Convert Yard time to Metric time?

Multiply time by 0.9144 to go from yards to meters.

That cannot be right...that would mean

50.2 for 440 yd = 45.91 for 400m

anyone?

0.99419192104176577909619333117786 * 50.2 = 49.908434436296642110628905225129

Wahoo wrote:Multiply time by 0.9144 to go from yards to meters.

Wow!!! 50.2 * 0.9144 = 45.90 the kids doin' okay.

Lemme see here. I can run the 100 yard dash in 10.00, therefore I can run the 100 meter dash in, uh, 9.144...say, I'd be movin' pretty good, doncha think?

Do ya get the feelin' something's not quite right here. The question was converting 440 yard time (where is this quarter mile track?) to 400 meter time.

440 yards is about 402.336134 (small 'about')...so 400 meters is about 0.994194 of 440 yards.

Try multiplying the 440 time by 0.9942 (400/402.336134=0.9942)

Closer to 49.9 for a 400 meter time.

Poor kid, all set to go out and tell folks about this 45.9 quarter that's right there on the ol' stopwatch.

My bad. Tried to simplify it too much and my stupid brain messed up. Figure 440y = 402.336m That last 2.336m represents 0.58% of total distance. Multiply that by 50.2, and get 0.29s (how long it takes you to go 2.336m). Subtract that from 50.20 and you have your 400m time: 49.91. That seem right? Again, sorry for my last.

The previous poster was right about the yards-to-meters ratio. Elaborating further, in order to get from 440y to 400m (or mile to 1600m for that matter), multiply the time by 0.99419. Therefore, 50.2 for the quarter mile is equivalent to a 49.9 for the 400. Technically, a "y" would have to be appended to the time to denote the conversion, i.e. 49.9y. It can go the other way too--a 4:00.00 1600 runner could be seeded in a mile heat with a time of 4:01.40m. Also remember that a hand time is only accurate to a tenth of a second, so the hundreths place can't be used unless it's a FAT mark. Furthermore, 0.14 or 0.24 seconds would have to be added to a hand time in order for it to be compared to electronic times.

Here's another item to consider that has nothing to do with the mathematics of conversion. Most 440y times are obtained on old dirt/cinder tracks or by running two laps on a 220y indoor track. Either way, a 50.2 440y time would be worth more than a 49.9 outdoor 400m on a Mondo surface--possibly 49.4 or less, but this is mere speculation.

This sort of reminds me of the "If I run in lane 2 for four laps, how far have I run?" thread. I'm proud to have contributed to such a semantic, pointless argument.

400m time = 0.994 x 440y time.

440 yards = 402.33625 meters, so the factor of (400 / 402.33625) is 0.9941933, but you'll slow down a tiny bit when running the extra 2+ meters of a 440y race; hence a good (but still arbitrary) conversion from 440y to 400m is to multiply by 0.994.

50.2 for 440y = 49.8988 (round to 49.90) for 400m.

If your 50.2 was a hand time, it still won't technically be equivalent to a 400m FAT of sub-50.00. If it was a hand-timed relay split, you could probably say you had a hand-timed 49.9 400m relay split.

Same principle for converting 2 miles to 3,200 meters: 9:00.00 (540 seconds) for 2M = 8:56.76 (536.76 seconds) for 3,200m.

A 4,400y DMR in 10:00.00 likewise gives a 4,000m DMR equivalent of 9:56.40.

When doing a proper conversion for seeding or ranked performance lists, there is no consideration for "slowing down." It is a simple ratio of the distances multiplied by the time.

P.S.: We've beaten this horse to death.

Shoe type? Lane? Clothing? Gender? Wind? Wind breaking? Starting blocks? Cinder blocks (carried)? Watermelons? Enchiladas?

Ah, the whole enchilada.

H2Oh-yeah wrote:

When doing a proper conversion for seeding or ranked performance lists, there is no consideration for "slowing down." It is a simple ratio of the distances multiplied by the time.

For seedings or rankings, sure. You have to eliminate as much guessing of "what could I have done for this other distance?" as possible. But I don't like it when somebody assumes they'll run the extra 18+ meters of a 2 mile at exactly the same pace as they ran for the 3,200. Why not assume they could run another 18 meters at pace on top of that? And on top of that? Using that line of thought, somebody could say they'd have no problem running their 1,500 pace for the mile.

We've beaten this horse to death.

You said it, brutha.

That reminds me - if somebody is into masochism, necrophilia and bestiality, could it be said without too much exaggeration that they are beating a dead horse here?