Why is there a ban on indoor tracks over 300/320m for competition purposes (and can someone link me to that rule)?
I think it would be awesome to have more 400m indoor tracks. I know there's that one in Alaska and one in Canada, but it's ridiculous that they can't be used for qualifying times.
I mean, you're running the same distance either way; there's not much of an advantage unless it's just psychological. (Sharp turns, blah blah blah... I don't want to hear it).
Indoors is not a major.
chasing 400 wrote:
Why is there a ban on indoor tracks over 300/320m for competition purposes (and can someone link me to that rule)?
I think it would be awesome to have more 400m indoor tracks. I know there's that one in Alaska and one in Canada, but it's ridiculous that they can't be used for qualifying times.
I mean, you're running the same distance either way; there's not much of an advantage unless it's just psychological. (Sharp turns, blah blah blah... I don't want to hear it).
As someone who is a 6'5" sprinter, I can assure you that your last parenthetical may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on the site. The difference between a 400m curve and an undersized curve is light years.
you're an idiot wrote:
As someone who is a 6'5" sprinter, I can assure you that your last parenthetical may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on the site. The difference between a 400m curve and an undersized curve is light years.
Usain Bolt has made his first appearance on LetsRun!
It has always been my understanding that times on these indoor 400m tracks count as OUTDOOR times (qualifying for events such as NCAAs, OTrials, etc.), rather than indoor times.
Well I'm not a sprinter, moron. Prove what you're saying with a results link or something instead of being a f-a-g about it.
chasing 400 wrote:
Well I'm not a sprinter, moron. Prove what you're saying with a results link or something instead of being a f-a-g about it.
You have to be one of the dumbest posters on LR. If you need a results link for proof that tight curves slow a runner down then you are a retard.
Hey, go f*** yourself. I'm not dumb, and there is a high probability I'm far more intelligent than you.
the whole point of 'indoors' is that it is 200m track. Whether it is outdoors or in doesn't matter as much.
prove it!! From what we have seen so far, the consensus opinion is that you are a retard. Indoors has no wind, that is the only advantage, the tighter the turn the slower (especially non-banked) you'll run, and the faster you run the more you are affected (i.e. 400m versus mile).
chasing 400 wrote:
Hey, go f*** yourself. I'm not dumb, and there is a high probability I'm far more intelligent than you.
I agree with everyone else in this thread, you're a moron.
You say that you're not a sprinter; does that mean that only distance events count in track? Should it not matter that all sprint events are severely affected by a tighter curve? Just because it doesn't affect YOU, it doesn't affect anyone?
It's utterly laughable that you need "proof" that a tighter curve is more difficult to sprint around. Even if you're not sprinting, a miler or 5k guy is going to move slower around a 100m track than a 200m or a 400m track; that should be obvious. If it's not, well, then again, you're a moron.
haha so obvious wrote:
Should it not matter that all sprint events are severely affected by a tighter curve? Just because it doesn't affect YOU, it doesn't affect anyone?
It's utterly laughable that you need "proof" that a tighter curve is more difficult to sprint around. Even if you're not sprinting, a miler or 5k guy is going to move slower around a 100m track than a 200m or a 400m track; that should be obvious. If it's not, well, then again, you're a moron.
Let me ask you something. You do something in life and have a certain experience, from which you then draw a certain conclusion. You assume that most people will form a similar conclusion in similar situations, but you aren't certain, so you state as much. How is this moronic at all? I already stated I'm not a sprinter -- so if a sprinter KINDLY told me "Hey, those turns make a big difference for our times!" then I would say "Oh, okay, I was wrong. I guess that's why indoor tracks have their own set of records".
INSTEAD, I get some insulting reply that really missed my whole point about the discussion being related to 400m indoor tracks. He said something false about my intelligence (I have high grades in a technical major and most people consider me very practical), so I took offense to the statement and retorted with a similarly rude and unsavory response.
chasing 400 wrote:
Well I'm not a sprinter, moron. Prove what you're saying with a results link or something instead of being a f-a-g about it.
No need to prove anything to you. Clearly you don't get it.
There is no ban on 400 m indoor tracks. The question should be why build one? Track is a small sport. Indoor traxck is even smaller. The tracks fit in hockey and basketball arenas. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any indoor track. Unless its you running around your basement.
Indoor track and field has its own events - i.e. weight throw, its special implements - plastic coated shots. No javelin.
Its like a kids tea party for track.
bumping to embarrass this kid
Anyone have a link to that mile on the outdoor, 100 meter track in Alaska?
I couldn't find it.
chasing 400 wrote:
Why is there a ban on indoor tracks over 300/320m for competition purposes (and can someone link me to that rule)?
There is no ban on large indoor tracks for competition purposes.
There's a 440m mondo track in Salt Lake City around the Olympic Ice Oval.
Why not host an outdoor meet in a facility like that? Always perfect weather....
I actually think the rule is that indoor records from oversized indoor track don't count.
People run faster in a straight line than on a curve. With a 200m track vs a 300m or 400m track, there are more curves for the same distance, the curves are tighter, and the straightaways are shorter. That's physics, not psychology. All other things being equal (wind, altitude, temperature, etc) it's still easier to run a faster time on a bigger track so they don't count for records.
Not strictly on point, but if I were a billionaire, I would build straight, level mile-long track with one of those motorized cameras mounted on a rail that would go alongside the runners for the whole length and show the leaders on a jumbotron. You could run everything from the 200 up to the mile without a turn.
It wouldn't count for records, but would be very cool IMHO. You could probably get some "world's fastest" or whatever they call records on unapproved courses.
chasing 400 wrote:
Well I'm not a sprinter, moron. Prove what you're saying with a results link or something instead of being a f-a-g about it.
Take a look at the indoor versus outdoor records... moron!