San Diego track short? [split]


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

San Diego track short? [split]

Postby measurer » Mon May 06, 2013 1:26 pm

Great competition.
But-
Where's the curb or 20 cm high cones?
measurer
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby gh » Mon May 06, 2013 1:34 pm

yes, the problems are evident in these photos

http://dailyrelay.com/photos-rerun-san-diego/

it's not impossible that the track as configured is short, much as we hate to say it.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby 26mi235 » Mon May 06, 2013 2:08 pm

Is the track measurement predicated on an 8-inche/20cm inset rather than 12/30cm?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby aaronk » Mon May 06, 2013 2:12 pm

gh wrote:yes, the problems are evident in these photos

http://dailyrelay.com/photos-rerun-san-diego/

it's not impossible that the track as configured is short, much as we hate to say it.


Since Cain ran much of the race in lanes 2 and 3, I'd say, in HER case at least, she ran MORE than 800 meters!

Seriously, if there's doubt, will Martinez's time (and the others!) be "nulled and voided"??
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby Dutra5 » Mon May 06, 2013 5:00 pm

aaronk wrote:
gh wrote:yes, the problems are evident in these photos

http://dailyrelay.com/photos-rerun-san-diego/

it's not impossible that the track as configured is short, much as we hate to say it.


Since Cain ran much of the race in lanes 2 and 3, I'd say, in HER case at least, she ran MORE than 800 meters!

Seriously, if there's doubt, will Martinez's time (and the others!) be "nulled and voided"??


If the track is not legal then I don't think it matters how far anyone ran or may have run. I'd assume the marks would be carried as similar to indoor oversized marks.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby Master Po » Mon May 06, 2013 5:27 pm

So -- assuming the track was not properly configured -- this would mean Martinez would not have the "A" standard, and Cain would not have the all-time #4 standing on the prep list, right?

I suppose I could imagine someone saying that neither of these outcomes is an incredibly big deal, as it seems Martinez is targeting the 1500 and Cain is likely to run this fast or faster again sometime soon, but -- again, assuming the marks don't count for qualifying or list purposes -- were I in this situation, I would find this really frustrating. Time, energy, attention, and material resources -- all limited -- invested in preparing for, traveling to, and competing in these events. A long way to go for a hard workout.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby 26mi235 » Mon May 06, 2013 6:30 pm

Dutra5 wrote:If the track is not legal then I don't think it matters how far anyone ran or may have run. I'd assume the marks would be carried as similar to indoor oversized marks.


No, indoor oversized tracks really can be treated as standard outdoor tracks (although they are a little 'tougher'; see comments by gh).

Here you are talking about a track that, potentially (i.e., if the critique is correct), does not have the right measurement. Specifically, the track should have only a 20cm adjustment but probably has the standard 30cm adjustment. Thus, the radius is 10cm too small compared to the value assumed in the measurement. This makes it short by 10cm x 2 x 3.1415 ~ 60.3 cm short/lap or 90.5 cm short for 800 (since they run the first curve in lanes that are correctly placed).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby gh » Mon May 06, 2013 8:22 pm

an "oversized" indoor track is of known exactitude, albeit longer than spec. A track shorter than spec is illegal, plain and simple. (just as you don't get punished for too little wind, but you do get punished for too much)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby aaronk » Mon May 06, 2013 8:34 pm

gh wrote:an "oversized" indoor track is of known exactitude, albeit longer than spec. A track shorter than spec is illegal, plain and simple. (just as you don't get punished for too little wind, but you do get punished for too much)


Sooooo....when, if ever, will we find out for sure if the track was short....or illegal size...or whatever?
And if the track was short for the W800, then it was short for ALL the races.....so bye-bye go Kuijken's 4:27 and all the rest of the times.....right??
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby 26mi235 » Mon May 06, 2013 9:14 pm

The track may not be so much 'short' per se, but it might be incorrectly configured -- that is, it does not have the closely-spaced cones on the curves to provide the same edge that a rail does. It is my understanding that if it does not have a rail and does not have the adequate density of cones then it still would be correct if Lane 1 is measured the same way as the other lanes -- 8 inches/20 cms in from the line rather than 12 inches/30cms.

