a fixed radius. Notable example, Stockholm, although I think Stockholm had an extreme example of a multi-radius curve that was fixed in the last renovation. Mr. Katz, do you know the specifics?
Sorry, I don't have that information. That type of information could be requested from World Athletics or the owner of the facility. The World Athletics Facility Manual has several examples.
rekrunner wrote:
malmo wrote:
Summed up, the two main errors in the premise of this thread are.
1) Google is not a measuring device
2) The curves must be semicircles with a fixed radius. Notable example, Stockholm, although I think Stockholm had an extreme example of a multi-radius curve that was fixed in the last renovation. Mr. Katz, do you know the specifics?
As you can see above, even assuming perfect measuring and perfect semi-circles, we cannot conclude the track is short, as we still have a degree of freedom in the radius of the semi-circles.
I'm not sure how you came up with that conclusion?
If you have perfect measuring and perfect semicircles, then the track can be measured accurately.
Lofty Goals wrote:
Look, a lot of Monaco results seem too good to be true, .
I've never understood way? Perfect track, perfect weather, in an enclosed stadium with no wind, and the most important meet of the year. Easy for me to see why the results are so good.
Lofty Goals wrote:
I have a challenge. Zoom in Stade Louis II and try to use Google to measure the dimensions of the 18yd box on the football pitch. This has well known standardized dimensions, but you'll be lucky if you're within 30cm of the proper measurements. Google maps just simply isn't precise enough for this kind of work.
Look, a lot of Monaco results seem too good to be true, but the track has been checked with a lot more accuracy than you will ever get from satellite photography. Maybe it is short, but a dodgy Google Maps measurement isn't even remotely close to being proof.
I find it implausible that the Monaco track could be short, for a decade, and not go undetected.
It boggles the mind to think that the track wouldn't be measured and re-measured, using surveyor techniques, and certified and re-certified to be accurate on a regular basis.
If it were short, this would also be reflected in the times of 400m, 800m, 3000m steeple, etc.
As Dave Katz has said (repeatedly) a short track with wrong hurdle placements would result in athletes tripping over the hurdles.
I can see believing Beijing or Shanghai tracks were short for a Chinese National Championship, with something fishy going on once or twice with the certification of the track inside Chinese borders, but not a "western" track and not for a decade.
Putting aside any superior physical properties like modern track surface, I suggest the main reason Monaco times are fast, for some events, has to do with incentives to run fast. For example, for 1500m, Monaco is often the last chance to score before the final in Diamond League, so if the scoring is close, there is an incentive for some athletes to run fast to score. Finals are not always fast but tend to be tactical. In 2019, Monaco didn't count, and we saw the fastest event of the year was Lausanne. Previously the Golden League had a different format.
malmo wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
As you can see above, even assuming perfect measuring and perfect semi-circles, we cannot conclude the track is short, as we still have a degree of freedom in the radius of the semi-circles.
I'm not sure how you came up with that conclusion?
If you have perfect measuring and perfect semicircles, then the track can be measured accurately.
What I meant was "assuming google was a perfect measuring device". With shorter straights and a larger semi-circle radius (see above for exact figures) we can still theoretically have 400m tracks with these shorter long-axis measurements.
The other main error I pointed out, is that the long-axis measurement performed by the OP for FBK does not go through the center of the track, but is slightly offset to the left (or right depending on which way the viewer is facing). Any accurate measurement not going through the origin of the semi-circles will be short.
In other words, assuming the OP made absolutely no errors, we still do not have enough information to conclude "Diameter of Monaco Track is Short".