Jump to content

Recommended Posts

HAHAHA Did you really just say that? You just lost quite a bit of credibility and REALLY fell into my wheel house... the literal definition and name for any and ALL Olympic track & fields has the word OVAL in it.

IAAF TRACK AND FIELD OLYMPIC FACILITIES MANUAL:

a 400m Standard Oval Track as described under Chapter 2.1.1.1 has 8 oval and 8 straight lanes (minimum 4-6, maximum 9)

THIS IS AN OVAL:

oval_1_.gif

THIS IS NOT AN OVAL:

Autodromo_Hermanos_Rodriguez_Oval_1024x1

GEE, WHICH ONE LOOKS MORE LIKE A TRACK????

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Boston, Massachusetts is taking the first big steps towards looking into the feasibility of a Summer Games bid for the earliest year 2024. On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the MA State Senate file a Re

Oslo was an abortion - Boston is a miscarriage.

We prefer "Masshole" to "total douche".

HAHA Don't tell me to back off... He attacks me on a daily basis about things I have a great deal of knowledge about and he just did it to Woohoo.

A track is not and never has been two semi-circles, it is One continuous oval with a straightaway layered on top. He pointed out no fact, the straightaway is optional and only required from one side, something I know since I professional train on one everyday.

If you were smart enough you could really just look up the definition or the dimensions or look in the Olympic Facilities Manual or IAAF Facilities Manual, oh wait those are mine.

No actually that would make me Accurate since Athensfan said it was not an oval and was not called an oval. Which it is... there is no Olympic Track statement that will tell you it's a none continuous oval or that it has "two semi-circles with two straight aways" like athens stated he is 110% incorrect

And of course I know what wheelhouse means and since I am a Professional Track & Field Athlete my statement was Correct ;-)

I do not attack you.

I simply point out that it is not enough for Boston to promise "innovation" will make everything rosy. They will need concrete solutions to some complex challenges in order to develop a successful bid -- one of the most fundamental being financing. In response, you go to pieces.

A track is two semi-circles connected by straightaways. EXACTLY as I said. Period. No room for discussion.

In geometry and oval contains NO STRAIGHT LINES. Obviously this is not true of an athletics track.

I never said people did not CALL the track an oval. Plenty of people do because there actually isn't a word to describe the "pill-shape" form. But the fact remains that it is NOT actually an oval.

For the record, I like woohooitsme a great deal. He is a thoughtful poster and one of the most creditable if not THE most creditable newbie on these boards. He just happened to make a mistake with his diagram and I pointed it out. It was not an "attack," simply a statement of fact.

You, Rik, seem to have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between the two.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the main stadium have to be (somewhat) circular? I know New York 2012 proposed a rectangular stadium, but was the playing field also rectangular? (and did the seats curve around a circular playing field (if it was circular?)

Quaker is right. There seems to be quite a range of possibilities. LA left very little space around the track. London's stadium was still oval but it was proportionally fatter than most -- approaching a circle. I don't see any reason a square can't work. I suppose the ultimate decision is all about maximizing the efficiency of the space, plus aesthetic considerations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rik - please either add something worth discussing or don't bother posting. Read the posts of other Boston backers like Chris and aquaman in this thread then read yours. There's a difference.

Who cares semantically what is an oval and what isn't? We all know the shape of a running track no matter what we call it, and that's what matters here.

So to get us back on topic I'll ask you this. Since you know the city better than most here, how would you recommend configuring an Olympic stadium so it could downsize to a much smaller football stadium? What do you think the best solution is for Boston's Olympics / future needs?

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that adding seating inside/over the track increases seating. The Revolution are not going to want to pay the maintenance costs of a 100,000 capacity stadium. So converting an athletics stadium to a smaller football stadium would essentially require the stadium to be completely reconstructed. Even in the case of the lower bowl the engineers would have to rebuild it to change the angle of the seating.

If your diagram was intended to show something else then I apologize.

