There's a new track in the neighborhood. But it's kind of weird. It has 100 meter markings that start on the turn.
In other words the track appears to be non-equilateral.
Until I can talk with th AD, or someone who knows - should I assume it's still a 400 meter track. Is it possible that it's 400 meter reference land is #2 or 3. As if lane #1 is 395 meters?
Unless the turns are longer than the straights - this track can't be 400 meters...
maybe the turns are longer than the straights. those kinds of tracks do exist - why don't you check some other markings on the track?
There are hurdle marks and relay zones and offsets for various starts, but no break lines on both straights.
The other tracks I have run on all have "break lines" that sort of mark out each 100 meters, and if in lane #1, each turn should be 100m also.
If these turns are different, I, want to know what lane to use for quarter miles. (I do long tempo work)
On a normal 400 meter track I use lane #2.
Stupid trackee wrote:
On a normal 400 meter track I use lane #2.
why?
There is no standard layout for tracks. The measuremnet of the turns and strights are going to be what the are. Some have long straights and short turns, some have short strights and wide turns. It would be rare indeed for a track to have a 100m turn.
100m is usually on the end of the turns, it depends where the finish line is. At Penn Relays the last relay exchange is about the midway point on the turn.
Because lane 1 would be 1600 meters, 10 meters short of a mile.
lane 2 adds at least a meter per turn (8 meters or more) in 4 laps making a perfect mile give or take 6 feet....you can "hug the line"
this math doesn't work if the track isn't equilateral.
equilateral tracks have 100 meter straights and a 100 meter turns for lane 1
this track appears to have 95 meter straights, who knows what kind of turns?
the RW track article, java script [no diagram worky] is messed up and I cant find a decent track info article on the net
Stupid trakeee wrote:
Because lane 1 would be 1600 meters, 10 meters short of a mile.
lane 2 adds at least a meter per turn (8 meters or more) in 4 laps making a perfect mile give or take 6 feet....you can "hug the line"
this math doesn't work if the track isn't equilateral.
equilateral tracks have 100 meter straights and a 100 meter turns for lane 1
this track appears to have 95 meter straights, who knows what kind of turns?
the RW track article, java script [no diagram worky] is messed up and I cant find a decent track info article on the net
It doesn't matter, the relative lengths are irrelevant all that matters is the lane width.
Stupid trakeee wrote:
lane 2 adds at least a meter per turn (8 meters or more) in 4 laps making a perfect mile give or take 6 feet....you can "hug the line"
That's true. Running 4 laps of a 400 meter track in lane 2 will be exactly 1 mile. That is, if the lanes on the track are 14.6 inches wide.
And Phil's right. The shape of the track makes no difference.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=250143&page=0Or perhaps the straights are longer than the turns? Cf. Monterey HS. Those straights had to be 120 yds. And, the turns were nearly square. 4x100 relays were classic there -- the person running the turns would be doing a windmill-type action with their right arm.
9:57 dual meet 2M solo there in 1980.
one lap in 2 then the rest on the inside would be close.
If we assume that each turn is a semi-circle then the difference in lap distances would be
2*pi*r2 - 2*pi*r1 = 2*pi*(r2-r1)
Since r2-r1 is simply the lane width and pi is about 3, the diffence in lap distances would be about 3 times the lane width, which can vary from track to track but is usually 36 or 42 inches (~ 1 meter).
Hence each lap is roughly 6.28*(lane width) longer per lane you move outward.
For whatever reason, 400m on a track is measured 8 inches from the inside lane marking in lane 1, but the staggers in the outer lanes are based on the inner lane line. Hence the stagger from lane 1 to lane 2 (5.10m for 36 inch lanes) is different than it is for lane 2 to lane 3 (5.74m for 36 inch lanes).
Why is this so difficult? wrote:
For whatever reason, 400m on a track is measured 8 inches from the inside lane marking in lane 1, but the staggers in the outer lanes are based on the inner lane line. Hence the stagger from lane 1 to lane 2 (5.10m for 36 inch lanes) is different than it is for lane 2 to lane 3 (5.74m for 36 inch lanes).
Almost right, it's measured 12" (300mm) from the kerb in lane 1 (if there is one), otherwise all lanes are measured 8" (200mm) from the line.
Why is this so difficult? wrote:
If we assume that each turn is a semi-circle then the difference in lap distances would be
2*pi*r2 - 2*pi*r1 = 2*pi*(r2-r1)
As was pointed out in the thread I referenced, it doesn't need to be a semi-circle for the equation to be true if you replace (r2-r1) with the width of the lane.
Ok, so the track is probably 400 meters no matter what.
No one has ever heard of using any other reference factor other than the "8inch" into lane #1 thing.
I've had some awful easy, fast laps on this track leading me to conclude at least 1 of 2 things:
Gee, new tracks are bouncy and make me go faster!!
Gee, running in lane#2 of this track feels like about running in lanes 4 or 5 on another track, I can go faster on the easier bend!!
Has anyone studied a realtionship between fast track times and slower times when using a track built using 100meter+ turns?
Stupid trakeee wrote:
Ok, so the track is probably 400 meters no matter what.
No one has ever heard of using any other reference factor other than the \"8inch\" into lane #1 thing.
Except as I pointed out above if the track has a kerb it\'s 12"
I\'ve had some awful easy, fast laps on this track leading me to conclude at least 1 of 2 things:
Gee, new tracks are bouncy and make me go faster!!
Gee, running in lane#2 of this track feels like about running in lanes 4 or 5 on another track, I can go faster on the easier bend!!
Has anyone studied a realtionship between fast track times and slower times when using a track built using 100meter+ turns?
Wider turns are faster particularly noticeable on indoor tracks. By running in lane 2 you\'re running about 6m/lap further i.e. 1624m in total.
I am not sure how this would factor in, but does the track have curbing? If a track is layed out to have curbing then the distances in lane one should be meausured, i think, 16 inches of of the inside line. But since there is no curbing in lane two, or any other lanes, the measurment is, i think, 8 inches off of the line. The best way to solve this is to see if the distances on the staggers between 1 and 2 are the same as between 2 and 3. I have raced on tracks that are layed out for curbing but do not actually have it, essentially making the race short if you are in lane 1. Also, tracks areound olympic soccer fields have 110 straights, 90 turns.
Jeezuz H Christ on a Hockey stick!!! 1600m compared to 1609m. Just add a freakin second Joe Blow. Anal with a capital A!