the difference in top-end speed amongst world-class sprinters is probably not noticeable to the naked eye. What is noticeable is those who are able to maintain such speed (or close thereto) for a longer period of time, thus giving the illusion of greater speed.
running is all about trompe l'oeil (you get fooled: what looks like more speed is actually less loss of speed)
I don't have any calcs readily available. However understanding elite sprint distributions I would think that his highest m/s rate was slightly less than those you mentioned. Contact length, rate of relaxation and imposed stamina development might have much to do with the high quality of sustainability at that rate. Perhaps, at that point in the race, equal to those again that was mentioned.
dbirds wrote:Does anyone have stats on this? He can't be far behind bolt and gay regarding his Top end speed. Just saw him blow by Collins after being 5 meters down...amazing
It does depend (to evaluate in the the general sense, the max. velocity) upon where this "blowing by" occurs. As alluded to above, if it's very late in 100m, then it might be more a demonstration of speed endurance. If it occurs earlier as in around 40-60m (a mid race pick-up or another gear that can be reached that others in the race might not have) then it would be more of demo. of at least near top end. If this separation occurs at the 60-65m mark then it would have to be, in most cases, max. velocity. The highest speed will occur for the best during approx. the 6th-7th second of sprinting.
And that assumes that your gun is actually of tight enough focus (I have no idea) to have only the desired athlete giving off a reading. Not to mention the need to have a perfect line of sight, which is a virtual impossibility unless you're on the photo platform (if they have one, and the photogs don't kill you for being there in the first place).
Is there any evidence that leg length is related to maintaining loss of speed? Any mathematicians want to weigh in?
Now there's a can of worms: Did Mike Agostini (Trinidad & Tobago/Fresno State, 9.3 100yds. if memory serves) slow down as much as long-legged Ray Norton? Such different styles you'd have no idea who was running better looking at them isolated.
As for Mathematicians, I wouldn't go making theoretical predictions when muscle type has so much to do w/ both turnover and rebound impetus. For theoretical vs. empirical projections, I cite Shotput, where angle of release is somewhere below 40 degrees (37 is cited in one of the Throws Manuals): The 45 degree nostrum only applies to projectiles "fired" from the same level, usually ground (or gun muzzle, typically aimed at a target on the same horizontal plane, earth curvature excepted, but also subject to calc), whereas a Shotputter releases closer to 2m high. Moreover, the lineup of arm/shoulder musculature helps explain the much lower (than adjusted theoretical calc) optimal angle. Try it "at your desk" to see how it looks and feels; that's why a dropped elbow is such a no-no in SP, leading to a weak, looping throw.
Here is the link to the 2011 Daegu World Championships IAAF Biomechanical analysis. http://www.jaaf.or.jp/t-f/pdf/Daegu2011.pdf . Unfortunately, these "scientists" were probably not coaches/athletes or even fans...they use some odd distances, but they were thorough as the HJ, PV, SP, LJ and sprints were high lighted.
Rank /Lane Name Parameter 0-13 m -30 m -47 m -64 m -81 m -89.5 m -100 m 4/8 Christophe LEMAITRE (FRA) Lap time (sec) 2.28 3.94 5.46 6.94 8.44 9.21 10.19
Wow, that's a tremendous slowdown at the end, pushing 10%, which might be explained by letting up at the tape. BTW, don'tcha hate it when they refer to Bolt's "jogging". Unless, it starts 5-10 m from the tape, that last little relaxation is hardly worth even 1/10th. Still a questionable habit.
gh wrote:Not to mention the need to have a perfect line of sight
They could measure the speed of the athletes going away from the blocks. Possibly even have a 'target' on their back and train the measuring device to ignore everything else?
Technicians can (and certainly have) done this. the statement we were addressing, however, was this: <<I've never understood why big-time sprint coaches don't employ radar guns like baseball does>>
I didn't mean to literally use the radar guns that baseball uses, I meant use that technology (however it needs to be, to be effective) to give a continuous readout of instantaneous speed through the race.
ChuiTai wrote:How portable and accurate is a LAVEG device with associated equipment? And what of measured target density?
I have no idea, it just seems like it might be possible. I speak from a position of complete ignorance.
I doubt that. The principle is sound. Though LAVEG tells us some things with regard to velocity with respect to mass movement changes and derived distances. These days the informed T&F community is more confident in basic newtonian physics to determine such things as it relates to COM velocity and ranges of jerk in a short sprint.
Lemaitre was .2 off of the pace that he used to run down Gatlin and Vicaut ran AWAY from him; something that almost never has happened in the past. I don't know what's up (training load, injury) but the handle to break the glass in case of emergency might be in someone's hand if it wasn't broken after that last race.
I genuinely like this athlete as he doesn't speak much and seems low profile. Let his running do the talking. I am just as perplexed as some of you in regards to his progression, it should conceivably be at a faster or higher level. However, there is no standard template and young athletes i find are affected in different ways by injuries. Some are also late bloomers.
He still has his top end speed though, the kid can run.
All i really wished to say is that he should be doing a little better, well i want him to...lol