I think the feedback of lap times would be helpful to the attempt. For me personally, it would just be more than I could handle mentally.
I think the feedback of lap times would be helpful to the attempt. For me personally, it would just be more than I could handle mentally.
Helpful factors:-
-Drinks stations every 400m so no danger if you miss a drink / fuel station.
-Potential for an intense competitive "atmosphere" around the track to encourage speed.
-High level of ability to see pace consistency from lap times / TV screen etc
-Absence of small error correction factor (1/1000 Jones wheel?) as track is accurately measured
-Consistent surface for grip
-Easy to identify fastest line to run
Disadvantages:-
-Crowded track potential?
-Mondo surface might increase fatigue (could be compensated for through choice of shoes)
-Constant left turns could increase fatigue differential between legs
-Wind unlikely to be "helpful" though this could depend on the track location
-Small field of competitors would reduce ability of big pacemaking group to go through half way etc
On balance I think if a 10k is faster on a track than on a road, there's no reason why longer distances couldn't be equally faster. And if it was set up properly it could be quite a TV spectacle.
Shhhhhhhh wrote:
hi daddy wrote:what about a marathon run on my dick?
Course measures a bit short.
Yes, pointless to have 4 inch long marathons.
I've done an indoor marathon twice on a 280-ish meter track. The constant lapping is annoying. There actually gets to be a wind effect established much like a pool gets a whirlpool effect if everyone runs the perimeter. This is noticeable when changing directions every half an hour and feeling the headwind upon the turn. The temps were good, but it gets DRY indoors.
My road best is 2:39. My indoor best is low - 2:50s. I was in better shape for the road marathon, but doubt heavily that I could have run 2:39 indoors.
They used to do indoor running at the Metrodome in the Twin Cities. I could see a big loop such as that with a track surface being pretty advantageous. A general 200/300/400 track, though, not at all.
How much would it cost to rubberize or Mondo the Dubai Marathon course? It is already basically a flat out and back. I think they could afford it.
Weldon did an awful job of explaining what he was asking as you can't ask a 3 part question on a messageboard without using bullet points as people suck at reading comprehension.
If you ran a marathon on a normal indoor track, it would clearly be slower than running outside due to all of the turns. On an outdoor track, I think the turns would also be annoying as hell.
The real question for me is if you put a track surface on the street in Berlin. I don't think you'd wear spikes for the whole 26.2. I'll ask John Kellogg. He's very good at this type of question as he'll probably have an opinion if the softness of the track will help you more than the fact that you are using a bit more energy than on a road.
We just need to have a marathon around Margaret Island in Budapest. They have a rubberized 5K path around the island. It would definitely be interesting to see the difference, even for a half marathon.
A track surface would definitely be faster. More bounce and less fatigue from banging your feet into concrete for 2 hours .
adambeston wrote:
Another interesting caveat is you could basically have unlimited pacers that jog the first lap and then sit down until they are needed later in the race. I believe this would technically be fair if unsportmanlike (same could be said of paid pacers that drop out too)
Not technically fair and against the rules in all sanctioned competitions.
Ok. I talked to JK. He said it's a good question. He thinks a track surface on a road would be faster. The energy return on a track is less than a road but it's easier on your legs as the impact stress of a road is higher which translates to metabolic stress.
He'd personally prefer to run a marathon on a track surface versus a road surface. In terms of how much it would help you, he didn't want to make a guess but I insisted and he said "probably about 30 seconds."
I'd think a shoe company could develop a "marathon spike" that would strike the right balance between protection and grip.
I would personally love a 1k loop.
On a Track wrote:
Maybe someone can fall behind several rounds and then come back to win the whole game
Shrubb lapped Longboat about 6 times in an indoor track Marathon and Longboat came back to win.
Obviously many Marathons have been won by people coming from a lap or more down.
Deek in the '82 CG for example.
Coureur22 wrote:
On a track, when you lap other runners, you have to cover more ground. That's something to consider, too.
