Could a fit Alan Webb break 3000M WR?

I agree, Malmo, but as we know, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and surely if ElG had been able to run 12:45 while in 3:26 shape, none of us knows for sure whether that combo might yield a 7:20 capacity, also. But your main point appears obvious yet possibly too subtle for some...

Yes, but as they say, "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were fudge and nuts...we'd all have a Merry Christmas"

Right, and that's why this thread's genesis almost appears tongue in cheek...The fact is that if you took the U.S. records from 1500 through 10,000 and plugged them into ventolin's calculator, you're still short of Komen's record. It would be easier for Webb to hold U.S. records from 1500 through 10,000 (I'm not necessarily including the steeple) than to get Komen's record.

Kartelite,

Thanks for the refresher on confidence intervals. I see that you are right and it would not apply to Ventolin's calculator, at least as I understand it. I can see I was in error.

Anyway, I guess I think it would be better if he did have a standard deviation (and a confidence interval) for his calculations. To say I have a 95% CI that Bekele could run between 12:33 and 12:31 seems to be a more defensible model then just coming up with one number as the ultimate answer. I guess that would be fraught with some of the same problems as the current calculations, as you would have some lack of data. I would still like to see his formula. As I stated earlier, I think it is better for interpolation than extrapolation. For extrapolations, I'm not sure it is any better than something like McMillen's which is really a table of equivalent performances. It should be a more robust model with two data points instead of one but I'm not sure if it is or not.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

For extrapolations, I'm not sure it is any better than something like McMillen's which is really a table of equivalent performances. It should be a more robust model with two data points instead of one but I'm not sure if it is or not.

I would like to know, too. Problem is, all of my posts asking V^? this question get taken down.

49.80/3'30 ->1'46.10 , 4'46.75 , 7'24.39 , 12'50.59 , 27'02.47

the times upto 5k don't look bad, but his 5k is slower than his actual 12'48 & anyone who saw that race knew he had 12'45 in him that day ( very poor 4th km when hicham tightened up with cherono breathing down his neck & slowed down turning a time-trial to just aiming for the win with last lap sprint )

you either have to slow his 400 or speed up his 1500 ( or some of both ) to get him down towards a 12'45

on balance, the choice is obvious which time you shoud adjust

people just over-estimate 400 speed of these guys

i can say without hesitation that the 5k/10k guy with the best likely 400 speed i've seen in past 15y was chebbii - a monsta

the iaaf article earlier mentioned a 50.68 last 400 in a 8'03 & only kicking from 250 out

from that, you can sensibly guesstimate he had ~ 49.5 - 50.0 out of the blocks

none of these other guys look anywhere close as kickers from race observation, so i really can't see sub-50 for any of them

nearest lines i find with 48.50 speed ( 800 to 0.10s ) :

1'44.50 ->3'28.69 , 4'46.04 , 7'25.51 , 12'57.06 , 27'27.86

1'44.40 ->3'28.33 , 4'45.46 , 7'24.42 , 12'54.78 , 27'22.06

1'44.30 ->3'27.98 , 4'44.88 , 7'23.33 , 12'52.50 , 27'16.25

1'44.20 ->3'27.62 , 4'44.29 , 7'22.24 , 12'50.22 , 27'10.45

1'44.10 ->3'27.26 , 4'43.71 , 7'21.15 , 12'47.95 , 27'04.64

1'44.00 ->3'26.90 , 4'43.13 , 7'20.06 , 12'45.67 , 26'58.84

the last 2 lines are relevant - close to/at komen's wr, but does anyone see him as a potential high-3'26/low-3'27 guy ???

malmo wrote:The problem with that logic is that Komen was a 3:29/12:39 guy. There has been only one human being in the history of the world with those gawdly credentials. Ya think that might be the reason he has the 3000m record indoors and out, plus the two fastest two mile times ever? YA THINK?

That is unfair on Geb.

He did run a 3'31.76i.

