index the oversized tracks

come on get real wrote:

Running a 5k on a 300 meter track requires 17 laps or 34 curves. Running a 5k on a 200 meter track requires 25 laps or 50 curves. It's patently obvious that there should be an adjustment.

But the curves on the 300m track are longer. If you're really bent on your type of comparison, you should figure how many meters are spent on a curve vs. a straight between the two tracks.

But that doesn't matter anyway, since it's the radius of the curve that probably makes more difference.

300m flat tracks and 200m banked get the same treatment. 200 flat tracks get adjusted. That seems right to me.

come on get real wrote:

I suggest an adjustment of 3 seconds for the 3k and 5 seconds for the 5k.

I'd suggest you might need more evidence before you have a case for any kind of adjustment. "Come on get real" says we need an adjustment and it should be 3 seconds for the 3k and 5 seconces for the 5k is not a compelling argument.

300 meter tracks have fewer curves, wider curves, and longer straights. All three factors are advantages - which is EXACTLY the reason that coaches are sending athletes to those sites - they know that their runners will tend to run 1 to 2 seconds per mile faster on the big tracks.

Just heard this weekend that new indexes are coming down the pike, with further adjustments for flat floors and tougher adjustments for over 200 meter tracks. I think, if this comes to fruition, it is "about time". The logic is quite simple. The NCAA Championship is run on 200 meter banked track. Any tracks larger than that need to be adjusted to offset the difference. The difference is not perceived but based on enough factual data over the last 5 years.

come on get real wrote:

The bigger tracks allow the runner to run a far higher percentage of a 3k or 5k race on the straightaway than do the smaller tracks.

You do realize that it is about 50% straightaway, 50% curve no matter what size the track is, right?

toro wrote:

come on get real wrote:

The bigger tracks allow the runner to run a far higher percentage of a 3k or 5k race on the straightaway than do the smaller tracks.

You do realize that it is about 50% straightaway, 50% curve no matter what size the track is, right?

No, it is not. 200 meter tracks tend to have straightaways around 38 meters and curves around 62 meters.

come on get real wrote:

toro wrote:

You do realize that it is about 50% straightaway, 50% curve no matter what size the track is, right?

No, it is not. 200 meter tracks tend to have straightaways around 38 meters and curves around 62 meters.

Texas A&M's track has straightaways of about 35 meters with curves around 65 meters. In a 5k run, that means 3250 meters are run on the curve and 1750 on the straightaway. On the big tracks, in a 5k you'd run about 700 more straightaway (and, of course, 700 meter less curve).

Tracks generally keep the same ratios.

They don't keep that 62 or 65 m of curve on a 300m track and add straightaway to make the track bigger.

They make the curves and straights larger proportionately so you have the same distance of curves and straights.

And actually it is the tight turns that slow you down.

So a 200m track with 65 m curves will be faster than a 200m track with 40 m curves.

So the track with more curves than straights would be faster which kills your logic.

Yes, bigger tracks are faster.

Not because they have less curve distancce to run but because they have gentler curves.

And there are indexes but banked tracks have gentler curves so a 200m banked track nearly equates to a 300m flat track.

Cowboy Bob wrote:

The difference is not perceived but based on enough factual data over the last 5 years.

What and where is this factual data? I am not doubting its existence but would like to see it for myself.

toro wrote:

Tracks generally keep the same ratios.

They don't keep that 62 or 65 m of curve on a 300m track and add straightaway to make the track bigger.

They make the curves and straights larger proportionately so you have the same distance of curves and straights.

And actually it is the tight turns that slow you down.

So a 200m track with 65 m curves will be faster than a 200m track with 40 m curves.

So the track with more curves than straights would be faster which kills your logic.

Yes, bigger tracks are faster.

Not because they have less curve distancce to run but because they have gentler curves.

And there are indexes but banked tracks have gentler curves so a 200m banked track nearly equates to a 300m flat track.

Of course an added advantage to the oversized tracks are gentler (wider curves). The other advantage is longer straightaways and fewer curves.

Curves on the big tracks are typically 70 to 75 meters long followed by 75 to 80 meter straightaways. Both components are advantages of the 200 meter tracks.

...meant to say both components (the longer, gentler curves and the longer straightaways) are advantage over the 200 meter tracks.

What big tracks are you talking about?

A typical 400m tack has 85m straights and 115m curves.

If a 200m strack and a 400m track have longer curves than straights why would a 300m track have shorter curves than straights?

IAAF standards are acutally 84.39 m for lane one of the straightaway.

http://www2.iaaf.org/TheSport/Technical/Tracks/TrackMeasurementReport.pdf

p. 4

The curves around a 300 meter track are about as long as the straightaways around those tracks. Why?

For the most part, it's because they are built around 100 yard football practice fields. That will yield a straight of about 70-80 meters, depending on the particulars of the field house. The curve will make up the balance of the distance, so that will typically be the complement of 150 meters.

Obviously there will be some differences among the over sized tracks, but, the general tendency is for the length of the straight to be close to the length of the curve, whereas on a 200 meter track the straights are closer to half the lengths of the curve.

Both U Washington and Iowa State have full length football fields inside their indoor tracks, hence the long straight aways and wide curves.

come on get real wrote:

Both U Washington and Iowa State have full length football fields inside their indoor tracks, hence the long straight aways and wide curves.

Are you sure? It is hard to have 2 x 120yards, plus 2 x 40 yards (or whatever the width is, and then have the room to have a curve that is gentle rather than a box?

On another point, having Connor qualify for the NCAA 3000 on the flat 200m Wisconsin track might draw people' attention to the options. One reason that the Washington track produces fast times is that it is the meet that runners 'peak' for in terms of getting qualifying times and they run the races as time trials and avoid jockying for position etc.

toro wrote:

What big tracks are you talking about?

A typical 400m tack has 85m straights and 115m curves.

If a 200m strack and a 400m track have longer curves than straights why would a 300m track have shorter curves than straights?

IAAF standards are acutally 84.39 m for lane one of the straightaway.

http://www2.iaaf.org/TheSport/Technical/Tracks/TrackMeasurementReport.pdf

p. 4

This is another good link:

See the table at the bottom.

That's a nice graphic of a standard track.

Thanks

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Cowboy Bob wrote:

The difference is not perceived but based on enough factual data over the last 5 years.

What and where is this factual data? I am not doubting its existence but would like to see it for myself.

So, nobody has any actual data or evidence?