Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH!!!


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH!!!

Postby nicest person ever » Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:15 pm

WOW, that is one HELL of a performance, considering how early in the season it is. 9.75 in +4.3 wind converts to 9.93-basic. In freaking MARCH!!! Seriously wonder what kinds of times he's gonna be running in August if he remains healthy... 9.85-basic? 9.80-basic? 9.7x-basic? I guess we'll have to wait and see. Would be awesome if he actually got into the mix with the big boys and pushed guys like Bolt and Blake to faster times if he's in some of their races this season. Hopefully is a sign of things to come for him for this season, and not just a fluke.

**in before that Baton_Relay guy claims that the time is fictional because it was run in Texas and thus automatically must be a lie for some reason**
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby JumboElliott » Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:27 pm

Or Doc Patton is just incredibly consistent and has been throughout his entire career and won't improve much if at all this season.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby ZELLGADISS » Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:01 pm

Well, we will see...
I think that he will be happy with to get sub 9.9 this year hehe :lol:
The trials will be very hard for him, Gay and Gatlin are clearly better and after other very good sprinters like Bailey or Dix(if he is healty again, although i dont hear nothing about him this year :o )

I don think that Patton gets great times this year although he got that very good time in March :wink:
ZELLGADISS
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:13 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby nicest person ever » Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:27 pm

Yea, I know what you guys mean... I too have always thought of him as sort of that super-consistent 10-flat guy who just cranks out zillions of 10 flats or around there, but never seemed to have the potential to just break a huge time at any moment the way some of the other sub-10 guys seem like. Not to mention that he is very old (for a sprinter), which would seem to detract even further from that possible-supertime potential that some of the other guys seem to possess. That said, this is a VERY very fast time to be running this early in the season, the type of performance I would only expect to see from guys like Bolt, Gay, and Blake. My main concern is whether he will have injury problems, as I remember back when Gay got a big tailwind and ran like a 9.68 a lot of people were hypothesizing that that might have "blown" his body by forcing him to move his legs just too damn fast for where he was quality-wise at the time that that happened, and then he did indeed have tons of injury issues thereafter if I remember correctly. So, especially for an older guy (aka more susceptible to injury problems probly), I wonder if his body will hold up to the strain of this 9.75 (yea I know its only equivalent to 9.93 when you convert for wind, but I mean in terms of like, how fast/hard he had to pump those levers while being pushed by that wind it still forced him to run a 9.75, which I dunno what effect that could have on his body). But, if he stays healthy though, then I dunno, perhaps as crazy as it is, he might have the best season of his career this year of all years, instead of back when he was in his 20's like he was "supposed" to lol. I guess some people just procrastinate when it comes to having their career peak haha
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby gh » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:53 pm

Food for thought: even though some of the most equipped scientific minds around have crafted the wind-conversion tables, and T&FN has signed off on them in the Little Colored Books series, I personally think they have underestimated the effect, no matter what the hard science says.
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby nicest person ever » Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:49 pm

Well, I respect your gut feelings and all, but, I'm gonna go with the science stuff on this one. When you are dealing with very large sample sizes, you really can just plain compare huge samples of times under each wind speed from the same pool of athletes and just see, down to a very very good range of accuracy basically exactly how much a wind speed of x magnitude aids a 100m sprinter on average. That said, the amount that the various individual sprinters are each affected by the wind probably varies a little from person to person (as in, even if in terms of pure physics, it'll help ON AVERAGE by x amount, there may be some people who are unable to gain as much advantage from a hindpush as the average sprinter, and others who can take more advantage of it than average, based on like, if some people are able to physically move their leg from the back of a leg stroke back up in front of them at a higher turnover rate than the avg sprinter (this doesn't necessarily mean, in a windless race they are "faster" they could actually be slower in spite of that) but my point is, a person like that might be able to gain an even larger edge from a strong tailwind than a guy who isn't able to bring his leg from the back of its backstroke back around front as quickly, some of that push from behind will be wasted on a person like that.

