none of the times from this race should count for anything. the cones are not set up correctly along the "curb" . they should be on the line. Stupid mistake by the meet organizers. The times should def NOT count for qualification purposes.
Check out the video
You assume that because the cones are a few inches off, each runner is taking advantage of those inches every step on every curve thus making the times irrelevant. Do you realize how ridiculous that argument is? Tracks are measured in the middle of the lane anyways.
Renzel is either jealous of Rupp or has manlove for him. Neither fit on this board.
d3 runner wrote:
Tracks are measured in the middle of the lane anyways.
No, they aren't. A track with a metal rail/curb is measured differently than a track with no rail. I believe rail tracks are measured 30cm in from the rail, as where other tracks are measured 10 cm in from the line.
Since Washington's track is measured with a curb, but doesn't use a curb, it makes a small difference in performances. I estimate it could be about 3 seconds difference over a 3k, but that's just an educated guess.
Renzel wrote:
none of the times from this race should count for anything. the cones are not set up correctly along the "curb" . they should be on the line. Stupid mistake by the meet organizers. The times should def NOT count for qualification purposes.
Check out the video
http://www.runnerspace.com/gprofile.php?do=videos&folder_id=-2&mgroup_id=5&video_id=19479#comment_box
What would he use this time as a qualifier for?
The Boston Marathon 3K fun run?
d3 runner wrote:
You assume that because the cones are a few inches off, each runner is taking advantage of those inches every step on every curve thus making the times irrelevant. Do you realize how ridiculous that argument is? Tracks are measured in the middle of the lane anyways.
If you aren't sure of how the rules for measuring tracks work, you may want to avoid posting on this thread. Thanks.
coopington wrote:
d3 runner wrote:Tracks are measured in the middle of the lane anyways.
No, they aren't. A track with a metal rail/curb is measured differently than a track with no rail. I believe rail tracks are measured 30cm in from the rail, as where other tracks are measured 10 cm in from the line.
Since Washington's track is measured with a curb, but doesn't use a curb, it makes a small difference in performances. I estimate it could be about 3 seconds difference over a 3k, but that's just an educated guess.
How do you know it is measured with a curb? I've never actually seen one in use there so I have no reason to believe that they have ever measured it that way.
I am sorry I was not more clear, I said middle but I meant not on the line. So there is a 20cm difference from one measurement to another. What is the radius of curvature of Washington's track?
Hmmmm, this thread seems familier. Didn't we do this exact same thread last year?
coopington wrote:
No, they aren't. A track with a metal rail/curb is measured differently than a track with no rail. I believe rail tracks are measured 30cm in from the rail, as where other tracks are measured 10 cm in from the line.
Since Washington's track is measured with a curb, but doesn't use a curb, it makes a small difference in performances. I estimate it could be about 3 seconds difference over a 3k, but that's just an educated guess.
How do you know the track is measured with a curb? Do they ever use a curb?
Bruce Fordyce wrote:
What would he use this time as a qualifier for?
USATF Indoors in two weeks, perhaps.
Tracks are measured 30cm from a curb/rail. IF and ONLY IF, the track was created with a rail in mind.
Tracks with NO RAIL are measured 20cm from the line.
If the UW track was created WITHOUT a rail in mind, those cones are set up CORRECTLY.
The rule was clarified in the last two years. Cones are no longer supposed to be on the actual line if the track was certified without a rail. (Cones on the line ACT as a rail, and thereby lengthen the distance one would travel)
PDong wrote:
Tracks are measured 30cm from a curb/rail. IF and ONLY IF, the track was created with a rail in mind.
Tracks with NO RAIL are measured 20cm from the line.
If the UW track was created WITHOUT a rail in mind, those cones are set up CORRECTLY.
The rule was clarified in the last two years. Cones are no longer supposed to be on the actual line if the track was certified without a rail. (Cones on the line ACT as a rail, and thereby lengthen the distance one would travel)
Suck on those nuts, Renzel, coopington, Maximus!
Surprise! wrote:
Hmmmm, this thread seems familier. Didn't we do this exact same thread last year?
Haha, I do seem to recall a similar thread.
Surprise! wrote:
Hmmmm, this thread seems familier. Didn't we do this exact same thread last year?
Actually, it was in a thread very recently.
Maybe we can all get together and do this thread again next year.
First, PDong, can you show me where you read that tracks with no rail are measured 20cm from the line. I always thought it was 10, but I can't find that information again. I tried.
How do you know it was created without a rail in mind?
I have personally run on tracks that have the rail removed. It happens all the time.
I'm not sure which Washington's is, to be honest, but I don't think anyone who has posted on here has been SURE which way the track was measured. All PDong's post did was restate the measurements that we gave, and then contradict us on the use of a rail at UW, with no proof one way or another.
In fact, the only thing we know for sure from this thread is that d3runner was wrong when he implied it didn't matter and that all tracks are measured the same.
i have an idea wrote:
Bruce Fordyce wrote:What would he use this time as a qualifier for?
USATF Indoors in two weeks, perhaps.
Oh really? You don't think his 13:14 would get him into the 3k?
I think we need a nationwide movement to get railed at every indoor and outdoor track.