Runnerz76 wrote:I started the original post over a week ago.... The unreliable Nazarova...
A very strange statement.
She may have been on lots of winning relay teams, but in outdoor championships she can be described as 'okay' at best. As far as I'm aware she has never run sub 50 on an outdoor major championship relay. In Munich 02 (Europeans) she ran 52.0 on the second leg. In Paris 03 she was on the last leg and only ran 50.93, despite running sub 50 in the 400 final. In Athens 04 she ran 50.0 on the second leg. She did the same split time in Osaka 07 on the same leg; and that effectively ruled them out of any chance of gold or silver. Even her best tactical leg, back in Seville, was a 50.17.
So, I would definitely not include her in my final 4. I wouldn't have included Vdovina either, who has run poor relay legs... but both of these have been selected over Litvinova, who is a much more reliable relay runner but only 7th in the nationals. They'll probably run Vdovina in just the heats, with either Nazarova or Kapachinskaya then two from their 3 fastest this year; Firova, Guschine & Krivoshapka.
gennady wrote: We have a good bench, although I would like to see Litvinova instead of Kapachinskaya. Kapachinskaya had a chance in 2008 if not she, then we would be champions.
Do you really think that? She got ran down in the final meters by SRR, the 7th fastest woman in history. Not only that but she anchored her team to a time less than .5 from their national record...
Absolutely. You quote the subjective facts of the series: "shouda, woulda, coulda". I quote you the objective facts - Kapachinskaya a bad relay runner, in comparison with other Russian girls:
Later, I will send you a more in-depth analysis. Try to imagine what would be discussed at this forum, if the first number of U.S. team 4x400m having at exchange 0.66sec ahead, would have lost at the finish 0.22sec. It is terrible to think about it.
Your killing yourself with stats. You are actually the one giving "shouda, woulda, coulda" answers.
These are the facts: Kapa WAS the russian anchor leg in Beijing. Russia DID run within .5 of their national record in the 4x4. Kapa DID get run down by the 7th fastest woman in history, while she had never even even broken 50 yet.
You cant say that any other Russian would have run better than Kapa did on that anchor leg in Beijing based off what they had done before or in other relays. That is 100% assumption.
jazzcyclist wrote:What's interesting about the article you linked is that it only deals with the draft benefit at middle distance speeds. As we all know, as wind speed increases, wind drag increases exponentially, which means that the draft benefits at 400 speeds are much greater than the draft benefits at middle distance speeds. Here are the links to a couple of other articles on the subject. Warning, the second is very tedious.
Even if you don't want to take the time to read these articles, think of it intuitively. We all know that in the 100-meter dash, a variation of the windspeed by as little as 0.2 m/s willl measurably affect a sprinter's time by 0.01 s, which when extrapolated to 400 meters would be 0.04 s. In order to believe that there is no draft benefit in elite 4x400 relays, you have to also believe that having someone running one meter in front of you at 9 m/s (8 m/s for women), give less of a benefit than a 0.2 m/s tailwind.
Finally a wind tunnel test which proves what I've been saying all along. From the article linked on the front page:
The first question is how much energy air resistance actually costs you. There have been a few studies with different estimates, but the one that seems most reliable is this 1980 Journal of Applied Physiology paper:
The energy cost of overcoming air resistance on a calm day outdoor was calculated to be 7.8% for sprinting (10 m/s), 4% middle-distance (6 m/s), and 2% marathon (5 m/s) running.
These are significant amounts of energy -- and of course, if you're running into a headwind, the cost is significantly greater. A speed of 5 m/s is about 5:22/mile, so it's safe to assume that drafting isn't really relevant at speeds of, say, 7:00/mile or slower unless there's a significant headwind.
The second question is whether you really benefit from tucking behind a runner in front of you. The canonical study here was done by Griffith Pugh -- best known as the physiologist on the first successful Everest mission -- in 1971. . . . . .
This shows oxygen consumption (which is basically equivalent to energy consumption) for a runner running alone at 6:00/mile in a wind tunnel, versus the same runner running at the same pace one meter behind another runner in the wind tunnel. It's pretty clear that there's a big energy saving from drafting. Pugh runs some calculations to determine that at 4:30 mile pace, drafting one meter behind another runner on a still day saves about 80% of the energy you'd otherwise spend fighting air resistance. That corresponds to about 1 second per 400 meters at that pace, and more on windy days.