How to Easily Determine A Track's Turn "Tightness"

[gh]

think of all the money he would have made had he stuck with track statistics instead

[JayIsMe]

Reading the great article on the front page about the '62 USA-USSR meet at Stanford reminded me of this thread- didn't the old Stanford Stadium track have a broken-back setup? I just remember the turns lasting forever when you ran on them- the complete opposite of Edwards Stadium across the bay.

[Charley Shaffer]

Reading the great article on the front page about the '62 USA-USSR meet at Stanford reminded me of this thread- didn't the old Stanford Stadium track have a broken-back setup? I just remember the turns lasting forever when you ran on them- the complete opposite of Edwards Stadium across the bay.

Hmmm . . . that would have escaped my notice in '62. But these two photos, one of the synthetic track, and the other apparently of the old cinder track, seem to my eye to show constant-radius curves.
http://www.richp.com/pics/aerial-05-18-02/stanford-stadium-5-18-02.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/184/008/StanfordStadium_original_crop_340x234.jpg?1312258290

[Charley Shaffer]

Here's another aerial view:
http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/Pac12/Stanford/aerial2.jpg

[JayIsMe]

I guess you're right Charley, but at least I was right about the big curves. Comparing it to the tight curves of of the track at Angell field in the background it's hard to believe the two tracks were the same distance.

[Charley Shaffer]

I guess you're right Charley, but at least I was right about the big curves. Comparing it to the tight curves of of the track at Angell field in the background it's hard to believe the two tracks were the same distance.

I would guess that the old Angell Field track was equal quadrant; perhaps it was even tighter. The track in the old Stanford Stadium might have been what we now know as IAAF standard, as is the present (post-1996) synthetic Cobb Track at Angell Field. Former Indians/Cardinal runners might know more.

[gh]

I guess you're right Charley, but at least I was right about the big curves. Comparing it to the tight curves of of the track at Angell field in the background it's hard to believe the two tracks were the same distance.

I would guess that the old Angell Field track was equal quadrant; perhaps it was even tighter. The track in the old Stanford Stadium might have been what we now know as IAAF standard, as is the present (post-1996) synthetic Cobb Track at Angell Field. Former Indians/Cardinal runners might know more.

I recall that those who ran on the 440 version at Stanford and 400 commented that the curves were notably gentler on the metric version. Although that's just hearsay from 30 years ago at this point.