Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

that Beijing track

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • that Beijing track

    just found this is in a weekend piece from The Guardian. I have no idea as to the veracity of anything that is said there, but it's one explanation for both straightaway hurdles being topsy-turvy.

    << I understand Schippers was staggered by her time too. But there is another reason why it might have been so fast. It is the same reason three men went under 44 seconds in the men’s 400m final, and eight men went under 10 seconds in the heats of the men’s 100m. The new Mondo track. When I spoke to Andrea Vallauri from Mondo Italy, he talked about its “latest nanotechnology”, “new honeycomb design”, and “special trampoline effect” – but the key point he mentioned was this: it is their fastest ever.

    That is not just marketing spiel. As Stuart McMillan, coach to Anaso Jobodwana, South Africa’s bronze medallist from the men’s 200m in Beijing, puts it: “This surface is very different. Look at how it affected the male long jumpers and the hurdlers. The power guys just got too close to the hurdles and the long jumpers didn’t hit the board as much as usual. That is the speed of the track.”>>

  • #2
    Someone should do a poll of athletes who competed there and get their personal thoughts on the track in comparison to other tracks. Would be interesting to get a general consensus from the athletes.

    Comment


    • #3
      So, is this a new surface from the one that existed during the 2008 Olympics?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by _Jay View Post
        Someone should do a poll of athletes who competed there and get their personal thoughts on the track in comparison to other tracks. Would be interesting to get a general consensus from the athletes.
        I bet we'd know what Ashton Eaton would say!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gh View Post
          just found this is in a weekend piece from The Guardian. I have no idea as to the veracity of anything that is said there, but it's one explanation for both straightaway hurdles being topsy-turvy.

          << I understand Schippers was staggered by her time too. But there is another reason why it might have been so fast. It is the same reason three men went under 44 seconds in the men’s 400m final, and eight men went under 10 seconds in the heats of the men’s 100m. The new Mondo track. When I spoke to Andrea Vallauri from Mondo Italy, he talked about its “latest nanotechnology”, “new honeycomb design”, and “special trampoline effect” – but the key point he mentioned was this: it is their fastest ever.

          That is not just marketing spiel. As Stuart McMillan, coach to Anaso Jobodwana, South Africa’s bronze medallist from the men’s 200m in Beijing, puts it: “This surface is very different. Look at how it affected the male long jumpers and the hurdlers. The power guys just got too close to the hurdles and the long jumpers didn’t hit the board as much as usual. That is the speed of the track.”>>
          As we recall from previous threads on fast tracks (Tokyo 1991, Atlanta 1996, etc.), the IAAF has a test for whether a track is TOO fast (i.e., returns too much of the force put into it), and it was as simple as bouncing a steel ball on it. There was only a certain height that the ball could return to, to be considered legal. The question, therefore, is how did the Beijing score on this test?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by odelltrclan View Post
            I bet we'd know what Ashton Eaton would say!
            45 flat ? I mean 45 flat ! That can't be real !

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Atticus View Post
              As we recall from previous threads on fast tracks (Tokyo 1991, Atlanta 1996, etc.), the IAAF has a test for whether a track is TOO fast (i.e., returns too much of the force put into it), and it was as simple as bouncing a steel ball on it. There was only a certain height that the ball could return to, to be considered legal. The question, therefore, is how did the Beijing score on this test?
              What I heard was that the IAAF will let us know the test results as soon as the ball comes down.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tm71 View Post
                45 flat ? I mean 45 flat ! That can't be real !
                Martyn Rooney's reaction was good enough for me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by booond View Post
                  Martyn Rooney's reaction was good enough for me.
                  I missed that. What did he say?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tm71 View Post
                    45 flat ? I mean 45 flat ! That can't be real !
                    Lord Coe was probably envious!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Does the IAAF have any requirements on the acceptable weather conditions under which this test must be conducted? For example, are you allowed to conduct the test when it's 35F (2C) and damp outside?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                        As we recall from previous threads on fast tracks (Tokyo 1991, Atlanta 1996, etc.), the IAAF has a test for whether a track is TOO fast (i.e., returns too much of the force put into it), and it was as simple as bouncing a steel ball on it. There was only a certain height that the ball could return to, to be considered legal. The question, therefore, is how did the Beijing score on this test?
                        It seems that testing the vertical bounce does not capture all the nuances of the performance aspects of this track. It sounds like there is a directional elastic component that is involved, in part to finesse the 'bounce' restriction.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Can you even imagine what Bob Hayes could have run on a track like this?
                          10.06 on a chewed up cinder track . . . .
                          Somewhere near 8.7 on the anchor leg . . .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                            Can you even imagine what Bob Hayes could have run on a track like this?
                            10.06 on a chewed up cinder track . . . .
                            Somewhere near 8.7 on the anchor leg . . .
                            That is a sick thought! Are we talking Bolt WR territory? (That is a hand-timed mark though, isn't it?)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by billychuck View Post
                              (That is a hand-timed mark though, isn't it?)
                              Nope, the 10.06 from Tokyo is an FAT time.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X