Lane Assignments - 200m


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Lane Assignments - 200m

Postby George P. » Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:03 am

Sneaking a peek at my new T&FN, I see a fascinating list of the top 15 all-time legal M200m performances, including the lane drawn by the runner. We've all noticed some super 200 performances in the past 11 months, and seen how most of these were run from "outside" lanes.

But until studying this table, I really didn't understand how dramatic this outside lane advantage is (which it surely must be). Of these 15 performances, only two were run from inside lane 5 (both by MJ). A phenomenal 12 of the 15 were run in lanes 5 or 6.

Two years ago when this subject came up, we were informed that the top 4 sprint qualifiers were randomly assigned lanes 3 through 6, the others were randomly assigned to the inside and outside lanes. (The subject then might have been only the 100 -- I can't quite recall.) Is that still the way it works? E.g., do you have to be relatively "slow" to have a shot at the two outside lanes? (This topic was addressed here in recent days, but I can't find the thread.)
George P.
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lane Assignments - 200m

Postby Justin Clouder » Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:17 am

George P. wrote:Two years ago when this subject came up, we were informed that the top 4 sprint qualifiers were randomly assigned lanes 3 through 6, the others were randomly assigned to the inside and outside lanes. (The subject then might have been only the 100 -- I can't quite recall.) Is that still the way it works?

Yes it is, in champs anyway. Assuming 2 semis with first 4 in each going through, the first 2 in each semi go in the hat for lanes 3-6, the next 2 in each semi go in the hat for lanes 1-2 and 7-8. This applies in all events run in lanes (including relays, I believe) and to all rounds. It wasn't always the case, I don't know when it changed.

Most of the top 200s in the last year or two (all of them perhaps) have been in GP meets though, where that doesn't apply - lane assignments can be negotiated.

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Lane Assignments - 200m

Postby Walt Murphy » Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:38 am

Justin Clouder wrote:
George P. wrote:Two years ago when this subject came up, we were informed that the top 4 sprint qualifiers were randomly assigned lanes 3 through 6, the others were randomly assigned to the inside and outside lanes. (The subject then might have been only the 100 -- I can't quite recall.) Is that still the way it works?

Yes it is, in champs anyway. Assuming 2 semis with first 4 in each going through, the first 2 in each semi go in the hat for lanes 3-6, the next 2 in each semi go in the hat for lanes 1-2 and 7-8. This applies in all events run in lanes (including relays, I believe) and to all rounds. It wasn't always the case, I don't know when it changed.

Most of the top 200s in the last year or two (all of them perhaps) have been in GP meets though, where that doesn't apply - lane assignments can be negotiated.

Justin


Don't know if this was the first time, but at tthe recent U.S. Championships the "preferred" lanes for the 200 were 4-5-6-7. Don't know what the plan is for Osaka.
Walt Murphy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:06 pm

George, you may find this of interest - ever seen it before? I agree with you - and I don't agree with something I saw on this board elsewhere which purports to assign a "constant" change in time per lane, when moving from lanes 1-8, ie. something like 0.02 seconds per lane.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _n18611831
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby dakota » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:09 pm

Presumably the same should now be held true for the 4x1 relay.
dakota
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:33 pm

Mennisco wrote:I don't agree with something I saw on this board elsewhere which purports to assign a "constant" change in time per lane, when moving from lanes 1-8, ie. something like 0.02 seconds per lane


it wasn't meant to be a constant difference, just 0.08s between lane 1 & 8 ( according to jrm )

the time difference has to be dependent eventually on the rotational force which is m*v^2/r

assuming constant speed & mass in each lane, it boils down to

1/r

assuming lane 1 radius is 36m & each lane differs by 1m, then rough estimate for relative rotational forces between each successive lane ( = proxy for time difference ) :

lane 1 to 2 : 1/36 - 1/37
lane 2 to 3 : 1/37 - 1/38
lane 3 to 4 : 1/38 - 1/39...

lane 7 to 8 : 1/42 - 1/43

as you can see the differences between the fractions get slightly less each lane out, so you have slightly lessening force/time difference each further lane out ( no constant difference between lanes )
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby George P. » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:43 pm

Mennisco wrote:George, you may find this of interest - ever seen it before? I agree with you - and I don't agree with something I saw on this board elsewhere which purports to assign a "constant" change in time per lane, when moving from lanes 1-8, ie. something like 0.02 seconds per lane.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _n18611831

That's quite an interesting study, Mennisco. Thanks.

