The A/R Off Topic Thread

El Caballo

ultrapercy wrote: »

I'd have to doubt those 5 and 10k times. I'm not saying sprinters can't have good distance times but they seem a little quick. Not saying your lying either but maybe something got lost or added in the retelling? A 32 10k and a 47 400 would be some range of ability, even though 32 is just good club standard coupled with the 47 400 it would make the person a freak of nature. I certainly wouldn't like to have him on my shoulder with a lap to go!!

To be fair, he's a 400/800 runner. Niall Touhy

Chivito550

ultrapercy wrote: »

I'd have to doubt those 5 and 10k times. I'm not saying sprinters can't have good distance times but they seem a little quick. Not saying your lying either but maybe something got lost or added in the retelling? A 32 10k and a 47 400 would be some range of ability, even though 32 is just good club standard coupled with the 47 400 it would make the person a freak of nature. I certainly wouldn't like to have him on my shoulder with a lap to go!!

I recall one of our old posters here, thirtyfoot, saying he ran a 32 minute 10k. Not sure whether it was true or a wind-up, but it's perfectly plausible (albeit probably not the norm) for those running 400s in the 47-48 second range if they are endurance based (not sure his 400 best but was around 52/53 for 400m Hurdles).

Speaking of impressive range. Dane Bird Smith has a sub 49 second 400m to his name, and last year finished 8th in the 20km Walk at the World Championships.

El Caballo

El Caballo wrote: »

To be fair, he's a 400/800 runner. Niall Touhy

Here are some results Google threw up

15:29 5k

http://www.myrunresults.com/events/clongowes_5k/1614/results

26:19 5 mile

https://www.totaltiming.ie/results/2013/genzyme_5_mile_road_race_2013_fullresults.htm

His 400 and 800 pb's are 47.7 and 1.48

ultrapercy

El Caballo wrote: »

Here are some results Google threw up

15:29 5k

http://www.myrunresults.com/events/clongowes_5k/1614/results

26:19 5 mile

https://www.totaltiming.ie/results/2013/genzyme_5_mile_road_race_2013_fullresults.htm

His 400 and 800 pb's are 47.7 and 1.48

Reminds me of the joke about Jesus wandering from one village to another when he happens on an angry about to stone to death a woman of ill shame. Jesus walks to the front of the group and address them saying "let the one among you has not sinned cast the first stone" just then a rock sails over his head and strikes the woman between the eyes. Jesus turns around an says " you know what Ma, sometimes you really piss me off"

ThebitterLemon

ultrapercy wrote: »

I'd have to doubt those 5 and 10k times. I'm not saying sprinters can't have good distance times but they seem a little quick. Not saying your lying either but maybe something got lost or added in the retelling? A 32 10k and a 47 400 would be some range of ability, even though 32 is just good club standard coupled with the 47 400 it would make the person a freak of nature. I certainly wouldn't like to have him on my shoulder with a lap to go!!

Jazus 32 min 10k is only good club running!!

I must be barely making the shuffling one foot in front of the other club

TbL

Sacksian

El Caballo wrote: »

Here are some results Google threw up

15:29 5k

http://www.myrunresults.com/events/clongowes_5k/1614/results

26:19 5 mile

https://www.totaltiming.ie/results/2013/genzyme_5_mile_road_race_2013_fullresults.htm

His 400 and 800 pb's are 47.7 and 1.48

David McCarthy from West Waterford also has an amazing range. 1:46 for 800m and 13:42 for 5k. He ran 31.15 for 10k in Galway last year and then, apparently, an hour later ran 67mins for the half marathon. I don't know his pb for 400m but, with a 1:46 for 800m, I suspect he's been capable of 48 or so. He was also a schools champion for 400m.

I think he's the fastest over 800m of the current crop of middle-distance guys, so doubt anyone else would have a better range. CO'L has a far superior 10k, but no 400m or 800m that I could find.

Chivito550

Sacksian wrote: »

David McCarthy from West Waterford also has an amazing range. 1:46 for 800m and 13:42 for 5k. He ran 31.15 for 10k in Galway last year and then, apparently, an hour later ran 67mins for the half marathon. I don't know his pb for 400m but, with a 1:46 for 800m, I suspect he's been capable of 48 or so. He was also a schools champion for 400m.

I think he's the fastest over 800m of the current crop of middle-distance guys, so doubt anyone else would have a better range. CO'L has a far superior 10k, but no 400m or 800m that I could find.

You'd be surprised. I remember David Campbell (1:45) telling me his best for 400 was 50. But yeh the law of averages would have a 1:46 800m guy having sub 49 speed.

Sacksian

Chivito550 wrote: »

You'd be surprised. I remember David Campbell (1:45) telling me his best for 400 was 50. But yeh the law of averages would have a 1:46 800m guy having sub 49 speed.

I've seen it with some of the speedier 1500 guys, not being able to break 50s - I reckon it wouldn't take much for them to do but...they haven't!

