Why a 400m & not 500m track?

Dont run the 1000m lap or you will be hung. I'm probably quite serious.

Hell, why not a 1000m track?

Hell, why not run with the horses?

In a tiny little track meet I ran in one summer, the starter was lining us up for the 1,500m. He asked us why the 1,500m became the distance people contested rather than 1,600 or whatever (4 laps seems to make sense?). He said that it was because a long time ago in a place far far away, they used 500 meter tracks.

Doubtful it's true.

The 500m meter track used to be a lot more common. Recall that the French and the Brits didn't used to be best of friends. GB had miles, and France had kilometers -- so naturally when it came to track the French couldn't use the British standard 440y track (which was, in perfect symmetry, 4 laps a mile). So they built a 500m track at Stade de Colombes and it became a big deal because of its huge turns that lent to fast times. Rudolf Harbig would utilize these turns when he ran 46.0 and set a world record. In fact, I believe that the Paris Olympics were held on it. Furthermore, and someone feel free to correct me, but they run the 1500m pretty much only because the original founder of the Olympics, Coubertin, was French. This also corresponded to the popularity of the 1000m race, which is an after thought today.

Bizarro metric tracks were found all over in metric countries. Sweden had a famous 385 meter track, and here in Massachusetts a Finnish community in Fitchburg, MA, built a 350m cinder track that they still hold meets on. This all went by the wayside when IAAF made 400m the standard measurement.

Now I propose a counterpoint. Why the 1500 and not 1600. 100-200-400-800-1600. Makes sense. Is the 1500 double anything. No. Is it half of anything. Again no. Is 1600 close enough to a mile so Americans will get it and not wonder why there are only 3.75 laps ? Yes !

why 1m=1000cm? why not 1m=977cm?

the heck with versailles.

karangasem.

Its to confusing to most folks also

"why 1m=1000cm? why not 1m=977cm?"

I live in the US and I even I know 1m != 1000cm. :-)

1m = 100 cm and 1000 mm

It looks like the speed guys like to measure roughly in terms of quarter miles (100 - 800) and distance guys like to measure in terms of half kilometers (1500, 5000,10000).

I would really like to see a 1600m track, would be great for the 400.

The track in Ridgewood is actually SHORT, more like 350 meters (maybe less). The first time I ever ran on that track, maybe 12 years ago, was at night near the end of a hard 8 miler....decided to do a lap hard just for the hell of it, and up to that moment had no idea the track wasn't a full 400 0r 440. For about .3 of a sec., I thought I'd just run a 400 meter PR in the middle of a workout. Bummer....

Does anyone have any more information on why the 1500 is the Olympic distance and what were the sizes of the tracks in the first few Oly Games?

I think the first stadiums were about 200-220 meters long and runners would run down, turn around a pole and run back.

Ponder this many time in past. Also very easily fit ALL field event inside 500m track. Would be good for generous benefactor building track facility to have 500m track side-by-side or outside (with adjoining homestretch) 400m track. Would be nice, as you say.

Or you could just put the 400m track in the "infield" of the 500 meter one :).

could it have something to do with how well a soccer field fits in the middle?

actually, i think that the distance of 1 mile had much to do with it. tracks were 440y before they were 400m. while 400m is a nice even number, 440 is not. but it is 1/4 of a mile. just as events like the 220 and 880 were portions of a mile. i think these distances were commonly raced before the introduction, or more appropriately the acceptance, of the metric system.

seeing as the majority of the world uses metric, i believe it was all converted for convenience.

why the 1500 became a distance race is still a mystery to me. same goes for 5k, and 10k. i assume it is because when tracks were switched to 400m, rather than yards, there would be confusion about where to start a mile, a 3 mile, and a 6 mile, which would all have different starting lines on a 400m track. so they switched them to simplistic metric distances. that's my guess.

a better question is:

we know a day's length by the the rotation of the earth. but who decided to split that into 24 pieces? and those 24 into 60, and those 60 into 60 more? seriously, where did time come from?

kartelite wrote:

Or you could just put the 400m track in the "infield" of the 500 meter one :).

Good if not competition facility. If is, spectator long way away from 400m track.

I look at it as % of 1K 100/10% 250/25%, 500/50%, 1000/100%, 1500/150% or 2000, 5000, 10,000 and so on.....

All of the metric folk measure everything in kilometers, why not run as you put it something more symmetrical. Look at all of the even numbered lap races that would come out of this. Thus eliminating all of the 1/2 laps or 3/4 laps of the current 1500 & 500 meter races, one start/finish line.

What is 400 & 800 & why? 3000 mt anything? We would keep the 100, 1500, 5000 & 10,000. Getting rid of the 200, 400 & 800. Adding instead the 500 & 1000 mt races.

I vote for the 500 mt track makes much more sense to me.

I agree w/ Doh...lets just run w/ the horses....