Now, I had a look at Mureika's 200m calculator a while back :

It has a lane function from which some extrapolation yields an outdoor conversion factor of

~101/102

That indicates his 3'31.76i -> ~ 3'29.7

Also if you look at indoor 3k list :

Komen 7'24.90 ->7'20.6

( almost exactly same as his outdoor WR )

Geb 7'26.15 ->7'21.8

indicates Geb actually was close to Komen's outdoor WR, it's just that he had so many piss-poorly paced 3ks outdoors that people believe he only was a 7'25 guy

ventolin^3 wrote:

That is unfair on Geb.

He did run a 3'31.76i.

Now, I had a look at Mureika's 200m calculator a while back :

http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/200altwind.html

It has a lane function from which some extrapolation yields an outdoor conversion factor of

~101/102

That indicates his 3'31.76i -> ~ 3'29.7

Also if you look at indoor 3k list :

Komen 7'24.90 ->7'20.6

( almost exactly same as his outdoor WR )

Geb 7'26.15 ->7'21.8

indicates Geb actually was close to Komen's outdoor WR, it's just that he had so many piss-poorly paced 3ks outdoors that people believe he only was a 7'25 guy

What on earth are you trying to do? There is no such thing as an indoor/outdoor conversions calculator. Jonas calculator that you used is a wind/lane/altitude calculator for 200m on an outdoor track.

and, FWIW, the indoor track at Hanns-Martin-Schleyer-Halle in Stuttgart is state-of-the-art banked and tuned 200 meters. It is FASTER than any outdoor track.

https://www.inmagine.com/imagebrokerrm-089/ptg01132984-photo

How does the calculatur relate to additional "help".

Transfusion work best for long distance.

malmo wrote:

What on earth are you trying to do? There is no such thing as an indoor/outdoor conversions calculator. Jonas calculator that you used is a wind/lane/altitude calculator for 200m on an outdoor track.

Exactly what I was thinking. You just can't convert indoor performances to outdoor.

If you run 3:32 for 1500 indoors in Feb, it shows you are in 3:32 form, whether its run inside or out. It would be reasonable to assume that by August you could get down to below 3:30, but it's certainly not a given. Some people just prefer running indoors. Coghlan was involved in many paced Mile races on the circuit, but he never beat his 3:49.78 indoor time.

malmo wrote:What on earth are you trying to do? There is no such thing as an indoor/outdoor conversions calculator. Jonas calculator that you used is a wind/lane/altitude calculator for 200m on an outdoor track.

I looked up some old notes & I found at the time I had to go to his research papers :

Under "Academic Papers" & then "Track & Field", go to :

"Wind and Altitude Effects in the 200 Meter Sprint"

& then section 4.3 : "Influence of Lane Assignments"

Relevant part is :

lane 1 = 19.76

lane 8 = 19.651

From that, assuming 36.8m curve in lane 1 & 45.4m in lane 8, you can extrapolate a 200m time for lane 1 of a 200m track of 1/2 radius above or 18.4m

The equivalent 200m time is 20.12 using best fit ( which is same for Logarithmic & Power fits )

That indicates a 19.76 outdoors in lane 1 is 20.12 in lane 1 indoors ( no banking ) or 0.36s difference all accounted for by difference in centripetal force

Now, I only did a 800 equivalence back then for Kip's 1'42.67i

0.36s centripetal difference is for a 200m indoors of 20.12 or for 200/20.12 = 9.94m/s

The speed of a 1'42.67 is a lot less ( 7.79m/s ) & you have to reduce the centripetal force correspondingly :

The simple formula is V^2/R

So from above, reduced time for Kip's run is

~ 0.36 * ( 7.79/9.94 )^2 = 0.22s

for each 200m segment

There are 4 of these in a 800m race, so his outdoor equivalent is :

1'42.67 - ( 4*0.22 ) = 1'41.79

I just used the ratio improvement of above ( ~ 101/102 ) for other distances, but doing it strictly, reducing the centripetal force accurately :

