Clueless writing about our sport

[polevaultpower]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

Where did the cinders come from for a cinder track?

[Marlow]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

Where did the cinders come from for a cinder track?

Crushed rock, typically igneous (lava) rocks.

Dirt or fine cinder, a difference without a distinction.

[kuha]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

Where did the cinders come from for a cinder track?

Crushed rock, typically igneous (lava) rocks.

Dirt or fine cinder, a difference without a distinction.

You are not correct on this; cinders resulted from the burning of coal or other materials--it is not simply "crushed rock."

Previous discussion of this topic:
viewtopic.php?t=6918

[Marlow]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

Where did the cinders come from for a cinder track?

Crushed rock, typically igneous (lava) rocks.
Dirt or fine cinder, a difference without a distinction.

You are not correct on this; cinders resulted from the burning of coal or other materials--it is not simply "crushed rock."

Logic error. Cinders do indeed come from crushed igneous rock (look on wiki). They can also come from coal residue.

[26mi235]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

Dirt and cinders are similar in how they respond as materials and how they get wet. Two different substances. I doubt any dirt track, however well taken care of, would be almost the equal of good modern tracks as top cinder tracks were. Especially at places like Sacramento in summer heat.

As for dirt tracks, I ran on a number of them while at Basic and AIT at Fort Ord. Some of those tracks had only one hill in them :lol: ; those definitely were not cinder tracks.

[Marlow]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

I doubt any dirt track, however well taken care of, would be almost the equal of good modern tracks as top cinder tracks were.

No cinder track was close to any medium grade synthetic. Do this test. Drop a women's shot from 6 feet on each. The syn track will rebound it well. The cinder track, even the heavily rolled one, not so much.

[booond]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

The main difference is you'd rather fall on dirt than cinders.

[26mi235]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

I doubt any dirt track, however well taken care of, would be almost the equal of good modern tracks as top cinder tracks were.

No cinder track was close to any medium grade synthetic. Do this test. Drop a women's shot from 6 feet on each. The syn track will rebound it well. The cinder track, even the heavily rolled one, not so much.

Yes, but you are not a women's shot but a footpad with spikes. I seem to remember gh making comments about that the best cinder tracks under the right conditions were not much slower than good synthetic tracks.

[booond]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

I doubt any dirt track, however well taken care of, would be almost the equal of good modern tracks as top cinder tracks were.

No cinder track was close to any medium grade synthetic. Do this test. Drop a women's shot from 6 feet on each. The syn track will rebound it well. The cinder track, even the heavily rolled one, not so much.

Yes, but you are not a women's shot but a footpad with spikes. I seem to remember gh making comments about that the best cinder tracks under the right conditions were not much slower than good synthetic tracks.

Having run on both I would say they are close right after rolling but the tracks get torn up quickly.

[Marlow]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

Yes, but you are not a women's shot but a footpad with spikes.

??!!
A man's 'footpad' isn't all that big, esp. when comparing his 180 lbs to the 8.8 lbs of the shot!!!
We're talking about the rebound the object is given by the surface. Night and day.

[kuha]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

Yes, but you are not a women's shot but a footpad with spikes.

??!!
A man's 'footpad' isn't all that big, esp. when comparing his 180 lbs to the 8.8 lbs of the shot!!!
We're talking about the rebound the object is given by the surface. Night and day.

Whatever you are smoking, I hope you're in Colorado, where such things are legal...

I just don't think that this quasi-scientific thought-experiment-factoid has too much relevance. None of this is quantifiable, BUT as I and others have stated in the past, a superb cinder or cinder/clay track was, truly, a very fine running surface. The problem, as everyone knows, is that they required lots of care & maintenance.

[Marlow]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

I just don't think that this quasi-scientific thought-experiment-factoid has too much relevance. None of this is quantifiable, BUT as I and others have stated in the past, a superb cinder or cinder/clay track was, truly, a very fine running surface. The problem, as everyone knows, is that they required lots of care & maintenance.

The IAAF measures a track's legality (as in, too fast!) by this very method (smaller weight ball, I presume). I ask again: how high will a steel ball rebound off a cinder track vs. a synthetic one? THAT is the measure of a track's 'speed' by the IAAF's definition, not mine.

[Jackaloupe]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

just don't think that this quasi-scientific thought-experiment-factoid has too much relevance.

Of course it does! Your dismissive mischaracterization of reality--as regards significant diffs. in a major parameter, rebound--aside, dontcha think Mondo et al did their share of testing, both Lab and empirical, before settling on optimal characteristics?

Just as w/ the continuing debate/competition amongst running shoes, there's a major tradeoff between Energy Absorption (injury-free bias) and Energy Return, a la PV.

Big diff. between the latter and running is a onetime leap vs. multiple strides, where too soft saps energy. Jury's still out in Trail Running, where the likes of Oku-whatever and the new NB 980 offer downhill relief, so to speak.

I've posted (much) earlier on the longevity of Mike Herman's Decathlon LJ record (mid-25s), set on Bowerman's innovative plywood runway--for all intents and purposes an Indoor runway--set up under the eaves of Hayward Field in 1960 for the OlyDeca Trials. I know I got a good extra foot out of it, as did Mike H., if not Rafer Johnson, who was already well out there.

[kuha]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

I just don't think that this quasi-scientific thought-experiment-factoid has too much relevance. None of this is quantifiable, BUT as I and others have stated in the past, a superb cinder or cinder/clay track was, truly, a very fine running surface. The problem, as everyone knows, is that they required lots of care & maintenance.

The IAAF measures a track's legality (as in, too fast!) by this very method (smaller weight ball, I presume). I ask again: how high will a steel ball rebound off a cinder track vs. a synthetic one? THAT is the measure of a track's 'speed' by the IAAF's definition, not mine.

The bouncing ball bearing only makes sense off a solid surface, as ALL current tracks are. Off a non-solid surface, it becomes an apples-and-oranges comparison, since there would probably be no "bounce" whatever.

[Marlow]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

The bouncing ball bearing only makes sense off a solid surface, as ALL current tracks are. Off a non-solid surface, it becomes an apples-and-oranges comparison, since there would probably be no "bounce" whatever.

Um . . . isn't that my point? The human body does indeed 'rebound' off a track's surface, so its 'return' characteristics are extremely relevant. When you run on a cinder/dirt track you do NOT get the same return for your effort that you get off a synthetic track. It's pretty basic physics. When you push off cinder/dirt, there's residue kicked up behind you. That is a 'loss' of traction AND energy. There is no such loss on synthetic.