Note that Eaton's first World Indoor WR in the Hept also apparently suffered from this defect and, though it was pointed out, did not prevent the record from being ratified (either correctly if there were some reason for it being correct such as the baseline measurement being 20cms in, or incorrectly). Fortunately, it is primarily a moot point as his next record took that one off the books.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby LopenUupunut » Tue May 07, 2013 5:46 am

Apropos of something, I remember reading that way back in the 19th century American tracks were measured 18 inches from the kerb. Can anybody confirm or disconfirm?
LopenUupunut
 
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Sleeping in Finland

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby measurer » Tue May 07, 2013 6:26 am

Three possibilities:
1.The track is measured correctly for no curb & they used the wrong size cones
2. The track is measured correctly for a curb and ran the races without it.
3. The track is measured incorrectly.
Many high school and municipal tracks are measured and built not to have a curb - too expensive to maintain. Not knowing the details of this track my initial thought is that this falls under #1
Regardless, there is a problem here.
measurer
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby dj » Tue May 07, 2013 6:49 am

LopenUupunut wrote:Apropos of something, I remember reading that way back in the 19th century American tracks were measured 18 inches from the kerb. Can anybody confirm or disconfirm?


American tracks, unlike those in GB (other Euro countries?), were measured 18 inches from the curb through 1914. The AAU adopted the new IAAF standard beginning 1915, as did the IC4A. The western colleges did not adopt the new standard for another five years or so.

This is what led to Ted Meredith and Binga Dismond each running 47 2/5 for the 440 in 1916, but only Meredith's mark (at the IC4A) being ratified by the AAU--and subsequently by the IAAF--while Dismond's mark, run at the Intercollegiate Conference (forerunner of the Big 10)--was not.
dj
 
Posts: 6200
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby LopenUupunut » Tue May 07, 2013 7:18 am

dj wrote:
LopenUupunut wrote:Apropos of something, I remember reading that way back in the 19th century American tracks were measured 18 inches from the kerb. Can anybody confirm or disconfirm?
American tracks, unlike those in GB (other Euro countries?), were measured 18 inches from the curb through 1914. The AAU adopted the new IAAF standard beginning 1915, as did the IC4A. The western colleges did not adopt the new standard for another five years or so.

This is what led to Ted Meredith and Binga Dismond each running 47 2/5 for the 440 in 1916, but only Meredith's mark (at the IC4A) being ratified by the AAU--and subsequently by the IAAF--while Dismond's mark, run at the Intercollegiate Conference (forerunner of the Big 10)--was not.
Thanks! :D
LopenUupunut
 
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Sleeping in Finland

Re: Re-Run: San Diego...800's, 1 mile's...and Cain

Postby gh » Tue May 07, 2013 2:16 pm

aaronk wrote:
gh wrote:an "oversized" indoor track is of known exactitude, albeit longer than spec. A track shorter than spec is illegal, plain and simple. (just as you don't get punished for too little wind, but you do get punished for too much)


Sooooo....when, if ever, will we find out for sure if the track was short....or illegal size...or whatever?
And if the track was short for the W800, then it was short for ALL the races.....so bye-bye go Kuijken's 4:27 and all the rest of the times.....right??


we know from the photos that the cones (which weren't even cones) were illegal, and conducive to running shorter than measure around the curves.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby ExCoastRanger » Tue May 07, 2013 2:26 pm

We used to call that "running in lane zero."
ExCoastRanger
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: North of where I was.

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby aaronk » Tue May 07, 2013 2:47 pm

If all the results now fall into the same box as the "OT" or "W" categories, then I feel the meet directors owe EVERY athlete who ran there....

a formal apology.....
reimbursement of travel, hotel, meal expenses!!

What a waste!!
Martinez loses her 800 "A".
Cain loses her 11th grade record.
Kuijken loses her mile PR.
And on and on!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Wed May 08, 2013 9:11 pm

so, getting back on track, there seems no reason that the marks from this meet (no matter how wonderful the concept), shouldn't be bounced from the yearly lists.

dang.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby DrJay » Sun May 12, 2013 4:00 pm

Almost put this on the Historical "May 6, 1954" thread. This is how much Joe Sixpack relates to T&F marks: I went for a ride (bike) with a friend today. Not just Joe Sixpack, but a smart guy, an attorney, and about 50 years old. First truly nice day this year, first time I was SWEATING while riding this year. Sat outside his house having a beer and talking afterward. He knows road cycling inside and out and knows football and college hoops and such, reasonably well. Conversation drifted here and there about sports and doping and amateurism and whatnot. He really likes watching track once every four years in the OG. At some point he said, "I remember when the first five-minute mile was run, and the first four-minute mile."
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Conor Dary » Sun May 12, 2013 5:01 pm

decafan wrote:
I'm sick of you narcissistic zealots ruining my sport and making its future appear bleak.