The main thing in McCarthy's favour is that he actually ran the event as a schoolboy - I wonder if he ever ran it as a senior? I'd say if you went through some old National League results, you might find a few more examples of middle-distance guys doing the odd 4.

Eoin Everard has a 50.1 listed on All-Athletics from 2010 - I presume that's from the National League. He's 1:48 for 800m but I wouldn't have thought he'd be as fast over any distance as David McCarthy. Paul Robinson would be another who might be capable of something similar, but I doubt he's run too many 10ks.

Chivito550

So I decide to do my gym session before work this morning, and then get the LUAS into work as it’s just a 13 minute walk from the gym. I’m about 5 minutes from the LUAS and I decide to check the times of the next LUAS on the app. No fecking LUAS running today. Had no idea the pr1cks were on strike again. Next I see a 14 bus go by but I don’t react in time. The next 14 is 25 minutes away. I wait for 10 minutes, it is still 25 minutes away. There’s not another bus route remotely near where I am right now. So I end up walking the LUAS tracks into town! Utter madness!

On the plus side I did Dundrum LUAS to Harcourt LUAS in 43 minutes! Solid effort.

Maximus Alexander

Chivito550 wrote: »

So I decide to do my gym session before work this morning, and then get the LUAS into work as it’s just a 13 minute walk from the gym. I’m about 5 minutes from the LUAS and I decide to check the times of the next LUAS on the app. No fecking LUAS running today. Had no idea the pr1cks were on strike again. Next I see a 14 bus go by but I don’t react in time. The next 14 is 25 minutes away. I wait for 10 minutes, it is still 25 minutes away. There’s not another bus route remotely near where I am right now. So I end up walking the LUAS tracks into town! Utter madness!

On the plus side I did Dundrum LUAS to Harcourt LUAS in 43 minutes! Solid effort.

In that 10 minutes you spent waiting you could have ran half way to Harcourt. :pac:

Chivito550

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

In that 10 minutes you spent waiting you could have ran half way to Harcourt. :pac:

I walked much more. I walked from Ballinteer, to half way between Harcourt and Stephens Green LUAS stops. I just started timing it between Dundrum and Harcourt LUAS stops to make it more interesting, to compare how long it takes to walk compared to when on the LUAS. 43 mins to 13 mins.

I was walking for about an hour in total.

DubOnHoliday

All Luas tracks to be turned into greenways for running and cycling.

Maximus Alexander

If it's any consolation my OH got the 14 and it took her near enough 2 hours to get into town, so you were better off walking anyway.

kit3

Chivito550 wrote: »

Next I see a 14 bus go by but I don’t react in time.

I'd be more concerned about this ! I would have thought that, as a sprinter, your reaction times would be better :rolleyes::p

Chivito550

kit3 wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about this ! I would have thought that, as a sprinter, your reaction times would be better :rolleyes::p

It's more that I was confused which side of the road to stand on to go into town. The 14 takes a crazy route where it first heads away from town before actually heading into town. I'm not used to getting the bus from there, so I got confused and hesitated.

kit3

Chivito550 wrote: »

It's more that I was confused which side of the road to stand on to go into town. The 14 takes a crazy route where it first heads away from town before actually heading into town. I'm not used to getting the bus from there, so I got confused and hesitated.

Ah, that's ok then - the track only goes one way so you'll be fine. Was only messing btw What you really need is a bike though - only way to commute !

RacoonQueen

This one seems to have taken a lot by surprise. Panic on office yesterday with people trying to get approval to work from home

Firedance

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

All Luas tracks to be turned into greenways for running and cycling.

You might jest but this is a super idea!!! any chance ever that any government might come up with something this fabulous and progressive

tang1

Firedance wrote: »

You might jest but this is a super idea!!! any chance ever that any government might come up with something this fabulous and *progressive

*progressive and the Irish government, not in our lifetime!!

Chivito550

Firedance wrote: »

You might jest but this is a super idea!!! any chance ever that any government might come up with something this fabulous and progressive

If something like this was actually going to be done, I'd rather it be roads that were turned into running/cycling paths. Cars are the scurge of this city. We need more rail and light rail tracks, not less.

Firedance

tang1 wrote: »

*progressive and the Irish government, not in our lifetime!!

yes, well, certainly not at your age :pac::pac:

_Tombstone_

Chivito550 wrote: »

If something like this was actually going to be done, I'd rather it be roads that were turned into running/cycling paths. Cars are the scurge of this city. We need more rail and light rail tracks, not less.

Seen a headline lately some city somewhere is going car less and Netherlands have an idea going through government to ban all petrol/Diesel Cars by 2025...but they'll need Car companies help and they're not ones to innovate...if it wasn't for Tesla, a company they laughed at they probably would only be starting to look at electric now...plus we had big lithium battery breakthrough during the week on making them...not more powerful which is what we really need but that's coming but they've figured out how to stop them degrade from multiple charges...changes are coming albeit far to slow.

