The Olympic Games Rio-2016 Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
  • Like
Reactions: fatletiss
Just been on Youtube and had a watch of several official Olympics films. Very good they were too. Reminded me again that Tokyo 1964 used the last of the cinder tracks and Mexico 1968 used an early synthetic track developed by 3M [Tartan Track]. Then I made a mistake. I asked the question, which is faster.? The Cinder track or the modern Synthetic [Mondo] track. Blimey, is that a pot-boiler of a debate amongst athletes from both periods. For example, it has been suggested that Bob Hayes, who won the Tokyo 1964 100M title might well have run down Usain Bolt. Thing is, that may not be so far fetched. Hayes won in 10.0 seconds dead. So are modern tracks 0.5 of a second quicker over 100M.? Some debaters have run on both and say that even early synthetic tracks were like running on concrete, whereas cinders were more akin to sand [huge exaggeration of the difference, but the analogy is just to illustrate the characteristics].

Given everything else as equal [only difference being the track itself] there is one thing that I haven't spotted in the debates. On a cinder track the athlete inevitably picks up a bit of surface with the foot and ejects it behind, especially at the start [lots of it] This is energy wasted. On a modern track this doesn't happen. Every bit of power projects the athlete forward. Makes you think. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back