I have always been told that the conversion from 1500m to 1mile and 3000m to 2mile is 1.0798. This would make the conversion going the other way .9261. Is this the conversion listed in teh Big Green Book? I just ordered a copy from the estore, but need the answer before it will arrive. Any help is appreciated.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2mile to 3000m conversion
Collapse
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
X

Re: 2mile to 3000m conversion
>I have always been told that the conversion from 1500m to 1mile and 3000m to
>2mile is 1.0798. This would make the conversion going the other way .9261.
>Is this the conversion listed in teh Big Green Book? I just ordered a copy
>from the estore, but need the answer before it will arrive. Any help is
>appreciated.
I'm a little bit metrically challenged but isn't a mile equal to 1609.344 meters? If so, the math would give you 1.072896 and .9321056 wouldn't it? What does the colourful book say?


Re: 2mile to 3000m conversion
Pure mathematical conversion doesn't work (like it does with pretty good accuracy between 200m and 200y, 400m and 400y etc.) becuase the distances are so far apart and fatigue factor has to be calculated.
There's pretty good mathematical evidence through the years (or so I'm told, not my strong suit!) that to convert from 1500 to mile you simply multiply by 1.08. To get from mile back to 1500, divide by 1.08. This is the formula that has been in the Colorful Books for decades now.
It seems likely that the formula for 3200m to 2M should have a bit more fatigue built in, but there simply isn't the wealth of data that's available for 1500/M races to come up with enough data points, so we simply use the same formula.
Other relative and useful formulae in the BGB include 1500 to 1600 (3000/3200) which is mutiply by 1.0737 to go from metric to English, divide by it to go Englishmetric.
For 1600/M (and 3200/2M) it's 1.0058.
Comment


Re: 2mile to 3000m conversion
>Pure mathematical conversion doesn't work (like it does with pretty good
>accuracy between 200m and 200y, 400m and 400y etc.) becuase the distances are
>so far apart and fatigue factor has to be calculated.
My bad, I misunderstood the question. My other theory was that since he/she asked it on the historical board, the measurements have become more precise over the years:).
Comment


Re: 2mile to 3000m conversion
this is very interesting question (i'm really bored,so i'll put some figures up)
gh is absolutely correct in that there is no simple conversion from 1500m to 1M & 3k to 2M
it all depends upon the unique speedendurance of each athlete.
i did some predictions for some athletes in the past & we'll see what it says about this question
take coe  he had the best speed of any middle distance guy & the most appropriate figures (mathematically) i got for him were
45.2, 3'29.77, 3'47.36, 7'41.77, 8'20.03
hence for coe the 2 conversions would be
1.084 & 1.084
next up to bat is el g who has less speed,but more endurance. the best figures i got for him were
47.5, 3'26.00, 3'42.61, 7'21.23, 7'56.58
& the conversions for him are
1.081 & 1.080
finally, we have geb, who has the least speed,but best endurance of the lot. the best figures i get for him are
50.5, 3'28.93, 3'45.28, 7'18.37, 7'52.56
& the conversions for him are
1.078 ! & 1.078 !
so my conclusion is that the conversion can vary from anywhere between 1.078 to 1.084 for top class athletes
Comment


Re: 2mile to 3000m conversion
>Sorry, it was the January 1995 issue (Morceli is on the cover) that the letter
>(Fermat's Next to Last Theorem) is in. Look at the last page.
conor,could you post the interesting parts
i like these sort of articles !
Comment


Re: 2mile to 3000m conversion
It was mostly a parody of a silly article in the previous issue written by Roy Conrad, who I don't think exists, about whether Morceli's 7:25 was equal to a 8:00 2 mile. You have to read both to get the flavor of what I was trying to do.
By the way it is no coincidence that Conor Dary is an anagram of Roy Conrad.
Comment

Comment