Not if the lapped runners actually follow the rules.
rojo wrote:
The energy return on a track is less than a road
Doesn't this answer the question? I think a track surface would be slower, not faster. Track surfaces are only good for events where you can wear spikes, and I don't think running a marathon in spikes makes any sense.
Yes, the cumulative fatigue from wearing racing flats on asphalt will be greater than that of running on a track surface, but I don't think you pay for that until well after the race. For a two hour race, give me the fastest surface with the highest energy return.
Hounddogharrier wrote:
Great topic. The curves on a regular track would be a problem. Half the time you are running the curve, so half the time you are running longer . It would probably be an extra 200 yards over a marathon.
Ummm...?
Bryn R wrote:
New York the year Rita Jeptoo blew up massively.
Chicago the year Tomescu Dita hammered it at the start and blew up massively.
Boston the year the two Spira guys took it out hard, whole field let them get away thinking it was just a promotional stunt, news came back to the field that actually one of the guys had clocked a 60:xx half or something and then they all started hammering it.
I think it happens fairly frequently - you just need to remember all the best blow-ups.
Several years ago at Mary Keitany's first NYM, in which she swung for the fences, just as she had promised--going out at WR pace, dropping the field pretty hard, and then fading later.
I grew up racing on the Armory track in NYC and always did better indoors than outdoors. Maybe my coaching just sucked and I got more mileage in during the fall, but all of my race times were faster indoors. I think most people were a little bit faster outdoors, but they were also a few months older, so...
They don't emphasize enough how exciting it is to run on that track. All the spectators are right on top of you. Your friends and family are hanging over the railings yelling at you every 40 seconds or whatever and the whole arena gets into it when something exciting happens.
I definitely had track hack, even with the windows open, but I also spent over an hour in there several times and managed to survive.
The banked track takes a lot of stress off of your body during the turns. At marathon pace speeds it may even be a little too much banking.
It's nice to have splits every 200m, it helps a lot with pacing.
I'm not convinced that Mondo is outright faster than asphalt. If it were, why wouldn't they build a layer of Mondo into your running shoes? Having spikes makes a significant difference, but I can't believe that the bounciness of the Mondo would.
Here's a summary of some collective wisdom from this thread.
Track: 200m banked track is too short. Consensus seems to be that longer is better, but cost rises with length. Considering cost and number of turns, I think that a 1.0 mile, 2-lane track would do the job.
Facility: Would need to be protected from wind and be climate controlled, so basically must be indoors. Install humidifiers and dehumidifiers as needed to regulate conditions. You could consider adding a mist station that somebody could swing wide to run through, but that's probably moot if you keep the temp at 45-50 F or 8-9 C.
Nutrition: instead of drink tables, suspend things from the ceiling using detachable wire/string/tape. You could stick a Velcro strap onto a gel and hang it from the ceiling, and runners could grab it as they go by. Similar method for fluid cups. Maybe a moving table would be best?
Rabbits: if you just want a human-powered sub-2 marathon, you ought to forego all ethics of pacing and just have several rabbits (on PEDs too, why not) assigned to portions of the race.
Entrants: limit the field to 5-6 runners to minimize the need to pass people. You could also have a second group of runners start and finish on the opposite side of the track, a half mile behind. This could give a mental boost to competitors, who know that they must not lose focus. It also gives fans twice the runners to cheer for.
Surface: I'm not that aware of the science behind track surfaces, but I don't necessarily think it ought to be the typical track surface. It could just be asphalt. People have really overlooked this possibility.
Gear: runners should wear as little as possible, meaning probably just shoes and a speedo. Regular road racing shoes will be used as it will be an asphalt track. You can paint bib numbers on runners backs and chests.
Did I miss anything?
I predict that this race setup could allow a 2:03:00 marathoner (from Berlin, with perfect weather and rabbits til 30k) to run about 2:02:10. Build a longer track with larger turn radii and you can shave a few more seconds off of that.
They could just lay a mondo surface at Belmont park or similar horse racing track and run a marathon on it. Turns would be less tight than on a standard 400m track. You can also measure distance more precisely and not have to add on a couple hundred yards or so as they do on road marathon courses