As to some formula for "change in time per lane," there would seem to be two possibilities: (1) there is in fact a "constant" (or at least somewhat even) change and improvement as you move from lane 1 to lane 8, or (2) there is some "optimum" lane (are you there, 26mi36x from Madison WI?) other than 8 -- lane 5? 6? 7? -- that some future statistically-based study could perhaps identify. I would think there'd be a certain trade-off, at some point, between the gentleness of the curve (good) and the time spent running "crooked" (bad).

As to the rule for lane assignments, comments by Justin and Walt suggest that different meets/venues can adopt the rule they prefer. Maybe others can shed light on this, if it is in fact the case (and should it be?). And what does the IAAF say (if anything)?

Edit - Am pretty sure the "trade-off" I suggest above is bogus. That's why we have a stagger.
Last edited by George P. on Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
George P.
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:46 pm

eldrick wrote:
it wasn't meant to be a constant difference, just 0.08s between lane 1 & 8 ( according to jrm )

the time difference has to be dependent eventually on the rotational force which is m*v^2/r

assuming constant speed & mass in each lane, it boils down to

1/r

assuming lane 1 radius is 36m & each lane differs by 1m, then rough estimate for relative rotational forces between each successive lane ( = proxy for time difference ) :

lane 1 to 2 : 1/36 - 1/37
lane 2 to 3 : 1/37 - 1/38
lane 3 to 4 : 1/38 - 1/39...

lane 7 to 8 : 1/42 - 1/43

as you can see the differences between the fractions get slightly less each lane out, so you have slightly lessening force/time difference each further lane out ( no constant difference between lanes )


Thanks Eldrick.....now I recall the part I found intuitively weird....seems there'd be more than 0.08 between 1 and 8, somehow.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Mennisco » Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:46 pm

George P. wrote:
Mennisco wrote:George, you may find this of interest - ever seen it before? I agree with you - and I don't agree with something I saw on this board elsewhere which purports to assign a "constant" change in time per lane, when moving from lanes 1-8, ie. something like 0.02 seconds per lane.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _n18611831

That's quite an interesting study, Mennisco. Thanks.

As to some formula for "change in time per lane," there would seem to be two possibilities: (1) there is in fact a "constant" (or at least somewhat even) change and improvement as you move from lane 1 to lane 8, or (2) there is some "optimum" lane (are you there, 26mi36x from Madison WI?) other than 8 -- lane 5? 6? 7? -- that some future statistically-based study could perhaps identify. I would think there'd be a certain trade-off, at some point, between the gentleness of the curve (good) and the time spent running "crooked" (bad).



Thank you, George!
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Justin Clouder » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:03 pm

Here is a link to the IAAF rules: http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/23484.pdf

IAAF rule 166.4 says this:

4. For events 100m to 800m inclusive, and relays up to and including 4x400m, where there are several successive rounds of a race, lanes will be drawn as follows:
(a) In the first round the lane order shall be drawn by lot.
(b) For the following rounds, athletes shall be ranked after each round in accordance with the procedure shown in Rule 166.3(a)
Two draws will then be made:
(c) one for the four highest ranked athletes or teams to determine placings in lanes 3, 4, 5 and 6.
(d) the other for the four lowest ranked athletes or teams to determine placings in lanes 1, 2, 7 and 8.

IAAF rule 166.3(a) determines the ranking. It's quite complicated but the core of it is this:

3. After the first round, the athletes shall be placed in the heats of
subsequent rounds in accordance with the following procedures:
(a) for events of 100m to 400m inclusive, and relays up to and including 4x400m, seeding shall be based upon placings and times of each previous round. For this purpose, athletes shall be ranked as follows:
Fastest heat winner
2nd fastest heat winner
3rd fastest heat winner
...etc...
Fastest 2nd place
2nd fastest 2nd place
3rd fastest 2nd place
...etc...
(Concluding with)
Fastest time qualifier
2nd fastest time qualifier
3rd fastest time qualifier, etc.

Now, I *think* that is exactly what I described in my post above. Isn't it?