Chivito550

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Seen a headline lately some city somewhere is going car less and Netherlands have an idea going through government to ban all petrol/Diesel Cars by 2025...but they'll need Car companies help and they're not ones to innovate...if it wasn't for Tesla, a company they laughed at they probably would only be starting to look at electric now...plus we had big lithium battery breakthrough during the week on making them...not more powerful which is what we really need but that's coming but they've figured out how to stop them degrade from multiple charges...changes are coming albeit far to slow.

The best planned cities have minimal private vehicles in the centre of the city, lots of tram lines going through it, and an integrated underground going under it.

We have gridlock streets with clowns who opt to drive into town rather than get a bus, just 2 tram lines which will only be connected 13 years after opening, and no hope of ever seeing a proper underground.

davedanon

Do cities the size of Dublin really have undergrounds? Hardly seems necessary when you can walk from St. Stephen's Green to the Garden of Remembrance in about 20 mins.

Chivito550

davedanon wrote: »

Do cities the size of Dublin really have undergrounds? Hardly seems necessary when you can walk from St. Stephen's Green to the Garden of Remembrance in about 20 mins.

Copenhagen
Oslo
Helsinki
Nuremberg

Why do people seem to think Dublin is too small for an underground. It’s complete ignorance of how cities operate abroad. (Not picking on you, it’s a common opinion I come across, and it’s clueless). Check out the grid lock on South Circular Road, and Harold’s Cross and tell me we wouldn’t benefit from having an underground.

demfad

Chivito550 wrote: »

Copenhagen
Oslo
Helsinki
Nuremberg

Why do people seem to think Dublin is too small for an underground. It’s complete ignorance of how cities operate abroad. (Not picking on you, it’s a common opinion I come across, and it’s clueless). Check out the grid lock on South Circular Road, and Harold’s Cross and tell me we wouldn’t benefit from having an underground.

Dublin might actually be too big for an underground or more accurately too spread out for its population. There is a critical density of population necessary to make an underground affordable. There simply isn't enough people living above each potential station to make it in any way cost effective. For example Dublin (AFAIK) has a footprint well over twice the size of Brussels, a city of comparable population. That would mean a metro in Dublin would require twice the amount of stations and twice the amount of underground lines as Brussels. It would cost way too much to build and maintain compared to what it would take in.
A short line servicing the main areas of the city center might be the only possibility as it would have the footfall on the streets above to translate into passengers.

davedanon

Chivito550 wrote: »

Copenhagen
Oslo
Helsinki
Nuremberg

Why do people seem to think Dublin is too small for an underground. It’s complete ignorance of how cities operate abroad. (Not picking on you, it’s a common opinion I come across, and it’s clueless). Check out the grid lock on South Circular Road, and Harold’s Cross and tell me we wouldn’t benefit from having an underground.

Well, of course 'we' would benefit. Would it be worth the overall cost, though? It would run into tens of billions, surely.

Chivito550

demfad wrote: »

Dublin might actually be too big for an underground or more accurately too spread out for its population. There is a critical density of population necessary to make an underground affordable. There simply isn't enough people living above each potential station to make it in any way cost effective. For example Dublin (AFAIK) has a footprint well over twice the size of Brussels, a city of comparable population. That would mean a metro in Dublin would require twice the amount of stations and twice the amount of underground lines as Brussels. It would cost way too much to build and maintain compared to what it would take in.
A short line servicing the main areas of the city center might be the only possibility as it would have the footfall on the streets above to translate into passengers.

Dublin is spread out, but it's not nearly as bad as people say. Melbourne is far more sprawled, and while they don't have an underground (with the exception of the City Loop), they have about 15 rail lines which stretch miles out, and they are always full at rush hour.

And underground doesn't have to be underground everywhere, just in the city centre. We should have put the LUAS lines underground when we started. From Ranelagh onwards the Green line should have been underground, and the Red Line should have gone underground before it got to Heuston. What a wasted opportunity that was to have 2 connected underground lines, which could have been the start of a network which could be expanded over time. If Newcastle can manage a metro, with significantly smaller population, then we could.

Chivito550

davedanon wrote: »

Well, of course 'we' would benefit. Would it be worth the overall cost, though? It would run into tens of billions, surely.

These things should be seen as investments, which is how foreign countries view them. We look at everything as a cost. The benefits to having an underground is huge. It's not just about getting people to and from work, it's about moving people around the city, which can only mean good things economically for a city.

We just have no foresight in this country. Always looking for the cheapest way to do something. Half arsed approach. My housemate's brother who was over visiting from Poland asked me last week why we have so few trains. Hard to answer the question without feeling embarrassed. They just expect that kind of infrastructure over there.

Firedance

Chivito550 wrote: »

Dublin is spread out, but it's not nearly as bad as people say. Melbourne is far more sprawled, and while they don't have an underground (with the exception of the City Loop), they have about 15 rail lines which stretch miles out, and they are always full at rush hour.

.

So there are other solutions that work well elsewhere, did you live in Melbourne? if so did their solution work well? For the record, our rail lines are always full at rush hour too