it would seem to make more sense if tracks were 500 meters so that you can more easily calculate laps:
so for example:
5000 would just be 10 laps
10000 would just be 20 laps
it would seem to make more sense if tracks were 500 meters so that you can more easily calculate laps:
so for example:
5000 would just be 10 laps
10000 would just be 20 laps
You're right it would work great for 2 races!
Niquor wrote:
You're right it would work great for 2 races!
And the 1500, 3000, 3000sc. We could then get rid of this silly 1600/3200 stuff.
A 400 m track works for only 2 races (races that are run internationally anyway).
A 500m track would work for 1500, 5000, and 10,000.
I think it comes from the bible
Comes from the imperial system that was used originally - 4 laps to the mile. The Metric Nations made it 400m to compensate for the imperial nations who had their first tracks at 440 yards (NOTE: at the time it wasn't just the USA and UK)
That wouldn't work as the 400 would be 500 meters long.
Haji wrote:
A 400 m track works for only 2 races (races that are run internationally anyway).
A 500m track would work for 1500, 5000, and 10,000.
400 works for 4 races...400, 400H, 800, and 10k.
Galen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:
I think it comes from the bible
+1
OPloik wrote:
Haji wrote:A 400 m track works for only 2 races (races that are run internationally anyway).
A 500m track would work for 1500, 5000, and 10,000.
400 works for 4 races...400, 400H, 800, and 10k.
The 400 could begin and end on a straight.
Make that 6....add 4x100 and 4x400.
OPloik wrote:
400 works for 4 races...400, 400H, 800, and 10k.
They (400m tracks) fit around a Football field.
And the rest of the world made you to adapt.
400m (1/4 mile) tracks were made for sprints.
500m tracks are good for distance races.
The 800 would be awkward on a 500m track.
More awkward then the 1500 on a 400m track.
Most importantly it is easier and cheaper to build a 400m track.
And it fits easier into stadiums and around football fields.
The 500 would actually be a fascinating distance if it were regularly contested. You could have 75 mpw middle distance runners competing against sprinters.
Justin91 wrote:]
The 400 could begin and end on a straight.
That's true for any distance.
RunWild wrote:
Comes from the imperial system that was used originally - 4 laps to the mile. The Metric Nations made it 400m to compensate for the imperial nations who had their first tracks at 440 yards (NOTE: at the time it wasn't just the USA and UK)
did not know this. Were the imperials running distances like 110, 220, 440, and 880 then?
but the 800 has been a popular race, and would get messed up, as would the 400
500m track= more space needed also
Paul Revered wrote:
Were the imperials running distances like 110, 220, 440, and 880 then?
Yes, though the dash was 100y. Hurdles were 110. Other races were as you mentioned.
No offense, but you must be quite young.
How would that work?
Theoretically, the 400m track has 100m straights and 100m curves.
How long would each segment be? 125m ?
It would take a lot of time to calculate the starting distance for the sprints.
Everyone knows sprints > distance , albeit this site.
Justin91 wrote:
The 500 would actually be a fascinating distance if it were regularly contested. You could have 75 mpw middle distance runners competing against sprinters.
I agree and let's not forget the 100 second barrier. Though we did have some interesting 600 meter races this indoor season. A 70 mile per week 800 guy out kicked a speed side 800 guy and a 400 hurdler.