Re: 400s vs. .25 mile

Kenny B. Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:38 am

Alex Kubacki wrote:
Schuey wrote:That's because they run the best qualifying times, still doesn't make the turns any easier to run then lane 1 or lane 8? Sure the outer lanes have less of the first turn to run then lane 1 but that is because of the staggered start.

The more inside you are the more torque you're placing on your sides as you're having to lean further and further. For a 200m or 400m race you have almost zero chance of winning a race in the first lane. It can be done but extremely rare. When I ran track I always wanted to be in lane 7 for the 200m & 6 for the 400m.

For a 200m lane three is not really welcomed by the athletes as a preferred lane. There's always been talk of moving it out to 5, 6, & 7.

More torque sounds more dangerous to me. Alex to the rescue. LOL I am all about running torqueless.

Alex Kubacki Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:56 am

Kenny B. wrote:More torque sounds more dangerous to me. Alex to the rescue. LOL I am all about running torqueless.

Not to put a damper on this Kenny but in the end the sprinters or at least the 400m guys pretty much train out of lane one anyway. Embarassed

Kenny B. Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:58 am

Alex Kubacki wrote:
Kenny B. wrote:More torque sounds more dangerous to me. Alex to the rescue. LOL I am all about running torqueless.

Not to put a damper on this Kenny but in the end the sprinters or at least the 400m guys pretty much train out of lane one anyway.

Well I think they should change that. bounce

Dave Bussard Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:18 am

Chris M wrote:A 400 at the track (lane 1) is .2485 miles. We are talking a half a second of difference, not multiple seconds.

The Garmin GPS should not be used at the track. It doesn't handle the curves well so don't rely on that for anything.

I certainly use "400" and .25 interchangeably.

When at the track, I do "Mile" repeats by doing 4 laps which is 1600M and not exactly a full mile (.9942 miles). There you might add on two seconds.

Yep...gotta agree with all of this.

And after reading thru the rest of this thread...The lane assignments do have an impact on a guy running 20 second 200's. But for the rest of us, I can't believe running in lane 1 is any more difficult than lane 8, just doing our weekly intervals at a road racers pace.

healdgator Sun Jul 10, 2011 2:40 pm

Dave Bussard wrote:
Chris M wrote:A 400 at the track (lane 1) is .2485 miles. We are talking a half a second of difference, not multiple seconds.

The Garmin GPS should not be used at the track. It doesn't handle the curves well so don't rely on that for anything.

I certainly use "400" and .25 interchangeably.

When at the track, I do "Mile" repeats by doing 4 laps which is 1600M and not exactly a full mile (.9942 miles). There you might add on two seconds.

Yep...gotta agree with all of this.

And after reading thru the rest of this thread...The lane assignments do have an impact on a guy running 20 second 200's. But for the rest of us, I can't believe running in lane 1 is any more difficult than lane 8, just doing our weekly intervals at a road racers pace.

There are more reasons than physics why lane 1 is more difficult for a 200m runner, imo.

Chris Coleman Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:05 am

Kenny B. wrote: ... my pt says stay in 3 so I stay.

Your PT just wants the inside lane for himself, so he can beat you round the track Smile

I think, if it were so important, we'd have banked running tracks. Surely you'd have to do all your long runs on the track for there to be any significant effect.

Sponsored content