Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

that Beijing track

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Not to mention how many lane races did not even use Lane 1.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DJG
      Let's make all the new tracks 12 lanes and leave the first three empty then no one can complain again about being in the dreaded lane 2!
      Shamier Little and VCB like lane 2. lol By the way, what's a "broken back" design? I've never heard that term before.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Atticus View Post
        Not to mention how many lane races did not even use Lane 1.
        Angelo Taylor probably wouldn't do that well on this track.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DJG
          AKA, saddle back. The turns are longer and the straights are about 75 meters.

          the un-tightest turns I have seen and hence very good for sprinting on the turns.
          Okay, I've never heard that term applied to these tracks, but doesn't the IAAF have limitations on turn radius, and thus the shortness of the straights? I thought the straights couldn't be shorter than 86m and still meet the IAAF's specifications.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DJG
            Let's make all the new tracks 12 lanes and leave the first three empty then no one can complain again about being in the dreaded lane 2!
            Any lane where the radius is more than, I think, 50 meters, is not allowed for records (or qualifying??). On a wide curve, I think that you would have trouble with a Lane 11 and possibly a Lane 10.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DJG
              IAAF approved tracks have that limitation, but U.S. College tracks do not. You would think the IAAF would want the fastest surface with the best design, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Is the new Mondo surface the new gold standard? For my money their tracks are and have been the fastest.
              But what school is going to spend money putting down an expensive Mondo track that's not IAAF-sanctioned, knowing that they will never win a bid for an NCAA or USATF meet because of it?

              Comment


              • #22
                I saw no indication this track was a broken back (meaning the track has a break in the half circle of the curve, usually by having a short straight in the middle of the curve.)

                Also, these straights appeared to be about 86-87m, fairly common for international tracks.

                Comment


                • #23
                  They call it Mondotrack WS (World Series) and it will also be available in Rio.
                  From a Google translation of http://www.rfea.es/web/noticias/desa...sp?codigo=8378
                  "The new pavement Mondotrack WS guarantees optimum contact between the athlete and track, offering an unrivaled efficiency for traction, energy return and more effective non-slip performance. Vulcanization process in two stages enables a molecular bond between the upper and lower layer provides an ultra result.

                  When athlete's foot hits with Mondotrack WS, track suits offering maximum absorption of kinetic energy and ensuring maximum comfort. The lateral deformation of the structure in the form of cells helps to reduce the time needed to complete the rotation of the foot, also providing optimum support and continuous movement. Traction been improved to the point that it is no longer necessary that the studs penetrate the surface. When the foot leaves the surface, the track returns to its original form as a bow or crossbow, releasing large amounts of energy and literally, giving the athlete a big boost in his career."
                  See also the official website: http://www.mondotrack.com/mondotrackws/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DJG
                    Colleges usually have multiuser concerns not IAAF sanctions on their minds when putting in new track facilities. Better track surfaces, indoor 300meter tracks , banked turns are all designed for speed and better performances. And I don't believe any NCAA or IAAF standard is written in stone. If this new track is better it will be bought and built.
                    I haven't done a survey of coaches and athletic directors, but I have a hunch that the colleges with the big track budgets and who are willing to invest in top-notch facilities (eg. Oregon, Arkansas, Texas A&M, etc.), also want their track to be IAAF-sanctioned. The schools with smaller budgets that need to do a lot more than host track meets at thier facility probably aren't going to go the extra mile to lay down the Mondo that was in the Beijing stadium. Also, I'm sure you already know that if there's a football field inside the track, short straightaways and wide-radius turns won't fit.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DJG
                      AKA, saddle back. The turns are longer and the straights are about 75 meters.

                      the un-tightest turns I have seen and hence very good for sprinting on the turns.
                      But doesn't the shortness of the straight negate the benefit of the bends being un-tight? since you run faster in a straight line, so the longer the straight the better.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by etuoyo View Post
                        But doesn't the shortness of the straight negate the benefit of the bends being un-tight? since you run faster in a straight line, so the longer the straight the better.
                        Not completely, therefore it's a net gain when you have wider turns and shorter straights. The slowest configuration would be an out-and-back on a 200-meter straightaway.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by etuoyo View Post
                          But doesn't the shortness of the straight negate the benefit of the bends being un-tight? since you run faster in a straight line, so the longer the straight the better.
                          The very fact that they go wide, often as wide as they can, when they are not restricted (e.g., by dual use, but stands that cannot be easily moved), clearly indicates that shallow turns are better.

                          In a way the situation (a plus and a minus, but one of the two dominates) is like a wind in a 400. In the 400 a tailwind helps on the home stretch -- but not by as much as the corresponding headwind hurts on the backstretch (unless the backstretch has blocking for the wind, yielding a net 'positive' wind).

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X