Since he starts relatively slowly, and then has to pass a lot of people on the second lap. He seems to spend an inordinate amount of time in lane 2, which seems to add extra seconds to his overall finishing time?
Since he starts relatively slowly, and then has to pass a lot of people on the second lap. He seems to spend an inordinate amount of time in lane 2, which seems to add extra seconds to his overall finishing time?
ohh yea Symmonds could run 1:41 if he ran in lane 1!
Idiot.
Well, if you watch his race in Monoco, he's either on the white line between lanes 1 and 2, or he's in lane 2, and even has to swing into lane three on the final lap. If even conservatively he is losing .5 of a second on each curve, that's 2 seconds added to his time . . . .
Andreas Bube ran a superb race. Of all the competitors, he was the only one who stuck to the rail nearly the entire race. Of course he finished last. And how about the Spanish guy who finished 4th, ahead of Symmonds...he came off the curve and ran outside of Symmonds, in lane three to finish strong. I point these facts out only to demonstrate that LR has a bunch of idiots posting here. As Symmonds said, this was a time trial, with a rabbit, not like a real race. Symmonds has already shown us that he knows how to race in championship events, where three races decide the issue, not one "time trial", which was what Monaco was.
At his average pace from that race, he covered 3.85m every 0.5 seconds. So, you're essentially saying that his positioning on the track cost him 7.7m per lap.
This might not be too far off. The difference in track length from lane 1 and lane 2 is roughly 6.6m.
Obviously he runs in an equivalent of lane 1 for the first 200m of the race since it's staggered. But, just for fun, let's say he ran the final 600m of the race in lane 2. That's costing him almost exactly 10m. At his pace, that is 1.29 seconds. So, maybe he could run 1:42.5 unobstructed in lane 1.
With a rabbit. Don't leave that out. No way in that scenario is he running that solo.
Can we add this the list of Letsrun myths?
Letsrun myth #13 - Running in lane 2 adds a second per lap to your time.
Another genius posted the same thing about Nick yesterday and I tried explaining to them that they were postulating nonsense to no avail.
Well may be nick does not run the tight bend in line one very efficiently and he needs more space to turn and if he ran in line one all the way he might not do well. LRB can be full of morons hypothesizing everything and nothing at the same time.
All the runners move about in the race.
The guy who finished first in monaco was sort of tripped with 150m to go, what do you say about that!
At 200 meters, Symmonds was in last place, with nine men ahead of him, not counting the pacesetter. Ah--I'm so sorry I didn't manage to learn from you and realize that being almost ten meters down and in last place at the 200, and always having to run wide is an efficient strategy in a race in which two or three meters is (leaving Rudisha aside) often the difference between being in the money and out of the money. Thanks for the enlightenment.
math major wrote:
Another genius posted the same thing about Nick yesterday and I tried explaining to them that they were postulating nonsense to no avail.
Well may be nick does not run the tight bend in line one very efficiently and he needs more space to turn and if he ran in line one all the way he might not do well. LRB can be full of morons hypothesizing everything and nothing at the same time.
All the runners move about in the race.
The guy who finished first in monaco was sort of tripped with 150m to go, what do you say about that!
Coopington wrote:
At his average pace from that race, he covered 3.85m every 0.5 seconds. So, you're essentially saying that his positioning on the track cost him 7.7m per lap.
This might not be too far off. The difference in track length from lane 1 and lane 2 is roughly 6.6m.
Obviously he runs in an equivalent of lane 1 for the first 200m of the race since it's staggered. But, just for fun, let's say he ran the final 600m of the race in lane 2. That's costing him almost exactly 10m. At his pace, that is 1.29 seconds. So, maybe he could run 1:42.5 unobstructed in lane 1.
Folks are incredibly unrealistic about this stuff.
1) The leader is almost always very near the center of lane one - NOT ON TOP OF THE WHITE LINE. As such, this is the minimum realistic distance to be comparing to.
2) Nick is not running anywhere near the center of lane two on average for the three curves. In fact, in this race he runs on average for:
Curve 2: Dead on the white line dividing lanes 1 and 2
Curve 3: 3/4 of the way from inside white line to line dividing lanes 1 and 2
Curve 4: 5/8 of the way from inside white line to line dividing lanes 1 and 2
Taking your 6.6 meter difference per lap for a full lane differential he is losing:
Curve 2: 1/2 * (1/2 * 6.6m))
Curve 3: 1/2 * (1/4 * 6.6m))
Curve 4: 1/2 * (1/8 * 6.6m))
Total = 1/2 * 7/8 * 6.6m = 2.9m which is a VERY far cry from 10m.
Factor in the reality that virtually nobody not named Rudisha gets to run unobstructed in lane 1 the entire race and Nick is maybe losing between 1 and 2 meters to his competitors. Then add in the fact that he never has to lead, thus gaining a drafting advantage, AND he gets to run a more even pace than the folks sprinting out for the early lead and maybe, MAYBE he is putting himself at a 0.5 m disadvantage.
Can everyone please try to be just a tad more realistic in the future?
LRC: NO. I like living in my fantasy world where my dreams are reality.
in "winning running" peter coe advocates running on the white line between lanes 1 and 2 as it is only about 2 inches per lap.
Thanks for posting that so I didn't have to. Every Summer the nitwits like the OP come out and make the same ridiculous assertion.
Actually it was a question and not an "assertion." Get over yourself.
CoachB1 wrote:
Actually it was a question and not an "assertion." Get over yourself.
No, your first post is an assertion in the form of a question. Your follow up is also an assertion, sans question mark.
CoachB1 wrote:
Since he starts relatively slowly, and then has to pass a lot of people on the second lap. He seems to spend an inordinate amount of time in lane 2, which seems to add extra seconds to his overall finishing time?
the miniscule distance between huggin the rail in the 800 and running in lane 2 is not a factor. A more significant factor running an elite 800 is to try and avoid doing to many small accelerations to keep position. Boxes quickly form and if you run in lane one you must constantly be adjusting your pace to keep position. small accelerations of just a few strides off a fast past take their toll in the final 200 meters.People talk about tucking in behind a runner to save energy. In the 800 that rarely happens. Either the runner in front slows or you have runners wanting to run beside you or come up on your inside. You leave a foot between you and the rail eventually someone will stick an arm in there and try to move you over. same to your right, guys come up in lane 2 and want lane 1 and just move sideways. Running in lane 1 uses alot of energy. To be able to run your own pace relatively unobstructed either in lane 2 or taking the pace from the gun allows runners to run more efficiently. the exception to running in lane one is if you have teammates. You have them make way for you so you never get caught in a box. If you have good teammates you can run the rail and have them move over when you want to come through then they close the door and force everyone else to come around wide.