Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    We seem to be having trouble grasping the facts here. While wet air/track seems intuitively worse for running, that is not what the science tells us, so we just dismiss the science because it doesn't match what we think we already know? There seems to be a lot of that going around in the USA now.


    NOT that I think either 'wet fact' actually affects the times in hundredths. What it does do is 'concern' athletes have think wet is bad, and then it DOES become a problem simply because they make it one.
    Who is having difficulty grasping what? You are not following the train of thought of the discussion. Your response to this : "Thing is, track only gets wet when air density is questionably advantageous" makes that painfully obvious. Science tells us that air density varies according to water and temperature variables. I made a post one page back from here to highlight that science, not dismiss it.

    The problem I was pointing out is that a wet track seems intuitively slower than a dry one, but you only HAVE a wet one when the air could eradicate any possible disadvantage from a surface with less traction.
    Last edited by trackCanuck; 08-13-2019 at 08:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    11,409
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    Says the guy who doesn't believe in drafting. ������
    Drafting, in track and field, like wet air, is real, but absolutely neglible in actual energy exertion. It does way (way!) more psychologically. Following a rabbit seems easier, when it really isn't. The only time it makes a dicernible difference is if you are in the midst of a tight group with the wind in your face, and then yes, the air will be baffled, and you won't feel its negative effects.

    Otherwise, running is too slow and the space between runners is enough to negate any 'drafting' effect.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    10,921
    As jazz says....Science for you but not for me....

    'The energy cost of overcoming air resistance in track running may be 75% of the total energy cost at middle distance speed and 13% at sprint speed. Running 1 m behind another runner virtually eliminated air resistance and reduced V̇O2 by 65% at middle distance speed.'

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1331759/
    Last edited by Conor Dary; 08-13-2019 at 09:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    wet tracks [split]
    #34
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,012
    no need to clutter a magnificent WR topic with extraneous babblings.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogery- chwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales
    Posts
    11,911
    Quote Originally Posted by gh View Post
    ...extraneous...

    Hardly
    There are no strings on me
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #36
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    I don't know if this has already been discussed but
    what's the best estimate on what Muhammad' would have run in the open 400 that day?
    If memory serves me right, the difference between a 400m flat and 400mh, for a clean, technically competent runner, is 2.5 seconds. For a lot of runners it is more like 3.0-3.5 though.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiederganger View Post
    If memory serves me right, the difference between a 400m flat and 400mh, for a clean, technically competent runner, is 2.5 seconds. For a lot of runners it is more like 3.0-3.5 though.
    I thought of taking an average of the top 15 men and women....and it was soon apparent that there was so much variability among differentials that is wouldn't be very informative. So what next? How do we arrive at a believable number?
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    11,409
    Quote Originally Posted by trackCanuck View Post
    How do we arrive at a believable number?
    Ain't no such a thang!

    EVERY hurdler has a different differential (tautology?).

    And every hurdler has a different differential for each race.

    Just because a woman can run a 50.0 400, does not mean she 'should' be running a 52 or 53 or even 54 for the 400H.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #39
    Didn't Beamon's jump and Evans' 400m WR happen right before a thunderstorm?
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #40
    Quote Originally Posted by JumboElliott View Post
    Didn't Beamon's jump and Evans' 400m WR happen right before a thunderstorm?
    This is about the conditions around the time of Beamon's jump.

    https://www.letsrun.com/news/2018/10...jump-turns-50/

    "At 3:46 p.m. on October 18, Bob Beamon stood on the Estadio Olimpico Universitario runway with a breeze at his back, readying for his first attempt of the 1968 Olympic long jump final. It was 74 degrees and humid, and though dark clouds had threatened a storm all day, there was no precipitation."
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •