Oversized Tracks Aren't Fair!

First of all, Dempsey is a 307 meter track, not 330 (not a huge difference, but still gives credibility to your argument if you get it correct). Secondly, the competition provided in the high profile distance races plays a big factor in the fast times. You noted that Kimberly Ruck won "by alot." Do you think that if she had some competition in that race she would have run faster? Sometimes it's not all about the track, but who is in the races. You get all that talent together and people are going to run fast, period. The track does provide some advantage, but I think people place too much emphasis on it.

Why not discuss it with Joe Piane, track coach at Notre Dame. He was the one that got the indexing changed so that 200 meter banked and anything larger were considered the same. No one seems too concerned as the majority of distance coaches seem to like to send their athletes out to Washington, Iowa State and Notre Dame during the indoor season.

Plain and simple, it is a joke to have any of those marks count, especially since the NCAA championships are run on a 200 meter banked track and there are enough of those type of tracks around the country now. Any flat floor track at 300 meters and larger need to be heavily indexed or marks made on them should not be allowed. There is a precedence for this as at one time there was a wood track down in Texas that was also way oversized and marks were not allowed. That track disappeared quickly.

This past year someone did do an analysis of the NCAA qualifying standards and found no significant difference between the banked 200's and the oversized 300's. What has made the difference is the quality of the field. If everyone from Washington went to Texas A&M or Arkansas there would be ample faster times due in large part to the talent pool. With this philosophy we should not allow 200's, 400's, 800's from banked tracks since there are slightly more NCAA qualifying performances from those facilities. But if one would take the time to get the emotion out of the discussion, one would see the huge talent pool in the sprints which goes to Arkansas and A&M. Until the analysis clearly shows a difference we will have to continue with the system we have.

That is a flawed study, as was the one 10 years ago and the one 15 years ago. Reason being, as you stated, good tracks draw good athletes, thus resulting in skewed data. However, if you take into account radius of the track and number of turns per event, you will get closer to the truth. The other factor that was mentioned last year after the last chance meet at Notre Dame,is that there is no inside curbing on the ND track or the Washington track. I am not sure about Iowa State. In my humble opinion, no curbing (cones do not count) means no legal performance times.

So emotions be what they may, the oversized tracks have no business in indoor track. The standard size indoor track is 200 meters and it is banked, anything beyond that should be indexed, just as flat floor 200 meter tracks are indexed in the opposite direction.

Will anything be done about this. NO. The major college programs have the money and power to keep things as they are and have little interest in anyone ruining their game for them.

Oversized tracks have fewer turns and that's a significant advantage. Additionally, all of their turns have a wider radius, this reduces centrifugal forces significantly, allowing the runner to run at higher speeds more efficiently.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a scumbag.

Lets wait sums it up nearly the best. The shorter lapped sprints are going to be likely to have quicker times coming off the banked tracks than oversized. And visa-versa for distance events. Short of attempting to create a conversion percentage, not the current flat differential, the current system is likely the most straight forward to provide a good measure across the board.

Competition, more than the surface itself, is going to push out the top times.

Even if you were to say all the banked track is the standard since that's what NCAA's is currently run on, do you start to adjust for different degrees of banking? The same argument can be made for oversided tracks. Should the track at ND have a different conversion from those at UW & Iowa St? Even on the flat tracks you can argue paperclip turns versus one that sweeps nicely, or crackjob places with two different radii.

Indoor is an absolute crap shoot. The top times typically come out of the stacked meets. No different than the how the top times outdoors come about. There's more scrutiny on indoor obviously because of the qualifying method. Until there's a true regional system, the argument will go each way. Coaches just have to work the system to give their athletes the best chance.

Lets wait sums it up nearly the best. The shorter lapped sprints are going to be likely to have quicker times coming off the banked tracks than oversized. And visa-versa for distance events. Short of attempting to create a conversion percentage, not the current flat differential, the current system is likely the most straight forward to provide a good measure across the board.

Competition, more than the surface itself, is going to push out the top times.

Even if you were to say all the banked track is the standard since that's what NCAA's is currently run on, do you start to adjust for different degrees of banking? The same argument can be made for oversided tracks. Should the track at ND have a different conversion from those at UW & Iowa St? Even on the flat tracks you can argue paperclip turns versus one that sweeps nicely, or crackjob places with two different radii.

Indoor is an absolute crap shoot. The top times typically come out of the stacked meets. No different than the how the top times outdoors come about. There's more scrutiny on indoor obviously because of the qualifying method. Until there's a true regional system, the argument will go each way. Coaches just have to work the system to give their athletes the best chance.

No one comes off a tighter turn faster. That's why no one wants lane one in the 200 indoors or outdoors, banked or unbanked.

There IS one advantage, however, that an aggressively banked track enjoys in the 200 though - it's because there are two downhills (coming out of the curves) and only one uphill (going into the curve). On a track like Arkansas it's a big advantage.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT AN UNBANKED 300M TRACK IS FASTER AT ANY DISTANCE THAN A PROPERLY BANKED 200M.

Let's look at some case histories comparing other (mostly untactical) races:

German '09:

3:56 @200m (no real comp), then 7:47 @ Dempsey (pushed to finish by Coe), then 3:55.0 @ Big 12. 3:55>7:47

Wheating '08-'10

1:45.1 @ Eugene, 1:47-low @ UW, 1:46-low @ outdoor NCAA's (w/injury); 1:46.3 @ UW

Barringer indoors '09:

15:01 @ UW, 4:25 @ Big 12, 8:42 @ NCAA

Hasay:

9:50 3200 HS state meet (pushed), improves in XC, 3:31 on 200m DMR leg then 9:12 @ Dempsey unpushed

Solinsky: 13:30 @ UW (pushed); outdoors runs 13:12

Rupp '10:

3:56/7:51 double @ Dempsey, then 13:14 @ Boston w/cold

The depth of fast times at Dempsey is easily accounted for by the EXTRAORDINARY DEPTH OF COMPETITION. The same effect takes place @ Stanford every spring (and people used to accuse that track as being "short" and "possessed by the Devil", etc.).

I have watched hundereds of races @ Dempsey, and thousands elsewhwere over the decades, and conclude that compared to a quality 200m banked track, Dempsey is probably somewhat slower @ 200,400m, equal for 80-3000, some advantage (a few seconds at best-mainly due to extended passing lane) for 5000. Most of this difference will depend on the individual, and their running kinematics and racing style.

la la land wrote:

Oversized tracks have fewer turns and that's a significant advantage. Additionally, all of their turns have a wider radius, this reduces centrifugal forces significantly, allowing the runner to run at higher speeds more efficiently.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a scumbag.

That's an excellent way to argue. Now you should stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "I AM NOT LISTENING TO YOU!" That would really complete the picture

In Divisions II and III, there are penalties for both banked tracks and oversized tracks. In the 5k, I think oversize is +5.5 in DIII and banked is +3.5. The conversion is different in DII. I think it's like +3 for oversize. Then there is no adjustment in DI. I understand that there are different committees that make these rules but it seems silly to me to penalize for running on oversize tracks in one division and not in another.

There is no arguement to pose against the fact that running a wider radius reduces centrifugal forces. Neither is there any arguement to dispute that one runs 5 or 6 fewer curves on an oversized track compared to a standard 200 meter track.

There should be a small adjustment that reflects those facts. After all, the 200 meter track is the standard for indoor track. The other fact is that running on a 5 to a mile track is much more like running on an outdoor track than it is to running on a standard 8 to a mile indoor track.

That's self evident. The same way that we can say that a banked indoor track is quicker than a flat track of same circumference. To deny it, really isn't arguing, it's denying reality.

go back there wrote:

la la land wrote:

Oversized tracks have fewer turns and that's a significant advantage. Additionally, all of their turns have a wider radius, this reduces centrifugal forces significantly, allowing the runner to run at higher speeds more efficiently.

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a scumbag.

That's an excellent way to argue. Now you should stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "I AM NOT LISTENING TO YOU!" That would really complete the picture

Way to make a completely irrelevant to the poster you're quoting's point.

Well done!

There is also the issue that Washington (and apparently ND) have not placed the cones at the right spot. At Washington they have been placed INSIDE the white line rather than on the outside of the white line, taking two inches off the radius of the track (about 0.1% error). Watching video of Lisa Koll's great 15:29 they had the cones at the right place -- and there were a lot more of them than at Washington.

Banked turns negate centripetal forces on curve running. The faster 200m tracks have hydraulically adjusted turns to optimize the angle. This is why Dempsey is slower than say, Arkansas or Boston for sprints. It also tends to negate the effects of more turns/mile.Dempsey has long straights and narrow curves for its configuration. Several 200m tracks have similar turn radii to Dempsey, as well as the benefit of banking.I have cited some prominent case histories above,and I have observed dozens more. When it comes to these things, times don't lie. The fact remains: the top athletes are running similar times at all quality venues, whether 300 unbanked, or 200 banked.

bla bla land wrote:

There is no arguement to pose against the fact that running a wider radius reduces centrifugal forces. Neither is there any arguement to dispute that one runs 5 or 6 fewer curves on an oversized track compared to a standard 200 meter track.

There should be a small adjustment that reflects those facts. After all, the 200 meter track is the standard for indoor track. The other fact is that running on a 5 to a mile track is much more like running on an outdoor track than it is to running on a standard 8 to a mile indoor track.

That's self evident. The same way that we can say that a banked indoor track is quicker than a flat track of same circumference. To deny it, really isn't arguing, it's denying reality.

[quote]requisite jaundice wrote:

Banked turns negate centripetal forces on curve running. The faster 200m tracks have hydraulically adjusted turns to optimize the angle. This is why Dempsey is slower than say, Arkansas or Boston for sprints. It also tends to negate the effects of more turns/mile.

Dempsey has long straights and narrow curves for its configuration. Several 200m tracks have similar turn radii to Dempsey, as well as the benefit of banking.

I have cited some prominent case histories above,and I have observed dozens more. When it comes to these things, times don't lie. The fact remains: the top athletes are running similar times at all quality venues, whether 300 unbanked, or 200 banked.[quote]

Neither Arkansas nor Boston are hydraulic. Arkansas is faster than Boston in the 200 and 400 because its finish line is at the end of the straightaway and allows the 200 and 400 runners to start at the highest point of banking and thus run down the bank immediately at the start. By contrast, the finish line in Boston is a bit more on the straight away, meaning that the sprinters start on a slightly lower part of the curve, have to run up the curve just a bit at the start, and have to run a little more curve on the first turn - three small items that result in a slightly slower time. Also, Arkansas is a firmer track, whereas Boston has a bit more bounce to it. This also tends to speed up the sprinter just a tad more.

To me, 5 laps to a mile is a grossly oversized track relative to indoor track and a small adjustment is warranted. By no means do I think that we're talking about a lot of time here. I'd say it's something in the order of .2 per curve. So, for a mile, I would compare the 16 turns on an 8 to a mile track to the 10 turn on a 5 to a mile track and cite a differential of 1.2 seconds, as there are 6 fewer turns.

Whenever you're running around a turn, you're running slower and further than you would if you were running on a straightaway. Therefore the more turn running in a race, the more of an adjustment should be made (understanding that 200 meter tracks are the standard).

On most 200 meter tracks you only get about 75 of straightaway per lap. In eight lap race, that's 600 meters of straightaway and 1000 meters of curves. On a 5 to a mile, you get about 180 meters of straightaway per lap, resulting in 900 meters of straightaway and 700 meters of curves. So, you can see that the oversized track provides a significant advantage, especially on long races. 5k on a 200 meter track is about 2k of straightaway and 3k of curves. 5k on a 5 to a mile track is 3k of straightaway and 2k of curves.

Let me ask you this, what do you think the time differential would be if a running raced 3k of curves versus 3k of straightaway? Also, keep in mind, that when the runner is in a curved race, he doesn't necessarily have the inner pole position - he will occasionally be in lane two or outside of lane one. On a straightaway a runner only covers the shortest possible distance.

