Estimating 200m times from 150 times

    Posted In: Sprints

        • Participant
          dean on February 22, 2005 at 5:15 pm #10465

          Hi, I’m a 200m runner from Britain. I have a best of 23.0s for the 200m from 2004, when I started running 200m. I’ve got into hard training and have been running 16.4 for the 150m consistently, and 13.3 for the 120m. Its still cold and we have bad weather so I hope to run quicker in good conditions. Does anyone have any idea how that might transfer to a 200m time?

        • Participant
          QUIKAZHELL on February 22, 2005 at 10:28 pm #42431

          Outdoors when I was running 16.4’s in training I was running 22.0 in comp.

        • Participant
          cobras100mgld on February 22, 2005 at 10:33 pm #42432

          what do you think a 17.5 indoors on a basketball court type surface can translate to an outdoor track

        • Participant
          QUIKAZHELL on February 23, 2005 at 12:28 am #42433

          Depends on how tight the curves are etc. Its hard to say. Generally a 200 indoors to outdoors is a half second different so a 150 is prob .3 or so different.

        • Member
          ws100 on February 23, 2005 at 1:18 am #42434

          Also depends on your SE1. The 150 does not have alot of SE1 only speed endurance.

        • Participant
          cobras100mgld on February 23, 2005 at 2:19 am #42435

          the curves are very slippery and the straights are even more slippery. im never really tired after 150 so 200 isnt much of a problem

        • Participant
          dean on February 23, 2005 at 7:31 pm #42436

          I’d be really pleased with a 22.0! Just hope I can keep training well. Cheers

        • Member
          400stud on February 24, 2005 at 5:42 am #42437

          One trick I learned is to divide your 150m time by 3 and multiply it by 4. It’s a general estimator that seemed to be within .2 for me everytime I tried it.

        • Participant
          Derrick Brito on February 24, 2005 at 8:10 am #42438

          that means quik was about dead on.

        • Member
          400stud on February 24, 2005 at 10:21 am #42439

          Exactly….wonder how he got that number???? 😆

        • Participant
          QUIKAZHELL on February 24, 2005 at 10:28 am #42440

          I didnt get it from your little formula, sorry buddy. lol.
          I actually got it from playing around with Mercier and comparing my results. Mercier say 16.4= 22.3 and a week after I gone 16.4 in training id gone 22.0 hand time in a meet.

        • Member
          400stud on February 24, 2005 at 6:01 pm #42441

          Yeah well my formula’s better 😛 😆 Either way, it’s a rough estimate.

        • Participant
          Jay Turner on February 26, 2005 at 11:49 am #42442

          Take your 16.4 (or whatever your time is) and divide by the distance ran. Then multiply the answer times 200. You should have your answer.

        • Participant
          QUIKAZHELL on February 26, 2005 at 11:56 pm #42443

          that wont work very well. Even more Deceleration will occur the last 50 meters.
          16.4=21.8 If you can keep that pace. But that would be very difficult.

        • Participant
          Jay Turner on February 27, 2005 at 6:30 am #42444

          If you can go 16.4 for 150m (which, according to my “formula” gets you 21.8) you SHOULD have fairly decent speed endurance, so deceleration should not be THAT big a factor.

        • Participant
          speedking on March 5, 2005 at 4:00 am #42445

          [i]Originally posted by 400Stud[/i]
          One trick I learned is to divide your 150m time by 3 and multiply it by 4. It’s a general estimator that seemed to be within .2 for me everytime I tried it.

          Wow that is pretty accurate, I experimented with the 150 times my sprinters had this year and in the last couple of years, and the formula was right on.

        • Member
          400stud on March 5, 2005 at 10:56 am #42446

          Yeah, I find it pretty good. Same with any event…ex:

          350/7 x 8 = 400m time

          250/5 x 8 = 400m time

          250/5 x 4 = 200m time

          etc.etc.

        • Member
          alex on March 5, 2005 at 1:20 pm #42447

          [i]Originally posted by 400Stud[/i]
          Yeah, I find it pretty good. Same with any event…ex:

          350/7 x 8 = 400m time

          250/5 x 8 = 400m time

          250/5 x 4 = 200m time

          etc.etc.

          The formulas you listed above aren’t great, because the further the distance ran, the more decelleration becomes a factor, and therefore you can not use linear formulas like the ones listed to predict times. eg. A elite sprinter with good range (10, 20, 45) could probably run a 250 in 25mid or so. Using your formula he would get a 40.8 for the 400.

        • Member
          400stud on March 6, 2005 at 10:21 pm #42448

          true, but on a sub-elite level, it’s a bit more accurate as far as I’ve seen…

    Viewing 18 reply threads
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.