Talk about narcissism. My Sport? You do realize this is the message board for Track and Field News?

Also you are late to the gate. The future has been bleak for about 40 years. And on life support for the last 10. So I am still amazed it is doing as well as it is.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby kuha » Sun May 12, 2013 7:09 pm

decafan wrote: Thank God you chose to be civil... So from everything I wrote, you chose to react to the last part where you felt offended. No discussion on the meat and potatoes? Shocker. To clarify the last point of my post; the coaches, athletes and fans who place a greater value on time trials than on head to head competition are a huge part of the problem. If you are one of these people, then yes, you are part of the problem. Clearly I hit a nerve with a few of you. Good. I'm sick of you narcissistic zealots ruining my sport and making its future appear bleak.


Oh my God. "You narcissistic zealots ruining my sport"!

First i throw up; then I laugh my ass off.

Have a great day.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Marlow » Mon May 13, 2013 3:44 am

decafan wrote:Thank God you chose to be civil... So from everything I wrote, you chose to react to the last part where you felt offended. No discussion on the meat and potatoes? Shocker. To clarify the last point of my post; the coaches, athletes and fans who place a greater value on time trials than on head to head competition are a huge part of the problem. If you are one of these people, then yes, you are part of the problem. Clearly I hit a nerve with a few of you. Good. I'm sick of you narcissistic zealots ruining my sport and making its future appear bleak.

deca, I LOVE your dec analyses, really I do, but you are soooooo far off-base here, as to make me think you're being facetious. Our sport is run by the numbers; it's just that simple. Head-to-head comps are indeed very exciting, but without the numbers, this sport ceases to exist. We, more than almost any other sport, have the perfect frame of reference to enjoy and understand the objective performance. Sorry, bro.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby aaronk » Mon May 13, 2013 4:01 am

Getting back to the subject of this thread for a moment, I notice the World and US lists do NOT include any of the times from the Re-RUN meet.
So does that mean Martinez does NOT have the "A" for the 800....
and that Cain does NOT have the 4th fastest HS 800 time, etc etc??

Or is it yet to be determined....meaning the legality of the track in San Diego??
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Mon May 13, 2013 4:08 am

Well, races on the straight or in lanes all the way (except lane 1) would be unaffected and would be legal - I doubt that they have the old AAU's infected interpretation...
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Mon May 13, 2013 12:31 pm

aaronk wrote:Getting back to the subject of this thread for a moment, I notice the World and US lists do NOT include any of the times from the Re-RUN meet.
So does that mean Martinez does NOT have the "A" for the 800....
and that Cain does NOT have the 4th fastest HS 800 time, etc etc??

Or is it yet to be determined....meaning the legality of the track in San Diego??


I think it's a definitive maybe NOT!
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Conor Dary » Mon May 13, 2013 1:19 pm

Dutra5 wrote:
aaronk wrote:Getting back to the subject of this thread for a moment, I notice the World and US lists do NOT include any of the times from the Re-RUN meet.
So does that mean Martinez does NOT have the "A" for the 800....
and that Cain does NOT have the 4th fastest HS 800 time, etc etc??

Or is it yet to be determined....meaning the legality of the track in San Diego??


I think it's a definitive maybe NOT!


What is to be determined? The track was not legal.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Mon May 13, 2013 1:47 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:
aaronk wrote:Getting back to the subject of this thread for a moment, I notice the World and US lists do NOT include any of the times from the Re-RUN meet.
So does that mean Martinez does NOT have the "A" for the 800....
and that Cain does NOT have the 4th fastest HS 800 time, etc etc??

Or is it yet to be determined....meaning the legality of the track in San Diego??


I think it's a definitive maybe NOT!


What is to be determined? The track was not legal.


Is there an organization which makes that determination and is it publicly acknowledged?