First of all, let me clarify the discussion by pointing out that between the variables of track length (180y, 200m, 300-320, even 400?) and banked vs. unbanked vs. adjustable banked, we have at LEAST a matrix of six-eight track types we are comparing in the indoor track times. We can all agree that certain tracks ARE indeed faster than others, and this is manifested in the flocking of top-level runners/programs to venues like Dempsey, Notre Dame, Iowa State, the Armory, Fayetteville, etc.. If you are in a program that only gets to compete on 200m unbanked facilities (sometimes at altitude), then yes, you are going to feel "cheated" by the reality that top programs have set the standard in recent years to faster venues. However, to portray these venues as "unfair" ignores the fact that they are indeed becoming the new standard (and are still well under the 400m standard universally accepted for outdoor time).

la la land wrote:

To me, 5 laps to a mile is a grossly oversized track relative to indoor track and a small adjustment is warranted. By no means do I think that we're talking about a lot of time here. I'd say it's something in the order of .2 per curve. So, for a mile, I would compare the 16 turns on an 8 to a mile track to the 10 turn on a 5 to a mile track and cite a differential of 1.2 seconds, as there are 6 fewer turns.

Now I believe we are approaching a "middle ground", but the question is whether somewhere in the range of a second/mile a "gross" differential? Certainly that is a matter of opinion. The tenor of the discussion has been that tracks like Dempsey or Notre Dame are "subtracting" (somewhat bizarre concept relative to 400m as the standard for the vast majority of times run over the course of a year) something like 3-5 seconds per mile, tantamount to cheating of a blatant nature. I think that my examples have shown that if there is a statistical difference between 200m banked and 300+m unbanked, it is negligible (one second or less) over the course of both an indoor and outdoor season.

Here are the standards for DI-DIII + NAIA:

Obviously, there is no consensus among these entities as to how to deal with "The Matrix", but looking at just 200m banked vs. "oversized" (mostly 306-320m) we have DI giving (over one mile) 0 seconds, DII giving 0.4, and DII 1.2 seconds allowance to the shorter configuration.

This is where the athlete comes in. Now not all runners are going to respond to different configurations in the same way. Just watch what happened to Kiprop vs. Lagat at MSG recently. Clearly Lagat has an advantage in size as well as technique relative to the lanky, inexperienced Kiprop. The extreme of this "ability" to extract performance from a tight running configuration is Eammon Coghlan, who ran sub-3:50 indoors, yet his outdoor 1500 best was only 3:35. At some point running indoor "boards" is almost like comparing the steeple to a flat 3000. Some guys have "the knack", whether through training and experience or through physiognamy. I suspect that this is why we are not seeing conclusive performance differentials in 200 banked vs. 300 tracks: the differential in individual variation is greater than the mechanical differential that exists in theory.

300+m tracks are here to stay. It is a logical configuration relative to the indoor sports facilities being constructed in well-funded schools of the 21st century. More will be built, and programs will flock to them for reaching time standards. If anything they are MORE FAIR to the majority of programs out there. For one thing, if you are in a program that has NO access to a banked 200m track (which is most), then your training on unbanked indoor or outdoor tracks will translate better, and REMOVE THE ADVANTAGE enjoyed by those few who have regular access to banked 200m facilities, when it comes to racing on those specialized configurations.

My suggestion is to reference the NCAA standards and decided for yourself what applies. The good news is, that if you are Sam Bair, you STILL ran a legitimate sub-4:00, and no one can deny that.

1 second is a huge difference in the mile. There will be guys in D1 who break 4:00 that don't make nats this year indoors.

If you add a one-second conversion to all the mile times from Washington, that takes 4 guys from 3:58.x (auto) to 3:59.x (provisional).It also moves 3 more guys who will probably make it provisionally at 3:59 low to 4:00.x, and probably not making it provisionally.

So a second makes a big difference in this discussion. That second would totally change the fortunes of 7 guys in ONE event at ONE meet alone.

...

300m tracks in my view are definitely an advantage.

Here's the thing. In the 3k, you run 15 laps on a 200m track versus 10 on a 300m track. Let's say you run right in the middle of lane one, not on the far inside. You're something like .3 meters outside of where the track is measured. So you go about a meter farther than the measured race distance per lap.

That's 5m difference or close to a second in the 3k right there, without taking into consideration the advantages of longer straights and narrower turns.

This is all evidence that indoor track is like preseason football and not to be taken too seriously.