Are indoor tracks faster than outdoor tracks? Nick Willis says yes*. What say you?

Of course "60 second pace" is totally arbitrary, but I understand the gist of what he's saying.

To answer his question, no, they are not faster. The quicker you have to change direction, the slower the track will be ALL else equal.

Air density and wind speed are better controlled on indoor tracks which makes for more frequent "ideal" meteorological conditions.

All he needs to do is ask a cyclist.

Yes. They are for tons of reasons. Every college season where 30 guys break 4:00 indoors and only 15 break the equivalent outdoors (despite that they should be in better shape) proves this. Galen Rupp running 3:50 also supports this. I think Nick will find it still applies to his pace, especially since the bank on the track can be adjusted.

The banked turn makes up for any wider turn on the outdoor track, plus if you "hug the rail" you can actually run less distance. The track is measured 30 cm from the inside (with a rail), so if you run 20 cm from the outside, you "gain" .63m per lap. On an outdoor track that's 2.5m gained, on an indoor track that's 5m gained. So that's 2.5m less you ran which is another .38 seconds.

Then you have the perfect temperature, no wind, loud atmosphere...

Domestic pro, you're completely ignoring the bank.

I think indoor is faster mostly because of the bounce - the Armory track in NYC is like a trampoline - you bounce on down the track. I run significantly faster at the armory than I do outdoors.

agip wrote:

I think indoor is faster mostly because of the bounce - the Armory track in NYC is like a trampoline - you bounce on down the track. I run significantly faster at the armory than I do outdoors.

this. nothing better than running an 800, mile, or 5k on a really nice indoor track.

What does torque on your body have to so with slowing you down?

curved wrote:

What does torque on your body have to so with slowing you down?

With no bank, the faster directional change combined with more directional changes (8 times vs. 16 times) is more work for your body.

It's the same science as a one mile long track being faster than a circular track. Energy, in the form of force, has to be expended to make you change direction.

agip wrote:

I think indoor is faster mostly because of the bounce - the Armory track in NYC is like a trampoline - you bounce on down the track. I run significantly faster at the armory than I do outdoors.

Hardloper makes a nice point about running slightly less distance. .38 seconds is a lot when you are maxed out.

There may be validity to the banking, as Hardloper suggested I was ignoring, but I still feel the less you turn the faster you'll go.

The "bounce" of indoor tracks could be the key. It shouldn't make the very fastest, most technically proficient runners faster, as they would be best served on a track with zero bounce, but those with poor elasticity would gain a tremendous amount versus their regular performances on harder surfaces.

Do you think the ideal surface for fast running is one that most resembles a trampoline? This reminds me of the treadmill thread.

Arm Chair Wrestling wrote:

curved wrote:

What does torque on your body have to so with slowing you down?

With no bank, the faster directional change combined with more directional changes (8 times vs. 16 times) is more work for your body.

It's the same science as a one mile long track being faster than a circular track. Energy, in the form of force, has to be expended to make you change direction.

That still doesn't make sense. More work for your body doesn't mean that it's taking away from the work that you can apply to your forward running.

For the several reasons stated above, the indoor tracks will often be slightly faster for time trial type efforts and fast races. Position matters twice as much though since you have double the curves, so if you find yourself on the outside very much, you will run slower.

I think the no-wind is the biggest aid in performance.

I've never run on a banked track, but I think Willis's note about the curves penalizing faster guys is correct, but only on flat tracks. It is at 800 meter speed where short tracks really start to slow racers down.

I say yes too. My 3k/5k PRs are from indoor banked tracks (Harvard, BU). I think the lack of weather is a small part of it, but I think it has more to do with the indoor surfaces "giving something back" when you land on them.

I agree that when you look at the evidence of college milers running slower 1500m equivalents outdoors.

It just seems that outdoor times are faster because people are fitter, run more races and have deeper competition.

It's funny that oversized (more than 200m) flat indoor tracks are not record eligible when the banked 200m tracks are likely faster and are record eligible.

I don't think so. All of the Men's running world records are slower indoors and by significant amounts.

Event Indoor WR Outdoor WR

400 - 44.57 44.13

800 - 1:42.67 1:40.91

1500 - 3:31.18 3:26

Mile - 3:48.45 3:43.13

2000 - 4:49.99 4:44.79

3000 - 7:24.9 7:20.67

2 Mile - 8:04 7:58

5000 - 12:49.6 12:37.35

My $.02 wrote:

I don't think so. All of the Men's running world records are slower indoors and by significant amounts.

Event Indoor WR Outdoor WR

400 - 44.57 44.13

800 - 1:42.67 1:40.91

1500 - 3:31.18 3:26

Mile - 3:48.45 3:43.13

2000 - 4:49.99 4:44.79

3000 - 7:24.9 7:20.67

2 Mile - 8:04 7:58

5000 - 12:49.6 12:37.35

Amazing performances at a time that is considered off-season and when athletes are nowhere near top condition.

I think INDOORS is faster because so many American distance runners (especially collegiate) are so grossly over-trained in the fall (cross country) and winter (indoors).

Distance guys are hurt, exhausted, or already thinking about cross country again.

'Yes. They are for tons of reasons. Every college season where 30 guys break 4:00 indoors and only 15 break the equivalent outdoors (despite that they should be in better shape) proves this. Galen Rupp running 3:50 also supports this. I think Nick will find it still applies to his pace, especially since the bank on the track can be adjusted.'

Check the WR lists

My $.02 wrote:

I don't think so. All of the Men's running world records are slower indoors and by significant amounts.

Event Indoor WR Outdoor WR

400 - 44.57 44.13

800 - 1:42.67 1:40.91

1500 - 3:31.18 3:26

Mile - 3:48.45 3:43.13

2000 - 4:49.99 4:44.79

3000 - 7:24.9 7:20.67

2 Mile - 8:04 7:58

5000 - 12:49.6 12:37.35

which is it? wrote:

Amazing performances at a time that is considered off-season and when athletes are nowhere near top condition.

Yep. Many top runners don't even run indoors. What is Rudisha's indoor PR? Just look at some of the guys who held those records.

Eamonn Coghlan was smart, he realized that indoor tracks were not that much slower and he had a shot at the indoor WR even though his outdoor PR was only 3:52 at the time. He ran... 3:50 indoor. 3:51 outdoor the next summer. And this was 1983, when the indoor tracks were probably nothing like Stuttgart today.

Haile has the 1500 indoor record... do you think he would come anywhere in the ballpark of the outdoor record?

Like I said earlier, a more fair comparison is NCAA times, because they take both seasons fairly seriously. Even though runners are in better shape outdoor, more of them break 4:00 (or equivalent) indoor.

ukathleticcoach wrote:

'Yes. They are for tons of reasons. Every college season where 30 guys break 4:00 indoors and only 15 break the equivalent outdoors (despite that they should be in better shape) proves this.

When the hell does this happen?