Monza2 - all engines will be firing

[gh]

Even point-to-point courses have plenty of turns. Loop courses, even more.

yes, and I'm positing that each one causes a slowing, that's all.

[norunner]

An exciting concept and if marketed right, which I am sure it will be given the event belongs to Nike, it will attract a live TV audience in the hundreds of millions.

100s of millions will watch a marathon, just because...why?

[Atticus]

it strikes me that every time you change direction (alter angular momentum?), that requires stress on muscles that don't occur when going in a straight line. Even if it's minuscule, doesn't it add up?

Even point-to-point courses have plenty of turns. Loop courses, even more.

[ExCoastRanger]

it strikes me that every time you change direction (alter angular momentum?), that requires stress on muscles that don't occur when going in a straight line. Even if it's minuscule, doesn't it add up?

Repetitive stress adds up, too. A little change in angle and altitude can do a body good over the long haul.

[rsb3]

And lapped runners assisting as pacemakers, perhaps ?

[gh]

i don't remotely claim to understand the physics of fig-newtons or family-joules (or much of anything else in physics), but it strikes me that every time you change direction (alter angular momentum?), that requires stress on muscles that don't occur when going in a straight line. Even if it's minuscule, doesn't it add up?

[Atticus]

I don't think there is any negative effect from the Monza turns on runners going at 22km per hour.

Yeah, I was scatching my head on that. A hairpin turn for race cars is not that tight for people running at marathon pace - even a 2-hour one.

Here it is on Google Earth

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Autodromo+Nazionale+Monza/@45.6124289,9.2822628,198m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x645e7ef5a9d3a632!8m2!3d45.621799!4d9.2848

[cubehead]

Okay....approximately mile and a half...happy now....

And the radius on these turns is so long and gradual I hardly think it will matter. Which I am sure Nikes scientists thought of. After all Mosop ran 1:27:27 for 30k on 75 laps with 150 180 degree turns as you guys want to put it.

Actually back when I first of this this is exactly the type of course I imagined. A long loop course.

Also when you say a 180 degree turn....I think most would say something like Dubai had at halfway....a short 180 degree turn around a pole.

[Tuariki]

WTF. Tried to quote Master403's other posting but it disappeared and hung up my computer.

Anyway, the gist of what I was going to say is that, notwithstanding my lack of credibility in physics, I believe Master403 would have a point if the runners were going at the speed of those who usually circumnavigate Monza (ie plus 300km/hour) but I don't think there is any negative effect from the Monza turns on runners going at 22km per hour.

[Tuariki]

Inasmuch as the whole bit is a controlled experiment I think it would be a bad idea to have participants likely to be lapped (just the off chance of a passing incident affecting the experiment and chief guinea pigs thereof.

On a 400m track a huge problem. On a 2.4km track no reason for it to be a problem as there would be plenty of time for event marshalls can warn runners about to be lapped.

For same reason, lapped runners makes for confusion re tv viewing.

With 400m tracks clearly a problem. Most unlikely to be a problem in my scenario on a 2.4km track where there will be plenty of time for TV commentators to "prep" the viewers on what is happening.

[Tuariki]

"I am amazed that Nike has selected a course with over 17 laps, 35 180-degree turns."

I would be too if it was true....Which it is not....not even close. It's a mile and a half loop.

http://news.nike.com/news/breaking2-...QU1a4lRhRqgVNA

?????

17.5 x 2.4km = 42km
17.5 x 1.5m = 26.25 miles

[1runner1]

"I am amazed that Nike has selected a course with over 17 laps, 35 180-degree turns."

I would be too if it was true....Which it is not....not even close. It's a mile and a half loop.

http://news.nike.com/news/breaking2-...QU1a4lRhRqgVNA

A marathon is approx. 42km, right? 1 lap of Monza = 2.4km. 42 divided by 2.4 = 17.5 laps (approx.); looking at the map of the course there are 2 major turns/lap....35 major turns of 180 degrees; props. to Master403

[cubehead]

"I am amazed that Nike has selected a course with over 17 laps, 35 180-degree turns."

I would be too if it was true....Which it is not....not even close. It's a mile and a half loop.

http://news.nike.com/news/breaking2-monza?mid=38660&cp=usns_aff_nike_080113_TnL5HPStwNw&site=TnL5HPStwNw-QTx.9ph4QU1a4lRhRqgVNA

[Master403]

On another thread, I suggested a few areas where there could be improvements in marathon performances. One of those was to have a level course with minimal turns.

There are auto test tracks that can conduct a marathon over three or four laps.

I am amazed that Nike has selected a course with over 17 laps, 35 180-degree turns.

Someone might be able to flesh this out, but what I have is that a 55-kg marathoner at 2:00 speed has a momentum of 322.322 newton-seconds. Momentum is a vector, so to go from 322.322 to -322.322 requires work. That work can be distibuted over over a short distance (hairpin) or over a gentler curve, but it is added work nonetheless.

I am having trouble quantifying this, either as total added work for the run, or as an equivalent elevation gain, but there is no doubt in my mind that this course will be enough of a handicap that not only will 2:00 be out of the question, but the WR will not be threatened.

Maybe someone can "complete the exercise" as the physics book used to say. I'm still fiddling with it.

[exdrake]

Respectfully disagree on 2 points:

Inasmuch as the whole bit is a controlled experiment I think it would be a bad idea to have participants likely to be lapped (just the off chance of a passing incident affecting the experiment and chief guinea pigs thereof.

For same reason, lapped runners makes for confusion re tv viewing.