Justin :?
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby eldrick » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:09 pm

Mennisco wrote:seems there'd be more than 0.08 between 1 and 8, somehow.


that's what i got from fiddling with the big guy's calculator before :

http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/200idx.html

the funny thing now, is that if you try 20.00 in lane 1 with 0 wind/altitude, the time to 3 decimal places is 20 & in lane 8 is still 20 ?!

the way i fiddles with it, is to put 20.00 with 1m/s wind ( 0 altitude ) in lane 1 & it gives basic of 20.055

then change to lane 8, it gives basic of 20.081

a difference between lane 1 & 8 of just 0.026s

( i don't know where i got 0.08s from - it may have been another source )
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby gh » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:11 pm

Justin Clouder wrote:Here is a link to the IAAF rules: http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/23484.pdf

IAAF rule 166.4 says this:

4. For events 100m to 800m inclusive, and relays up to and including 4x400m, where there are several successive rounds of a race, lanes will be drawn as follows:
(a) In the first round the lane order shall be drawn by lot.
(b) For the following rounds, athletes shall be ranked after each round in accordance with the procedure shown in Rule 166.3(a)
Two draws will then be made:
(c) one for the four highest ranked athletes or teams to determine placings in lanes 3, 4, 5 and 6.
(d) the other for the four lowest ranked athletes or teams to determine placings in lanes 1, 2, 7 and 8.....



The USATF version is much more sensible in this regard, saying "... the first draw is for those preferred lanes as determined by the Games Committee....."
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby George P. » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:12 pm

Justin Clouder wrote:Now, I *think* that is exactly what I described in my post above. Isn't it?

Justin :?

Yes, I'm sure. And thanks. :)

But as I read your post, based on the IAAF, I conclude that the fastest qualifiers do not "have a shot" (as I believe I put it) at the two outside lanes. Right?
George P.
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Justin Clouder » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:17 pm

George P. wrote:But as I read your post, based on the IAAF, I conclude that the fastest qualifiers do not "have a shot" (as I believe I put it) at the two outside lanes. Right?

Yes, that's true, looking at it the other way up. :)

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:29 pm

In partial response to George P: I think that the 'optimum' considering just the rotational forces is to run in lane 9000+, where the curvature is minimal for the first 115m and then the 85m of the straight are the same for all. Since lanes stop at 8 (or 9), the outside lane is best, I think (intuition, not specific analysis).

However, the positioning in terms of seeing rivals leads to the outside lane being disadvantageous for many sprinters (although a few may gain by being 'isolated'; some comments on this were made in some prior threads as regards X-man's 19.63 from lane 8).

It does seem that for races on the curve this information and the obvious reasoning should be presented to the IAAF so that the preferred lane draws can be shifted outward at least one lane, so that 4-7 are the preferred ones, followed by 3/8, then 1/2. gh has on numerous occasions indicated that he talked to MJ about starting further out than his preferred lane (3, I think); gh can weigh in here more knowledgeable.

As for how the factor changes across lanes, I think that there is a decreasing advantage as you move from 1 to 8. This likely implies that the 'keeping in view' factor gets relatively more important in the outer lanes.

I would also guess that the 1x100 has the greatest effect because the handoff compounds the rotational force effect (two runners needing to fit in the lane, trying to match while rotating...). Question - is the handoff easier on a 100/100 track than on a 'modern' 115/85 (curve/straight) track?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby George P. » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:41 pm

26mi235 wrote:However, the positioning in terms of seeing rivals leads to the outside lane being disadvantageous for many sprinters (although a few may gain by being 'isolated'; some comments on this were made in some prior threads as regards X-man's 19.63 from lane 8).

...

As for how the factor changes across lanes, I think that there is a decreasing advantage as you move from 1 to 8. This likely implies that the 'keeping in view' factor gets relatively more important in the outer lanes.

These seem like very good points. The first, in particular, I have always understood to be important to many sprinters.
George P.
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:41 pm

dakota wrote:Presumably the same should now be held true for the 4x1 relay.


the 4x1 is the race where we should see the most pronounced outer-lane advantage. Seems we should seldom if ever see a 4x1 team medal let alone win from this lane.. but somehow I suspect that the data do not support this theory. ... Id like to know why.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Mennisco » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:43 pm

26mi235 wrote:As for how the factor changes across lanes, I think that there is a decreasing advantage as you move from 1 to 8. This likely implies that the 'keeping in view' factor gets relatively more important in the outer lanes.


I'll bet that going from 1-4 is far more advantageous than going from 4-8, the "keeping in view" element can be eliminated, I mean from a physics perspective. Just a hunch.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Justin Clouder » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:50 pm

paulthefan wrote:the 4x1 is the race where we should see the most pronounced outer-lane advantage. Seems we should seldom if ever see a 4x1 team medal let alone win from this lane.. but somehow I suspect that the data do not support this theory. ... Id like to know why.

Most fast 4x1s are in champs where the faster teams get the middle lanes and there is a much larger gap between the better and less good 4x1 teams than is the case in individual events. My theory!

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], jjimbojames and 13 guests