So, yea, it's possible that for some reason, when it comes to Doc Patton specifically, he can gain an even higher edge per equal amount of tailwind as the avg sprinter would gain from the same exact tailwind. Who knows, maybe so. But, in terms of the OVERALL average of how much it helps on avg over huge sample sizes, that is not nearly as debatable, and is basically just scientifically proven, via the enormous sample sizes being dealt with, those who understand large-sample statistics understand that the overall average edge/hinderance yielded is going to be very accurate over the whole of the sample (even if there are minor variances from individual to individual, that is).
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby starboyunlimited » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:24 am

At age 35, Doc Patton became the 6th fastest man in history for 100 meters under any conditions with his 9.75 (+4.3w) win at the 2013 Texas Relays. See list of all-time times and race results below:

Top 5 Wind Aided Times:
1 9.68 +4.1 Tyson Gay USA 29.06.2008
2 9.69A +5.7 Obadele Thompson BAR 13.04.1996
3 9.72 +2.1 Asafa Powell JAM 04.06.2010
4 9.75 +3.4 Tyson Gay USA 25.06.2009
4 9.75 +2.6 Asafa Powell JAM 14.05.2010
4 9.75 +4.3 Darvis Patton USA 30.03.2013

Event 11 Men 100 Meter Dash Invitational
=====================================================
World: ! 9.58 2009 Usain Bolt, JAM
American: $ 9.69 2009 Tyson Gay, USA
Collegiate: % 9.92 1996 Ato Boldon, UCLA
Myers Std: S 10.00 2008 Richard Thompson, LSU
Meet: M 9.97 1992 Olapade Adeniken, UTEP
Name Year School Finals
=====================================================
Section 2 Wind: 4.3
1 Patton, Darvis Nike 9.75
2 Spearmon, Wallace Saucony 9.92
3 Rodgers, Mike Nike 9.93
4 Silmon, Charles SR TCU 9.94
5 Gray, Cordero Nike 10.09
6 Adams, Antoine SR Elite Perf TC 10.16
7 Kawatsura, Sota Mizuno TC 10.34
8 Armstrong, Aaron SR Elite Perf TC 10.35
Last edited by starboyunlimited on Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
starboyunlimited
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Jasontonice » Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:18 am

Spearmon took a nasty fall, I hope hes alright.
Jasontonice
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby rainy.here » Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:54 am

Jasontonice wrote:Spearmon took a nasty fall, I hope hes alright.


Looked to me like Rogers (or was that Silmon?) put his arm out to prevent himself from running into Spearmon, and knocked Spearmon off balance.
rainy.here
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby 18.99s » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:24 am

gh wrote:Food for thought: even though some of the most equipped scientific minds around have crafted the wind-conversion tables, and T&FN has signed off on them in the Little Colored Books series, I personally think they have underestimated the effect, no matter what the hard science says.


Especially for the higher wind velocities (4 m/s and up), for which they have a much smaller data set to draw from.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby 18.99s » Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:38 am

nicest person ever wrote:Well, I respect your gut feelings and all, but, I'm gonna go with the science stuff on this one. When you are dealing with very large sample sizes, you really can just plain compare huge samples of times under each wind speed from the same pool of athletes and just see, down to a very very good range of accuracy basically exactly how much a wind speed of x magnitude aids a 100m sprinter on average.

The sample size for 4.0m/s and up isn't large.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby gh » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:06 am

sample size is not an issue; these conversion factors are not based on times run. They're based on the elemental physics of moving air out of the way.
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Marlow » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:17 am

starboyunlimited wrote:Found a Link to that race:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FC5ol2ujKI

Wow - he was in the pack till that surge around 50m catapulted him into a big lead!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby 18.99s » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:28 am

gh wrote:sample size is not an issue; these conversion factors are not based on times run. They're based on the elemental physics of moving air out of the way.


If it's based purely on physics without the theoretical models being adjusted for real-world observations, it's going to be terribly inaccurate. The motion calculations for humans running down a track are massively more complicated than asteroids flying through the practically frictionless expanse of space or an object with a static shape on wheels (like a car) being powered by an easily controllable and measurable force. And even for the latter objects they will use measurements from wind tunnels and field tests to adjust the theoretical calculations.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby gh » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:49 am

Fear not, the original mathematics came from test runs; point is they were not derived somehow from race times. So sample size was not part of the equation.
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby berkeley » Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:02 pm

gh wrote:Fear not, the original mathematics came from test runs; point is they were not derived somehow from race times. So sample size was not part of the equation.