I was attempting to visualize aquaman's idea of covering up the track with cement to create another tier of seats

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that adding seating inside/over the track increases seating. The Revolution are not going to want to pay the maintenance costs of a 100,000 capacity stadium. So converting an athletics stadium to a smaller football stadium would essentially require the stadium to be completely reconstructed. Even in the case of the lower bowl the engineers would have to rebuild it to change the angle of the seating.

If your diagram was intended to show something else then I apologize.

No, they would not want a 100k seater. They play in a 60k seater now and most of it sits empty. I believe Boston's plan was to propose a 60-70k seat main stadium (Tokyo's '20 stadium seats 55k, IIRC) and then pare it back to 30k seats after the Games. Again, I'm not a stadium designer and have no relation to Boston's bid, but it's possible (and yes, expensive) to start out with the core of an oval stadium, add rows on the outer walls of that oval to reach Games capacity then, once the Games are over, remove the outer rows and in-fill the field. Yes, it would be very expensive to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thread just add enough drama to make my work day a little more bearable! I don't usually comment because I don't have anything new to add. But as somewhat of a logofile maybe I can add something this time.

An oval is anything egg shaped. It's an inclusive word to anything egg shaped, or, depending on who you ask, it's only exclusive to an actual egg-shaped object (in that it's not visually symmetrical). The "symmetrical" oval would be an ellipse.

What I find most amusing is that everyone is so riled up about the exact shape of the track. The geometrical shape of the track is actually called a stadium. AKA discorectangle. If we were to use the more inclusive definition for an oval, both the track and the ellipse are ovals.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Stadium.html

THIS IS AN OVAL:

oval_1_.gif

THIS IS NOT AN OVAL:

Autodromo_Hermanos_Rodriguez_Oval_1024x1

GEE, WHICH ONE LOOKS MORE LIKE A TRACK????

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia can't make its mind up about what a feckin' oval actually is. I don't think the Gamesbids Brains Trust is going to come up with a definitive answer.

Can we get back onto talking about what Boston proposes for its main stadium? Maybe Rik can give us his thoughts as to what he thinks is the best solution for Boston's stadium during the Games and in legacy mode?

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they would not want a 100k seater. They play in a 60k seater now and most of it sits empty. I believe Boston's plan was to propose a 60-70k seat main stadium (Tokyo's '20 stadium seats 55k, IIRC) and then pare it back to 30k seats after the Games. Again, I'm not a stadium designer and have no relation to Boston's bid, but it's possible (and yes, expensive) to start out with the core of an oval stadium, add rows on the outer walls of that oval to reach Games capacity then, once the Games are over, remove the outer rows and in-fill the field. Yes, it would be very expensive to do.

I believe the USOC requires 80,000 seats for stadium. The IOC may require less, but in the end, Boston needs to meet the requirements of the USOC if they want to have a chance to make it past the domestic stage (either that, or great negotiation skills).

*for the main stadium

Link to post
Share on other sites

OVAL is OVAL whether it's egg-shaped or you flatten the sides to make an "ellipse." I believe this was the favored shape from the ancient Romans with their Circus Maximus stadia in Jerusalem, Byzantium and Rome. Then the Colosseum became round--but it wasn't used so much for the chariot races.

The only differences between a rectangularish stadium (w/ sharp-angles) as opposed to a rounded or oval one are:

1. acoustically, you'll get more echos in a right-angled stadium vs. a rounded one -- minimally; and

2. it's easier to fit the seats in straight lines vs. curved distribution. But people at the corners & ends have a worse view than if it were a rounded configuration.

Of course, a right-angled stadium will be cheaper to build than a roundish one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OVAL is OVAL whether it's egg-shaped or you flatten the sides to make an "ellipse." I believe this was the favored shape from the ancient Romans with their Circus Maximus stadia in Jerusalem, Byzantium and Rome. Then the Colosseum became round--but it wasn't used so much for the chariot races.

