Does anyone know the formula or percentage to convert a mile time into a 1600 meter time?
Does anyone know the formula or percentage to convert a mile time into a 1600 meter time?
In high school it was 1.5 to 2 second difference. Nobody really runs the 1600meters anymore at the elite level.
Unless in a relay. But yeah, 1.5 -1.8 second for (4:15-5:00 mile) Not much difference.
Worky Zoomain wrote:
In high school it was 1.5 to 2 second difference. Nobody really runs the 1600meters anymore at the elite level.
No one EVER ran 1600 at the elite level.
I guess the author doesn't
consider the collegiate DMR at
NCAA Indoor Nationals or Penn
Relays "elite," but 1600m (leg)
IS run at some high-level meets.
divide by 1.00585.
Luke Skywalker wrote:
No one EVER ran 1600 at the elite level.
In the USA it is a common distance for high school track. I don't think I was ever even at a meet in hs where a 1500 meter race was run.
The 1600 is more logical to run than the 1500 anyway so long as we continue to go with distances that come from the English distances. Think about it, why do we run 400 meters? Why not 500? 500 would make more sense. We do 400 since that is one trip around a track and comes from the 440 yard run, which is a quarter of a MILE. all the track distances are still, even after going metric, still based on portions of the mile.
It is only at the point of 1500 meters that some start going to distances that are "round" numbers from the metric perspective, 1500, 5000, 10,000...
Below that, 100, 200, 400, 800 and then 1600.
Frankly, I think it would be better to scrap the 1500 and 1600 and at that distance run the mile, then return back to metric distances over that point.
Jed Babbin wrote:
Luke Skywalker wrote:No one EVER ran 1600 at the elite level.
In the USA it is a common distance for high school track. I don't think I was ever even at a meet in hs where a 1500 meter race was run.
The 1600 is more logical to run than the 1500 anyway so long as we continue to go with distances that come from the English distances. Think about it, why do we run 400 meters? Why not 500? 500 would make more sense. We do 400 since that is one trip around a track and comes from the 440 yard run, which is a quarter of a MILE. all the track distances are still, even after going metric, still based on portions of the mile.
It is only at the point of 1500 meters that some start going to distances that are "round" numbers from the metric perspective, 1500, 5000, 10,000...
Below that, 100, 200, 400, 800 and then 1600.
Frankly, I think it would be better to scrap the 1500 and 1600 and at that distance run the mile, then return back to metric distances over that point.
in the book, The Perfect Mile, this topic is discussed at length.
my personal opinion: standard distances for all races, especially here in the US. why? people understand "3 miles" better than 5,000 meters.
instead of the 3k steeple, make it a 2 mile steeple.
just my 2 cents from a marketing perspective.
hoplite wrote:
I guess the author doesn't
consider the collegiate DMR at
NCAA Indoor Nationals or Penn
Relays "elite," but 1600m (leg)
IS run at some high-level meets.
No the indoor DMR is not an elite race.
I guess you consider last years Indoor NCAA mile elite. What won, 4:08?
Just worry about your 1500meter or mile time. Those are the only real valid distance measurements among anyone who takes distance running seriously.
Weeee, that argument that last years NCAA Mile Final was not elite because it was won in a rather padestrian time makes no sense at all. IT WAS A TACTICAL RACE IN A CHAMPIONSHIP MEET!
By your logic, thats like saying the Olympic 1500 Final was not elite because it was won in 3:44.
Multiply the mile time (in seconds) by 0.994 to get a corresponding 1,600 time (in seconds).
Stanford's team finished in 9:33 in their last race. Not elite??