So I ran on an anachronism of a track last night for the first time ever, a 440yd track. I realize the difference between 440 yd and 400m is less than 10 feet, but it’s the principle that’s silly about a recently rebuilt track being built to imperial measurements in the year 2015.
Anyway, what confused me was that it was marked for all the imperial distance races, like 220, 4x110, 880, mile and 2 mile. What I don’t understand is why for example the lane 1 start for the 4x440 as well as the start line for the mile, was just a couple feet in front of the common finish. A 400, 800, 4x400 in lane 1, as well as the start of a 1600 (not a “mile,” which usually still has its own waterfall line 9m behind the finish) on a metric track has you start at the common finish, so I don’t understand why this track was marked that way. It was the first time I have ever run on a 440 yd track, so it confused the hell out of me that a mile was just less than 4 laps.
If the mile start was just off the finish, then the 880 start should have been 1/2 that distance off it and the 440 start 1/4 that distance off it and the 2 mile start 2x the distance off it. And this would mean the track is indeed not the correct imperial distance, which is a real debacle.
It was the first time I have ever run on a 440 yd track, so it confused the hell out of me that a mile was just less than 4 laps.
On a 440 yard track, a mile is exactly 4 laps 4 * 440 = 1760 yards, not less than 4 as you stated.
But something does sound “off” in the markings, can so no reason for the mile start to not be on the finish line.
As for why, I reckon it would have a cost a lot more to move the inner rail whatever the distance needed to make it 400 meters. Doesn’t seem like much but I’m thinking you’d have to move one whole turn side in about 5 meters, make the straightaways about 5 meters shorter. Or pave an extra lane (roughly) on the inside of the whole thing and resurface/restripe the entire thing as well.
It depends on which lane you were running in the inner lane is a shorter distance than the outer lane so they probably tried to normalize either the start or the finish line. (Wild ass guess, but it makes sense, no?)
I mean maybe it could make sense for it to be 440 yd but marked for metric races, but to build a ~442 yd track just seems totally illogical. My miles on it last night came out to 1.04 and 1.05 according to Garmin, which seems right based on the area, as other tracks I’ve run on in the same area an 800 typically shows up as .52. I started at the “mile” line and ran the 3.99 laps. I ran a couple of 220s on it as well, which I thought seemed odd too because the 220 start line seemed too far into the turn by a couple of steps. Now that i see the track is likely a bit long, that makes sense.
This is what it looked like. There were other staggered start lines for 440, 4x440,4x110, 880, but I forget where they were relatively. All I remember is the 4x440 for lane 1, as well as the placement of the waterfall lines for the 1 and 2 mile http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k512/iank10/Mobile%20Uploads/B9BD4127-E808-45BE-A291-D90B274B25B9_zps2xmc2nbk.jpg
Yea I honestly didn’t expect it to be 3.99 laps for a mile, but I wasn’t sure if imperial tracks are measured differently for some reason, as I’ve never run on one before last night. I understand that 4x440=1760 so it should have been exactly 4 laps…just didn’t make sense to me.
It’s obviously not a huge deal, maybe a second and a half difference over a mile. No meets are held at this track, not even middle school, but it does happen to be the only rubberized track in the area I have access to; the rest are all asphalt.
Even if the track is 442 yards or something stupid like that, the distance from mile start to finish markings should be exactly one half the distance from 2 mile start to finish markings, which according to your drawing, it is not.
you sure you weren’t seeing the relay zones? was it a dirt track?
edit: I just saw your drawing. That is strange.
You’d be surprised how inaccurate old tracks can be. I found a website one time of a guy who just went around verifying tracks and markings in his free time.
There is a 440yd dirt track near me that used to be a high school but now is a middle school. Looks way different than that. It has all the distances marked on the concrete rail. It is nice to do actual mile repeats.
Oh my drawing is not to scale whatsoever. The distance from finish to mile start probably was about half the distance from finish to 2-mile. I just have poor fine motor skills and drew this on a Post it note at work.
I am not terribly worried about it, as they don’t host any sort of meet here that I know of, and the fudge factor in the distance of somewhere between 1 and 4 meters per lap is inconsequential to me as a triathlete. It just bugged me and I wasn’t sure if I was crazy regarding how a track is measured.
What will prevent me from returning isn’t the track markings, but the high number of people who weren’t just walking in lane 1, but swerving back and forth between the turf and lane 2 with no predictability at all. At least a lane 1 walker I know to pass on the outside every time!
No. Definitely not relay zones, these were the start lines, color coded with “3 turn” etc next to the event if it was a stagger start, distinct from the chevrons for the relays. I at least noticed the waterfall lines for 2 mile and mile, as well as stagger start for 4x440 (which coincided with the mile waterfall line in lane 1). The straightaway was still properly marked for 100m and 110m, which each had their own finish lines separate from the common finish.
Not a dirt track, actually the only rubberized track in the area I know of aside from colleges and one high school that’s really exclusive when you can get on it. Most of the other public middle and high schools are asphalt. One middle school I know of is 400m, but is a rounded square shape. I hated it; worse than running on an indoor 200m track around those turns!