Slow Tracks Vs Fast Tracks

[Paul Henry]

Can we now officially put an end to the garbage arguments of slow tracks vs fast tracks. First; to date I have heard no scientific measurement of track hardness (eg. Moh's scale for minerals) and further no scientific way or ratio to work out track surface hardness measurement to speed and/or time.

The nerds were down our throats earlier in the year saying not to expect a record betweeeen Bolt and Gay due to the track being "hard" now shall I tell the tale. I don't think any meet has had so many PRs. So please nerds no more subjective arguments you'll already have screwed up the height vs speed debate.

[ATK]

The only way to settle this argument is to have another championship beginning the 24th back in Beijing. If the times shown there are faster, we have our answer...

[rasb]

Such blasphemy, PH ! How will we ever be able to compute BASIC?

[Paul Henry]

Such blasphemy, PH ! How will we ever be able to compute BASIC?

Boy to tell the truth I always thought the guys with the knows just pulled out a hat.

[rasb]

Such blasphemy, PH ! How will we ever be able to compute BASIC?

Boy to tell the truth I always thought the guys with the knows just pulled out a hat.

I thought they pulled it out of somewhere else...

[Davidokun]

Re: Slow Tracks Vs Fast Tracks

First; to date I have heard no scientific measurement of track hardness (eg. Moh's scale for minerals) and further no scientific way or ratio to work out track surface hardness measurement to speed and/or time.

Regarding the former, the IAAF explicitly specifies performance requirements (force reduction, vertical deformation, friction, et cetera) for such tracks, and the methodology by which compliance is verified in Chapter 3 of the IAAF Track and Field Facilities Manual.

Regarding the latter, here's what they write in Section 3.1.1:

Modern synthetic surfaces for athletics tracks are high performance systems formulated to be durable and designed to offer the best combination of dynamic properties for athletes. Obviously the surface requirements of sprinters are different to those of the long-distance runners. The technology exists to vary the dynamic characteristics of the surface to favour one type of event against another. Clearly with major athletics meetings involving all events, such "tuning" of the track to favour one particular group of athletes is not acceptable. For this reason, all surfacing systems should offer a "balance" of dynamic properties which represents a compromise between the various needs of the different athletes using the facilities. The performance requirements stipulated by the IAAF are based on the needs of all athletes.

[eldrick]

all one has to do is drop a toy-shop rubber ball from 1m onto that berlin track & see how high it bounces up

limit allowable is 65cm bounce

for most tracks, you can get a ballpark estimate for small variations of hardness with formula

new time = ole time * ( ratio of bounces )^1/2

if one is absoulte limit of 65 & another is 64, then if 10.00/20.00/44.00 is recorded on limit track, then what you'd roughly expect on less hard is

~ (65/64)^1/2 or

10.08
20.16
44.34

as we rarely see this much discrepancy week-to-week on the circuit in an elite performer, i'd offer there are very few, if any modern tracks which aren't very close to the limit - after all the 65% energy return limit has been present since at least '91 - plenty of years to acquire top tracks, so it's doubtful any prestige meet has anything other than at-the-limit track

[Paul Henry]

all one has to do is drop a toy-shop rubber ball from 1m onto that berlin track & see how high it bounces up

limit allowable is 65cm bounce

for most tracks, you can get a ballpark estimate for small variations of hardness with formula

new time = ole time * ( ratio of bounces )^1/2

if one is absoulte limit of 65 & another is 64, then if 10.00/20.00/44.00 is recorded on limit track, then what you'd roughly expect on less hard is

~ (65/64)^1/2 or

10.08
20.16
44.34

as we rarely see this much discrepancy week-to-week on the circuit in an elite performer, i'd offer there are very few, if any modern tracks which aren't very close to the limit - after all the 65% energy return limit has been present since at least '91 - plenty of years to acquire top tracks, so it's doubtful any prestige meet has anything other than at-the-limit track

Reference to "ball park estimate" has already destroyed your credibility. No need to read further since this will not solve the problem!!!!!

[eldrick]

well,

sir isaac,

amaze us with your scientific prowess & offer a better formula - it's definitely out there

put up or shut up !

[Paul Henry]

If we have to depend on ball park estimates to solve this question involving an event which zeros in to the 100th of a second we need to then get a real scientist even surpassing Newton (yours truly it seems) to solve this problem I brought up. So again I ask...loop to top!!

[3]

put up or shut up !

Mr. "eldrick", is this barometer by which you wish others to measure you?

[eldrick]

this is a scientific question with numbers required

if either of you 2 "bright sparks" can offer up numbers, formulas, etc, then enlighten us on this topic

if you can't, then don't time-waste

[3]

Mr. "eldrick", does requiring someone to *put up or shut up* offer up numbers, formulas or enlighten anyone on this topic? The only number association I can associate with this would be zero.

[eldrick]

you're wasting this topic's time

offer something numerical related to the problem

[3]

Sure, Mr. "eldrick":

Poster + unrestrained attitude = intemperate with 99/100 certainty.

Poster + poor attitude^2 = bitter with 100% accuracy with no standard deviation.

These are unconditional upon how high the ball bounces. Maybe you want to temper it down a bit if you want to be taken more seriously?