The only differences between a rectangularish stadium (w/ sharp-angles) as opposed to a rounded or oval one are:

1. acoustically, you'll get more echos in a right-angled stadium vs. a rounded one -- minimally; and

2. it's easier to fit the seats in straight lines vs. curved distribution. But people at the corners & ends have a worse view than if it were a rounded configuration.

Of course, a right-angled stadium will be cheaper to build than a roundish one.

You can build a stadium with a rectangular footprint and keep the seating in a oval configuration. That should limit the echoes. The spaces in the right angles could be used for concession stands or just open concourses. The downside is that it could limit capacity.

Also, the Coliseum is an Oval.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sit corrected. But it was NOT as elliptical as the Circus Maximus stadia w/ their long straightaways for the chariot races.

You have it switched around. The Circus Maximus is the stadium and the Coliseum the ellipse. But we're talking semantics here and in the end of the day an oval is an oval and really, their footprints (in terms of square footage) shouldn't vary as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can build a stadium with a rectangular footprint and keep the seating in a oval configuration. That should limit the echoes. The spaces in the right angles could be used for concession stands or just open concourses. The downside is that it could limit capacity.

Are echoes not desirable for association football? They certainly are for American football.

I believe the USOC requires 80,000 seats for stadium. The IOC may require less, but in the end, Boston needs to meet the requirements of the USOC if they want to have a chance to make it past the domestic stage (either that, or great negotiation skills).

*for the main stadium

Yes. It would have to be:

1) 80,000 capacity

2) -70,000 capacity (10,000 left)

3) +20,000 capacity (30,000 total)

It should end up being more cost effective to bulldoze it and build a new stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Athensfan, you keep using that word oval. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You mean it's not a dodecahedron?

Of course I know what "oval" means.

This whole debate arose because woohooitsme drew a track with a continuous curve and no straightaways.

There are a wide range of ovals. As jfabz pointed out ovals are anything that is egg shaped (from the Latin ovum which means egg) and symmetrical ones are ellipses (ellipses are still ovals).

I have a problem with saying that anything with two straight parallel lengths is egg-shaped. I've never met an egg with a flat side. Nonetheless, by working custom the track is called an oval even though it is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out before, geometry wise it is called 'Stadium' (or discorectangle according to Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_(geometry)

:( Oh great...here comes the moderator with the padlock again!

I sometimes don't get the moderator. Even when things are settled, he still locks it up. Talk about too little, too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the USOC requires 80,000 seats for stadium. The IOC may require less, but in the end, Boston needs to meet the requirements of the USOC if they want to have a chance to make it past the domestic stage (either that, or great negotiation skills).

*for the main stadium

You may be right, I wouldn't know. My knowledge about the planned Boston stadium is based solely on newspaper articles. You know what they say about believing everything you read. I'm sure the Boston planning committee is fully aware of the minimum requirements and will propose accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this work?:

iTWHv1g.jpg

(Here's the URL if you to zoom in:http://i.imgur.com/iTWHv1g.jpg)

This is all I can really come up with. I guess I drew some inspiration from the WC stadiums. They're just so darn pretty. :wub: I also got some ideas from the plan LA suggested for the Coliseum. Maybe the hidden tier of seating could be VIP seats so it can seat less?

aOlq4wO.png

^The numbers above are just estimates and may not make any sense whatsoever.

(Yes, I know, I used the Golden Age art from Civ5 for the icon of Legacy mode. It just seemed so fitting)

52,000 seats is actually a pretty small NFL stadium. Maybe instead of NFL, it can be MLS? Just remove and replace the track with a soccer field?

xdWcPWB.png

(URL: http://i.imgur.com/xdWcPWB.png)

Scaling is probably really off, though. 45,000 seats for an MLS stadium seems normal, right?

Sorry for the really long post >.<

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's possible to use a mix-up of retractable and temporary seats to turn a track-and-field stadium into a soccer stadium, without using a platform or digging to lower the field. I'll post some drawings tomorrow of what i have in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...