For Geb :

1) 3'31.76i -> 7.08m/s

Centripetal equivalent : 0.36 * ( 7.08/9.94 )^2 = 0.18s

For 8 curves run in an indoor 1500 ->1.46s or time outdoors of

3'30.3

2) His 7'26.15i -> 6.72m/s

Centripetal equivalent : 0.36 * ( 6.72/9.94 )^2 = 0.16s

For 15 curves run in an indoor 1500 ->2.47s or time outdoors of

7'23.6

3) For Komen, his 7'24.90i -> 6.74m/s

Centripetal equivalent : 0.36 * ( 6.74/9.94 )^2 = 0.16s

For 15 curves run in an indoor 3000 ->2.48s or time outdoors of

7'22.4

4) For Coughlan's 3'49.78 ( which suffers for estimating from odd variety of tracks back then - curves indoors/outs were not often standard 18.4m & 36.8m ) -> 7.00m/s

Centripetal equivalent : 0.36 * ( 7.00/9.94 )^2 = 0.18s

For 8 curves run in an indoor Mile ->1.46s or time outdoors of

3'48.3

ventolin^3 wrote:

OH MY GOD

Eldrick, where in your formula did you account for the banked turns and the positive effect of a tuned track?

The centripetal equivalent originates from an outdoor track with times 19.6+ & 19.7+ in lanes 1 & 8

We then extrapolated to a 200 track of 1/2 radius in lane 1

The interest is for times of 800/1500/3k on an indoor track. These races start on the level either at finish line or middle of back straight. The elite runner more or less immediately cuts into lane 1 from the gun ( he's still starting on level track though so it makes no difference ) & runs the whole race in that lane.

There is no effect of the banking as these guys are not running any part of the race in lanes 4 - 6 indoors.

Banking is only of concern in indoor 200 & 400 races, where entire race or 1/2 of race is run in lanes 4 - 6 for elites.

"Tuned" track ?

Not sure what you mean : they are mostly modern Mondo nowdays

Edrick, are you not thinking. We are talking about an indoor track, they are tuned, engineered so they give back more than they take. Also banking dramatically reduces the sideways momemtum exerted by centripetal forces as you turn. Obviously you've never run on a banked indoor track before.

You are using an algorithm of Jonas's that is unrelated to the topic of Geb running 3:31 on a banked and tuned 200meter track.

if a 7'25.00i guy did start race in lane 6 at say, an extreme 2m height above level & ran most of 1st lap in that lane before cutting in at the 200m mark ( like they run an indoor 400 ), then obviously he is entitled to a quicker time from the banked start

energy formula which gives an estimate is :

T2 = ( T1*d^2 ) / ( d^2 - (2*g*h*T1) )

where T2 is new time, T1 is original time, d = race distance, g = 9.8 , h = drop or elevation

7'25.00 -> ( 445*3000^2 ) / ( 3000^2 - (2*9.8*(-2)*445) ) =

~ 7'24.14

eldrick, what the hell are you talking about?

malmo wrote:We are talking about an indoor track, they are tuned, engineered so they give back more than they take. Also banking dramatically reduces the sideways momemtum exerted by centripetal forces as you turn. Obviously you've never run on a banked indoor track before

Laws of physics dictate you can't get anymore back than you put in. You may get some psychological effect of running on an even trivial lane 1 banking height, but not a physics one ( well, a 7'25.00 guy if he started on edge of lane 1 on the curve which may be upto 35cm higher than kerb would be entitled to ~ 0.15s quicker )

Eldreick, you are getting it. We aren't talking about being higher or lower on the curve, the simple fact of the bank dramatically reduces the sideways forces.

A 200m flat track is slower than a 200m banked track.

The indoor track in Stuttgart was engineered to be the fastest track in the world. At short distances like the 200 and 400 of course you won't run as fast as you do outdoors, but at 1500m, without the effects of wind, indoor tracks are fast.