Might depend a little on the athlete - if your body is a sail (Bolt) you might get a little more benefit than if it's a cannonball (HAA).
berkeley
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby nicest person ever » Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:27 am

gh wrote:Fear not, the original mathematics came from test runs; point is they were not derived somehow from race times. So sample size was not part of the equation.


If this is true, then I feel extremely let down and unhappy, because I was always under the impression that they were derived from just compiling tens of thousands of race results for each of the various wind readings, tenth of a meter per second by tenth of a meter per second, to just use large-sample statistics to figure out what the average aiding was per wind speed.

Are you just saying that the specific one you guys happen to use is like how you described, but not necessarily saying that some of the other ones out there are also the same way? Or are you saying that all of them are done the way you described?

Cuz the one I always use is this one:

for the 100m:

http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/

If I remember correctly, they were made by a guy who posts a lot on here (jmr I think?), I think the "jmureika" in the url is his name, or at least, that was what I always assumed.

Anyway, I hope that one was done the way that I assumed it was, and not the way you are saying, cuz if it was done the way you are describing, then I feel like my world is crashing all around me and Earth is not a cool place anymore and I want to move to Mars and not live on Earth anymore cuz of how upset and let down I will feel :( :(

If I were to do it, I would def go by large sample size results method, not wind tunnel guesswork. I doubt even a commercial airliner wind tunnel specialist would be good enough to actually come up with a more accurate conversion model from going at it from a physics problem standpoint than a mere ordinary joe schmoe statistician would be able to get it by just using a giant sample size (high school, jc, college, and pro, all combined gives you an enormous amount of data to work with), and just comparing isolating an identical athlete pool per equal year being compared pool and then just compare the overall avg race time of like, 100,000 results, for each wind speed tenth of a second of m/s tailwind/head wind per tenth, one after the other, and the sheer enormousness of the sample size will then just give you a very accurate converter tool, once you pump it all into excel spreadsheet and crunch a few numbers to figure the time-aid per windspeed figures.
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Letlôtse » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:35 am

Doubts about Texas results and statistics aside, I think the margin of victory should be noted, given the times typically run by Mike Rodgers and Wallace Spearmon.
Letlôtse
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:38 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby donley2 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:20 am

Empirical studies have been done. I did one myself roughly 30 years ago.
donley2
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby user4 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:04 am

berkeley wrote:
gh wrote:Fear not, the original mathematics came from test runs; point is they were not derived somehow from race times. So sample size was not part of the equation.

Might depend a little on the athlete - if your body is a sail (Bolt) you might get a little more benefit than if it's a cannonball (HAA).


remember that everyone is running "into" the wind regardless of whether there is a head wind or a tail wind .. Think about the speeds that the athlete is running at and it becomes immediately obvious that all are running into the air. It is the difference between the running speed and the wind speed that matters and this difference is actually greater the faster you are running. So a Bolt will be hindered MORE by all windspeeds from the tail wind to the head wind.

In short, Bolt is at a disadvantage in head and tail winds and no wind. His power to volume ratio as a sprinter is exceedingly exceptional. It seemed accepted for so long that the perfect sprinter was between 5'9" and 6"1. Most of the greats were in that range. Bolt is a game changer.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby 18.99s » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:49 am

user4 wrote:remember that everyone is running "into" the wind regardless of whether there is a head wind or a tail wind .. Think about the speeds that the athlete is running at and it becomes immediately obvious that all are running into the air. It is the difference between the running speed and the wind speed that matters and this difference is actually greater the faster you are running. So a Bolt will be hindered MORE by all windspeeds from the tail wind to the head wind.


But it's not really about who is helped or hindered more relative to running in a vacuum, it's about the difference between zero wind and nonzero wind for each particular athlete.

Suppose Bolt running with zero wind is slowed down by 0.6 seconds relative to a vacuum, but is slowed by 0.3 seconds running with a 4 m/s tailwind.

For a more compact sprinter like Dix, the numbers might be 0.4 and 0.2 respectively.

