I feel as though the bank is an unnatural aide while the the flat 300 meter track is running regularly, with no aide.
I feel as though the bank is an unnatural aide while the the flat 300 meter track is running regularly, with no aide.
Yeah, but how about a 307 indoor track?
wll wrote:
I feel as though the bank is an unnatural aide while the the flat 300 meter track is running regularly, with no aide.
Well luckily we have something called science to counter with your opinions.
if 400m outdoor tracks are legit, then 300m indoor tracks are. 200m banked tracks are probably as fast or faster than 300m unbanked tracks anyway.
What science? You don't know what you are talking about.
ghastlyasstly wrote:
wll wrote:I feel as though the bank is an unnatural aide while the the flat 300 meter track is running regularly, with no aide.
Well luckily we have something called science to counter with your opinions.
This is true- the conversion is the same for both- but it has been studied- and athletes receive a much greater bump from a 300m track.
He isn't saying 300 meter tracks don't have a greater advantage. He is saying that the advantage is a natural one, its just making the curves less sharp while the banked tracks have an unnatural aide, using gravity to help propel you.
Ddraper wrote:
This is true- the conversion is the same for both- but it has been studied- and athletes receive a much greater bump from a 300m track.
I agree with the premise.
Any real official time is done on a flat 400m track.
Anything that would aid the event would be unofficial, like running a straight line for any race over 100m or running on a track or course larger than 400m (or 440y) or even a banked 400m track.
Anything that would give a disadvantage would produce a legit time. For example any flat track of any size less than 400m.
We know banked gives an advantage over unbanked.
So a 200m banked track has both an advantage and a disadvantage over a 400m flat track.
There is no straightforward conclusion that the disadvantage outweighs the advantage so it is fair to think any banked track is not legit.
Think of a road mile that went gradually uphill.
It may be more difficult than a track mile but the time could not be legit.
yea ok wrote:
He isn't saying 300 meter tracks don't have a greater advantage. He is saying that the advantage is a natural one, its just making the curves less sharp while the banked tracks have an unnatural aide, using gravity to help propel you.
Gravity is propelling you? Another POSE idiot at work.
gravity and inertia, thats how banked tracks work..I'm not sure what that has to do with POSE, idiot.
malmo wrote:
yea ok wrote:He isn't saying 300 meter tracks don't have a greater advantage. He is saying that the advantage is a natural one, its just making the curves less sharp while the banked tracks have an unnatural aide, using gravity to help propel you.
Gravity is propelling you? Another POSE idiot at work.
yea ok wrote:
gravity and inertia, thats how banked tracks work..I'm not sure what that has to do with POSE, idiot.
"That's how banked tracks work"? You are an idiot. Gravity doesn't propel you. Inertia doesn't propel you.
how do they work then?
I think the real issue with 300m tracks is this.
Someone runs fast on one of the first 300m tracks.
A couple people say, "Hey, maybe we can run fast there too".
So next year a couple more schools show up to run on 300m tracks, the times get a little faster.
The following year, even more schools show up to race because of the fast times from the previous years. The increased competition makes it faster.
Finally you get to the point where you can run 8:20 in a race and barely finish in the top 100. If you have a race that deep there is no doubt you will have fast times whether the track is 200m or 300m.
Now people can't even run fast times on 200m tracks because there are no real deep competitions.
They help runners run AGAINST inertia. When you turn, you change your velocity but you have momentum still going straight. Having a banked track allows you to push more outward to counteract that momentum/inertia, making it easier to turn. Or at least, that's what it seems like to me.
If this were an argument about a bicycle I'd probably agree.
But it's running. 300 m tracks are faster because ther are longer straights and less interuption to momentum. Bankedd tracks where you high and low sap a little of your concentration, have dead spots, and while it may feel super to be running the banks, it's not as fast as a more gentle curve of a 300 track.
And that's why all the times are faster on 300 m tracks than on 200 m banked or otherwise.
asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf wrote:
I think the real issue with 300m tracks is this.
Now people can't even run fast times on 200m tracks because there are no real deep competitions.
Tell that to the Indiana guys.
moon man wrote:
And that's why all the times are faster on 300 m tracks than on 200 m banked or otherwise.
Bullshit. For one thing, Times for 800 and under are even or faster on 200m banked. Mile is a wash. Above that it is a function of track construction, competitive depth and pacers (if any).
The good coaches and athletes make it to the meets that have all of the above, so the playiing field is even. If not, they do as Indiana has done and get enough depth on their team/training groups to rabbit deep fast in-house fields, making up easily for any thenths of a second a bigger track may or may not offer, and make the autos. Once again, good coaching and team synergy trump all.