I ask this out of complete ignorance to the process.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Conor Dary » Mon May 13, 2013 1:51 pm

Dutra5 wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:
aaronk wrote:Getting back to the subject of this thread for a moment, I notice the World and US lists do NOT include any of the times from the Re-RUN meet.
So does that mean Martinez does NOT have the "A" for the 800....
and that Cain does NOT have the 4th fastest HS 800 time, etc etc??

Or is it yet to be determined....meaning the legality of the track in San Diego??


I think it's a definitive maybe NOT!


What is to be determined? The track was not legal.


Is there an organization which makes that determination and is it publicly acknowledged?

I ask this out of complete ignorance to the process.



gh's earlier posts: 'we know from the photos that the cones (which weren't even cones) were illegal, and conducive to running shorter than measure around the curves.'

And: 'so, getting back on track, there seems no reason that the marks from this meet (no matter how wonderful the concept), shouldn't be bounced from the yearly lists.

dang.'

So I would say NO.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby aaronk » Mon May 13, 2013 1:57 pm

I just sent a tweet to FloTrack about this.
It goes:
Why is no one upset about losing their PR's & marks from Re-RUN becuz of illegal track? ALL marks GONE!!

No reply yet, but I haven't gotten many replies out of my 75 or so tweets thus far!!
(But tweeting sure is FUN!! :D )
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby Dutra5 » Mon May 13, 2013 4:11 pm

aaronk wrote:I just sent a tweet to FloTrack about this.
It goes:
Why is no one upset about losing their PR's & marks from Re-RUN becuz of illegal track? ALL marks GONE!!

No reply yet, but I haven't gotten many replies out of my 75 or so tweets thus far!!
(But tweeting sure is FUN!! :D )


My guess is that the lack of reply is due to alerting security.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby aaronk » Mon May 13, 2013 4:19 pm

Dutra5 wrote:
aaronk wrote:I just sent a tweet to FloTrack about this.
It goes:
Why is no one upset about losing their PR's & marks from Re-RUN becuz of illegal track? ALL marks GONE!!

No reply yet, but I haven't gotten many replies out of my 75 or so tweets thus far!!
(But tweeting sure is FUN!! :D )


My guess is that the lack of reply is due to alerting security.


:? :?:
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Mon May 13, 2013 6:23 pm

Again, anything 400 or shorter (except lane 1) has legitimate measurement. Lane 1 is probably wrong (i.e., measured with a 30cm inset but run without adequate cones etc so treated as a 20cm track because the Lone 2 stagger is bigger than for Lanes 3-8 (or would be in a sprint, without people observing steps on the line for DQs maybe that does not work).

Still the races of most interest to most people are the 800s and 1500s.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Mon May 13, 2013 8:03 pm

the San Diego meet had two 800s and two miles, nothing else, so discussions about any other races are meaningless in that context.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby aaronk » Mon May 13, 2013 8:28 pm

I just revised my T&F Record Book BACK to what it was before the Re-RUN!!
Since the ONLY marks in my book that were affected by the Re-RUN results were those of Mary Cain's 2:01.68, that mark has been excised, and the 11th grade record is again Kim Gallagher's 2:01.82 from 1981, and Cain's PR goes back to her 2:03.34 from 2012.

All other marks from that meet, male or female, including Susan Kuijken's 4:27 mile or Brenda Martinez's 1:59.59, were not good enough for inclusion in my book, which goes to only Top 24 A-T.
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Tue May 14, 2013 10:16 am

Dutra5 wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:
aaronk wrote:Getting back to the subject of this thread for a moment, I notice the World and US lists do NOT include any of the times from the Re-RUN meet.
So does that mean Martinez does NOT have the "A" for the 800....
and that Cain does NOT have the 4th fastest HS 800 time, etc etc??

Or is it yet to be determined....meaning the legality of the track in San Diego??


I think it's a definitive maybe NOT!


What is to be determined? The track was not legal.


Is there an organization which makes that determination and is it publicly acknowledged?

I ask this out of complete ignorance to the process.


Given that there are all-too-often "political considerations" when dealing with federations, I have no idea what USATF and the IAAF will say.

