Many runners are intensely interested in their milage. The same goes for walkers, and this sometimes leads to conflicts between runners and walkers at the local track. Runners doing speedwork like to use lane 1 so that they know how far they have run, and walkers like lane 1 for the same reason! In fact, as nearly everybody knows, for most modern outdoor tracks the classic 4 laps in lane 1 is equal to 1600 Meters, which is about 9 meters short of a mile. If you're willing to call 4 laps a mile then you should be willing to run or walk several other lane/lap combinations which are as close or closer to an even-mile distance. Below are your best bets on a standard outdoor track ( 1 lap in lane 1 is 400 M and each lane is 42 inches wide.) The first figure is the number of miles you run if you run in the lane indicated by the second number for a number of laps given by the 3rd number: .9941939076, 1, 4 22.99692551, 2, 91 6.003999297, 4, 23 12.99521346, 5, 49 7.003709132, 6, 26 Thus, for example, you could do that Sunday long run of 23 Miles by going to the local high school track and running 91 laps in lane 2. ( The accuracy indicated here is absurd, of course. The milage figures quoted assume that the track has been measured exactly, and uses the exact conversion from metric to English. In practice, the accuracy of track surveying falls well short of this ideal.) Note that if you want to do a 6 mile run it is _much_ more accurate to run 23 laps in lane 4 than it is to run 24 laps in lane 1 -- where the roughly 9 meter discrepency gets multiplied by 6. Here are some similar figures for a 200 Meter indoor track with 36 inch lanes: .9941939076, 1, 8 10.99460379, 2, 86 4.994415896, 4, 37 .9948693772, 6, 7 In general, if you run in lane L on a track with lane width W then the additional distance you run per lap over the distance you would run in lane 1 is 2*Pi*W*(L-1). (Don't forget that you must measure W in the same units you want the answer.) To see why this holds, note that most tracks consist of two semicircular endpieces attached to parallel straightaways. Since all lanes run the same distance along the straightaways, for the purpose of computing the excess distance in Lane L we can cut out the straightaways and assume we are running around a circle. The result follows by comparing the circumference of two circles: Lane 1 with radius r (say), and Lane L with radius r + (L-1)W. The excess is the difference of the circumferences: 2*Pi*(r + (L-1)W) - 2*Pi*r = 2*Pi*(L-1)*W. What happens when the track has a different shape? Some tracks, for example those in health clubs, may have odd shapes, and the derivation above does not apply. Surprisingly, the same result always holds. (Well, almost always.) Here is a simple way to see it. Suppose the inside edge of the track is marked by a simple closed curve. Imagine taking a rod A-------B of length W and carrying it around the track so that end A traces out the inside edge curve. Then, in the course of this motion, end B will trace out the inside edge of "Lane 2." The question then is, "How much further does B move than A?" To answer this we can subtract out the motion of A. We are left with A fixed and B tracing out a circle. Thus, the extra distance B moves is just the circumference of this circle: 2*Pi*W. If the shape of the track is everywhere convex (i.e., any two points in the "infield" can be connected by a line segment which does not leave the infield ) then the argument just given is absolutely correct. If the track is allowed to curve back in on itself ( imagine, e.g., the shape of the outline of a kidney bean ), then there can be a problem if the lane width is too large. The difficulty is that end B of the rod described above can actually retrograde, i.e., traverse some portion of its circle of motion more than once. The technical condition which must be met is |W/R| < 1, where R is the minimum radius of curvature of the inside curve. It is a nice calculus exercise to prove, subject to this restriction, that the excess distance in lane 2 is indeed independent of the shape of the track. It all boils down to the "Gauss-Bonnet Theorem" which says that the integral of the curvature around a simple closed plane curve is equal to 2*Pi.