Monaco track short ???

RunWild wrote:

I suspect that the track has been engineered in such a way that it allows runners to have a bit more bounce with their stride.

You suspect correctly. Monaco has wider radius turns than the typical IAAF track, so the straights are closer to 80 meters and the curves 120.

List of short tracks according to LetsRun:

Stanford

Rieti

Florence

Boston University

Doha

Swarthmore

Heusden

Chinese National Games

Occidental

Brasschaat

La Chaux-de-Fonds

Monaco

And if you point out they ran similar times on another track, that one was probably short too. In fact it is possible that every track is short.

MarathonMind wrote:

RunWild wrote:

I suspect that the track has been engineered in such a way that it allows runners to have a bit more bounce with their stride.

You suspect correctly. Monaco has wider radius turns than the typical IAAF track, so the straights are closer to 80 meters and the curves 120.

Surely extending the bends, thus reducing the length of the straights, will lead to slower times. I thought it was easier to maintain speed on a straight compared to running a curve.

I would imagine it's easy to have the Monaco track illegally fast, as it's the home of the IAAF. There is probably a higher energy return of bounce, as a poster above suggested.

Track not fair - like circle.

Big advantage.

Lap short - big circle - record not count.

It was 1993http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-09/sports/sp-33176_1_chinese-women

Just Another LRC idiot wrote:

jjjjjjj wrote:

It's much easier to get away with starting the 1500m on the wrong line than making the track as a whole the wrong distance.

Like they did in the 1997 Chinese National ... never mind.

I'm laughing quite hard at the point you're trying to make. This wasn't a simple question, you obviously didn't see who I was replying to, I called the man that named off 15+ tracks, claiming that they could all be short, yet there has been world records on numerous of those tracks. This means the tracks are certified, proving that they are the correct length, and that there should be no questions asked.

Y'all left off Stanford from your short track list.

T&F should be like ice skate racing and embrace shortness. Heck speed skating even has a set of records called Short Track records

Oh No Apollo wrote:

T&F should be like ice skate racing and embrace shortness. Heck speed skating even has a set of records called Short Track records

it tis a moron paradigm.

rather than babble, why not present measurement data?

if you're really that interested, just get some string and unravel it and measure. you'll know within a meter what's what.

if the track is really significantly short, then the 400m times obviously need to be out of line. if no one is really setting 400m PRs then the track really can't be off by much.

1. Francena MCCORORY USA 88 49.83

2. Stephenie Ann MCPHERSON JAM 88 50.41

3. Christine DAY JAM 86 50.66

4. Christine OHURUOGU GBR 84 50.82

5. Floria GUEI FRA 90 50.90

6. Libania GRENOT ITA 83 51.07

7. Phyllis FRANCIS USA 92 51.17

8. Marie GAYOT FRA 89 51.31

JoJo beans wrote:

It's a valid argument considering all the ridiculous fast times run here every year.

A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises demands the truth of the conclusion. You have no premises, and your conclusion is a question.

Here is a valid argument:

Only an idiot would suggest that a track is short based only on fast times, with no evidence.

You have suggested that the Monaco track is short based only on fast times, with no evidence.

Therefore, you are an idiot.

I watched the race. They started at the 1600 start line and only ran 3 laps (~70 seconds/lap).

Letsrun sleuths do it again!

It isn't short. It's downhill.

Dont think its short, Google maps does a pretty good job with measurements. I did a couple of rough measurements (400m = 1312.34ft) and came up with distances greater than 1312ft with each measurement. Granted you cannot see the entire track so it is a bit difficult to know if the measurement is accurate....

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stade+louis+II/@43.7272042,7.4151034,183m/data=

!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x50a2648034c66ba1!6m1!1e1

longjack wrote:

Oh No Apollo wrote:

T&F should be like ice skate racing and embrace shortness. Heck speed skating even has a set of records called Short Track records

it tis a moron paradigm.

rather than babble, why not present measurement data?

if you're really that interested, just get some string and unravel it and measure. you'll know within a meter what's what.

if the track is really significantly short, then the 400m times obviously need to be out of line. if no one is really setting 400m PRs then the track really can't be off by much.

1. Francena MCCORORY USA 88 49.83

2. Stephenie Ann MCPHERSON JAM 88 50.41

3. Christine DAY JAM 86 50.66

4. Christine OHURUOGU GBR 84 50.82

5. Floria GUEI FRA 90 50.90

6. Libania GRENOT ITA 83 51.07

7. Phyllis FRANCIS USA 92 51.17

8. Marie GAYOT FRA 89 51.31

..unless the 1500 start line was in the wrong place. Then the track could be 400 meters but the race only 1490 meters long.

Well the straightaways are shorter so they have to extend them out for the 100s

https://www.planete-asm.fr/illustrations/image/Lieux/Stade_Louis_II/Plan%20Stade%20Louis%20II.jpg

Compared to Stanford's for example

http://image.cdnllnwnl.xosnetwork.com/pics33/800/GV/GVVYTLSBUIHSEHK.20150308042720.jpg

JoJo beans wrote:

It's a valid argument considering all the ridiculous fast times run here every year.

rumor has it that the same person who designed monacos facilities designed swarthmore which is also known to be 10m short per lap.

Stanford track is wider on one end than the other. Is that legal.

JoJo Beans wrote:

Well the straightaways are shorter so they have to extend them out for the 100s

https://www.planete-asm.fr/illustrations/image/Lieux/Stade_Louis_II/Plan%20Stade%20Louis%20II.jpg

Compared to Stanford's for example

http://image.cdnllnwnl.xosnetwork.com/pics33/800/GV/GVVYTLSBUIHSEHK.20150308042720.jpg

aslan wrote:

JoJo beans wrote:

It's a valid argument considering all the ridiculous fast times run here every year.

A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises demands the truth of the conclusion. You have no premises, and your conclusion is a question.

Here is a valid argument:

Only an idiot would suggest that a track is short based only on fast times, with no evidence.

You have suggested that the Monaco track is short based only on fast times, with no evidence.

Therefore, you are an idiot.

Yep. I was just going to say that he had a valid question, not a valid argument -- a question that will be answered by the IAAF during their ratification procedures -- but you said it way better than I could have, and ripped him apart quite nicely, as he deserved it.

Staggered wrote:

MarathonMind wrote:

You suspect correctly. Monaco has wider radius turns than the typical IAAF track, so the straights are closer to 80 meters and the curves 120.

Surely extending the bends, thus reducing the length of the straights, will lead to slower times. I thought it was easier to maintain speed on a straight compared to running a curve.

I would imagine it's easy to have the Monaco track illegally fast, as it's the home of the IAAF. There is probably a higher energy return of bounce, as a poster above suggested.

To MarathonMind: Prove it.

To Staggered: Prove it.

Until either of you submits a link to the engineering specs of that track to prove what you're suggesting, your allegations mean nothing.