But T&FN, the ATFS (Association of Track & Field Statisticians) and the leading internet marks set, tilastopaja.oy are all taking the not-acceptable stance.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby PeteHess » Wed May 15, 2013 1:53 pm

My name is Pete Hess and I am the co-creator/meet director for the Inaugural Re:RUN SD. I am fully aware of the situation regarding the track and it concerns me in absolutely no way. I discussed with all agents and athletes before hand that the meet would most likely not count as qualifying times as we weren't sanctioned by USATF and unfortunately didn't have a rail on that track because it had been stolen TWICE from that facility for scrap metal. I was not prepared to pay 10k for another rail to be put in when the times most likely wouldn't count anyhow.

We wanted to bring professional track back to SD for the first time in 25 years. We wanted people who have never experienced a track meet to see it live and have the joy of seeing how beautifully these athletes compete on the track. We paid 15,000 bucks in prize money in EACH race, paid the athletes flights and put them up in one of the nicest hotels in SD for multiple nights. We wanted the athletes to have fun in San Diego and engaged the crowd and they did just that! I discussed the same topic of times not counting with the athletes during the meeting the night before the event. I told them the event was focused on helping PAY professional track athletes and engaged a new crowd to the sport.

I've received amazing feedback from the crowd in SD! Little kids coming down on the track and running laps after the event with the athletes. The athletes were in the stands after the event signing autographs and taking pictures with lots of people. I had a lot of people tell me they can't wait to go to another track meet. Creating new fans for the sport that severely lacks any fans is what the goal of Re:RUN was and we achieved that.

Each athlete received their prize check IMMEDIATELY and did not have to wait the normal 2 months that they do in Europe (if not a lot longer) and they were thrilled about it. All the athletes have been sending thank you notes for hosting a new event and providing and opportunity for them to MAKE MONEY in the USA. I'm sure Susan Kuijken is happier to have received 5,500 bucks than having her 4:27 count for your list.

I apologize about not having whatever size cones I was suppose to have but if you are open minded you will realize this event made new fans in a market that hasn't had track in 25 years. The fans in the stands were thrilled, the athletes were thrilled, my apologizes that you weren't thrilled, but it was kind of a you had to be there type event.
PeteHess
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby gh » Wed May 15, 2013 2:02 pm

Pete, as T&FN laid out in the May issue (both in my column and in a separate story announcing the creation of your meet), it was/is a wonderful innovation and we hope to see it again. We don't think anybody here has been remotely critical of your efforts.

Thanks too for taking the time to explain the whole situation.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby 26mi235 » Wed May 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Just for understanding what the times imply, is this the right calculation?

The track, to be 'legal' or at least to provide the right distance measurement, should use an inset of 20cm instead of 30cm, and thus the radius of the curves is 10cm 'short'. For each turn run in Lane 1 (3 for the 800(?) this means that the track is 10 x Pi cm short, or about 1 meter for the 800 and 2.3 for the 1500?

Measurer, others?

PS, thanks for the informative comments and, much more so, putting on the event!
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby wamego relays champ » Wed May 15, 2013 2:39 pm

gh wrote: it was/is a wonderful innovation and we hope to see it again. We don't think anybody here has been remotely critical of your efforts.

Thanks too for taking the time to explain the whole situation.


Amen!

The only criticism I read was based upon the unfounded assumption that the athletes paid their own way to a meet that was hoped to produce qualifying marks. Many of us are so used to hearing about meet organizers who are so beaten down that their events are abandoned. How refreshing it is to hear about a terrific win-win for athletes and fans who were there in San Diego.

.
wamego relays champ
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: San Diego track short? [split]

Postby tandfman » Wed May 15, 2013 2:54 pm

26mi235 wrote:Just for understanding what the times imply, is this the right calculation?

The track, to be 'legal' or at least to provide the right distance measurement, should use an inset of 20cm instead of 30cm, and thus the radius of the curves is 10cm 'short'. For each turn run in Lane 1 (3 for the 800(?) this means that the track is 10 x Pi cm short, or about 1 meter for the 800 and 2.3 for the 1500?

If there's a curb, the track should be measured 30cm out. 20cm is ok if there's no curb, but then there must be 20cm cones properly placed every 4 meters. This track seems to have flunked on both counts. If there once was a curb (as the meet director says there was), then presumably it was measured 30cm. If you then remove the curb, the track is short, even if you do use proper cones. So there's no way (short of re-doing the track measurement and adjusting the starting lines) that the track could have been legal. But even if there never was a curb, and the track was measured 20cm out, it would require proper cones or flags, which this track lacked at that meet.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], gktrack, rsb2 and 4 guests

cron