Brian wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mcewen, Brian T [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 1:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: t-and-f: Curbless Tracks
>
> <<< Occasionally some HS meets were run there and due to time contraints
> the
> curb wasn't put in place. I can't recall if the times seemed unreasonably
> fast on those occasions. >>>
>
>
> The difference in circumference between the track with the curb "removed"
> and a track constructed WITH NO CURB EVER, would be ...
>
> 2*(pi)*(Change in)Radius = 2 * 3.14159 * 10cm = 62.93 cm
>
> .15707% less than the "larger circumference" of a curbless track.
>
> You would not notice enough of a difference that it would be obvious.
>
> It would be worth about .08 seconds in a 50 second 400m race (all else
> being
[Highfill, Floyd]
For the purposes of this discussion this is essentially true on a
400m track. Indoors the discrepancy could as much as be 0.16s on a 200m
track and 0.20s on a 160m track. The variance is per lap, not per 400m
(except outdoors where they are the same).
Floyd Highfill
