eh ???
nonsense
you have obviously forgot geb ran 21285m for his 1 & only shot at the hour wr on the track
someone obviously forgot to tell him he coudn't run that fast for such a long distance on the track as he woud get "too fatigued" ???
eh ???
nonsense
you have obviously forgot geb ran 21285m for his 1 & only shot at the hour wr on the track
someone obviously forgot to tell him he coudn't run that fast for such a long distance on the track as he woud get "too fatigued" ???
The first sub hour half marathon was run on a track by Arturo Barrios, not sure whether he wore spikes though.
Letsrun hero wrote:
Renato Canova wrote:Before speaking, you need to know:
Before posting, learn to write properly in English.
Renato Canova is one of the few Letsrun posters with an intimate knowledge of Elite level runners, you, on the other hand, are an idiot. Renato, please ignore the idiot.
Leanermeaner wrote:Ventolin, this is ridiculously obvious but you seem to have overlooked it: all else being the same, wouldn't a course with 4 90deg turns (this road race roughly) be faster than a course with 50 180deg turns (a standard 400m track)? Seems like that could add 10 or 15 seconds quite easily...
the track turns are 180 degrees over a 36.5m radius
the rotational forces involved at running at ~ 6m/s are negligible compared to a straight run let alone a loop road track which still has some angle
the rotational forces are only of significance at 8+m/s ( 100 - 400m runners ) on the track ( dependent on v^2/r. as you can see the v^2 component for a 10k guy is only 36, whereas for a 400m runner is 80 & a 200m runner is 100 )
this course has plenty of mini-loops anyway ( 2 loops ) :
http://www.mooneye.nl/Parcours2010.htmlmuch more significant is the accumulated uneveness in a loop course where even though overall elevation is 0, there have been an accumulated + & - components which even for a "flat" loop course may sum to an overall +100m & -100m over a 10k course
ventolin^3 wrote:
wilfredo wrote:Mark Coogan10,000 28:23.38 '92
10K 28:13' '94
how about someone who's a household name outside his own bathroom ?
who let you out of your cage
vent, pretty certain haile ran that in specially made flats, NOT spikes. could be wrong but i think you have to back down on this one.
what does 26.44 on roads transalate to in terms of 10000m on track? i reckon this guy could break bekele's record very soon.Alternatively he might go for tedesa's half marathon record.
komon go for it bekele's record and beat bekle's a** for 10000 at dagu kjorea WC
Joseph Kimani
10000: 27:28
10k: 27:04
The Waterboy wrote:
Oddly enough the World Leader in an event comes from the roads...
Not sure why you think it is odd.
The 10k leader would always come from the roads.
The 10,000m leader, this year and every other year, would come from the track.
Different events.
26.44 crazy wrote:
what does 26.44 on roads transalate to in terms of 10000m on track? i reckon this guy could break bekele's record very soon.Alternatively he might go for tedesa's half marathon record.
He's quite light, so I'll say the half marathon looks the best option.
ventolin^3 wrote:
eh ???
nonsense
you have obviously forgot geb ran 21285m for his 1 & only shot at the hour wr on the track
someone obviously forgot to tell him he coudn't run that fast for such a long distance on the track as he woud get "too fatigued" ???
drivel, utter drivel. he did't wear spikes.
it is false that a runner could run faster on a track than the roads for a marathon all other conditions held equal.
taking the equation for rotational kinetic energy T=(1/2)Iw^2 and using w=400pi/4 and applying a factor of 101/100 to the resulting T and then plugging that T into bullshitwebite.co.uk we get a final performance from 2:03:59 to
2:05:47
haile fan club. wrote:
vent, pretty certain haile ran that in specially made flats, NOT spikes. could be wrong but i think you have to back down on this one.
i think you guys(both sides) have gotten caught up in the wrong point.
the conversation was not about spikes vs flats, it was really about if someone could run faster on the track than on the roads.
the real issue here is that Ventolin suggested that the track is faster. isn't it? for a marathon on a track, i'd say that the biggest obstacle would be boredom. overcome that and sure a new world record would be run.
The Stache wrote:The effect of spikes (if he even wore them, which some are refuting) may not show up til later, but it will show up
& you now this how ???
The collective burden of wearing even the best distance spikes will rear its ugly head and slow down a 2:05 guy in the latter stages of a marathon on a track
again
& you now this how ???
And let's not forget that most of the marathon guys out there running 2:05-2:07 are marathon specialists these days and rarely, if ever, train in spikes to begin with.
drivel
the assertion that just because a guy trains in flats he cannot run a M race in spikes on the track is ludicrous
anyone who wants to seriously take advantage of the extra few tenths of a percent of traction these provide will wear them
moron
he knows this because he has studied at university, something you have obviously never done. or you spent your time with your head up your arse.
Taking the law of pyramids applied at a submaximal velocity v/8 we see that the friction factor increases exponentially just past 21.64K causing slow down and ulitmate muscular failure.
As long as the surface is smooth and flat, the roads are faster because they don't have any curves.
J.R. wrote:
As long as the surface is smooth and flat, the roads are faster because they don't have any curves.
This ^ is wrong.
Good tracks are specifically designed with fast running in mind. I can't think of a whole lot of roads for which this is true.
I also don't think that too many marathon courses are run in a straight line with zero turns and with no elevation changes (even small ones) along the way.
Think people. Please think.
exactly buddy, good tracks are designed with running fast in mind- NOT muscle fatigue and preventing it's onset. "slow" tracks are typically the ones that are softer, which are athe same tracks which distance runners run quite well at- hmmm, could lessening of the muscle fatigue have something to do with it, hmmmmmm
regress and digress wrote:
exactly buddy, good tracks are designed with running fast in mind- NOT muscle fatigue and preventing it's onset. "slow" tracks are typically the ones that are softer, which are athe same tracks which distance runners run quite well at- hmmm, could lessening of the muscle fatigue have something to do with it, hmmmmmm
So, you're saying that roads, designed and built for auto traffic are more conducive to running fast times than running tracks?
Okayyy...
Buddy!
100k
World record on the track: 6:10:20
World record on the road: 6:13:33