In all cases Bolt is harmed more than Dix by air resistance, but Bolt gets a bigger boost than Dix when the wind changes from 0 to +4m/s. Bolt improves by 0.3 and Dix improves by 0.2.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Marlow » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:57 am

18.99s wrote:Suppose Bolt running with zero wind is slowed down by 0.6 seconds relative to a vacuum, but is slowed by 0.3 seconds running with a 4 m/s tailwind.
For a more compact sprinter like Dix, the numbers might be 0.4 and 0.2 respectively.
In all cases Bolt is harmed more than Dix by air resistance, but Bolt gets a bigger boost than Dix when the wind changes from 0 to +4m/s. Bolt improves by 0.3 and Dix improves by 0.2.

In the numbers you just made up.
Bolt is still hindered more - even in a tailwind - by his larger surface area, which has to push the resistant air-mass aside (the wind is still in his face 20mph when he's going 25mph, but the tailwind is only +5mph) But, as noted before, that larger surface area can also act like a sail and help him in a tailwind. Who knows how that all adds up.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby user4 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:02 am

Marlow wrote:In the numbers you just made up.
Bolt is still hindered more - even in a tailwind - by his larger surface area, which has to push the resistant air-mass aside (the wind is still in his face 20mph when he's going 25mph, but the tailwind is only +5mph) But, as noted before, that larger surface area can also act like a sail and help him in a tailwind. Who knows how that all adds up.


A tail wind will help him from the blocks to about the 8m mark. A tail wind at top speed simply hinders him less than the no wind case or the head wind case. Bolt may be more hindered by air density and wind than other smaller sprinters. Is there a critical head wind speed at which a 10.3 sprinter that is 5'8" could beat Bolt ? Real analysis would be needed and the result might surprise us all. The other issue is that the drag loss is not a strict linear function of speed. Things get, (power required), much worse the faster you go. (wiki drag equation)
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby 18.99s » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:45 am

Marlow wrote:In the numbers you just made up.
Bolt is still hindered more - even in a tailwind - by his larger surface area, which has to push the resistant air-mass aside (the wind is still in his face 20mph when he's going 25mph, but the tailwind is only +5mph) But, as noted before, that larger surface area can also act like a sail and help him in a tailwind. Who knows how that all adds up.


The more sail-like athlete has a greater reduction of hindrance with a tailwind, even though they are still hindered more by air resistance than the more compact athletes.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby TeWaio » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:16 am

Top 5 Wind Aided Times:
1 9.68 +4.1 Tyson Gay USA 29.06.2008
2 9.69A +5.7 Obadele Thompson BAR 13.04.1996
3 9.72 +2.1 Asafa Powell JAM 04.06.2010
4 9.75 +3.4 Tyson Gay USA 25.06.2009
4 9.75 +2.6 Asafa Powell JAM 14.05.2010
4 9.75 +4.3 Darvis Patton USA 30.03.2013

Lest we forget Justin Gatlin's contribution to wind-aided 100m times. From Wikipedia:

"On the Japanese television show "Kasupe!" airing November 1, 2011, Gatlin ran a wind-aided 100 meter time of 9.45 seconds, the "aid" coming from a large wind machine blowing at speeds over 25 meters per second. Gatlin received 2 million yen (approximately $25,000) for appearing on the program.[17]"
TeWaio
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:01 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Daisy » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:40 am

So wind machines are the future for fast times in track and field? Should be fun.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby JRM » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:44 am

TeWaio wrote:Lest we forget Justin Gatlin's contribution to wind-aided 100m times. From Wikipedia:

"On the Japanese television show "Kasupe!" airing November 1, 2011, Gatlin ran a wind-aided 100 meter time of 9.45 seconds, the "aid" coming from a large wind machine blowing at speeds over 25 meters per second. Gatlin received 2 million yen (approximately $25,000) for appearing on the program.[17]"


How was I completely unaware of this ridiculous "result"?

On edit: before anyone tries it, don't attempt to correct this with my calculator. The algorithm fails for wind speeds generally in excess of the athlete's "basic" running speed (i.e. around 10m/s), so the result will be meaningless.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Dave » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:18 am

TeWaio wrote:...

Lest we forget Justin Gatlin's contribution to wind-aided 100m times. From Wikipedia:

"On the Japanese television show "Kasupe!" airing November 1, 2011, Gatlin ran a wind-aided 100 meter time of 9.45 seconds, the "aid" coming from a large wind machine blowing at speeds over 25 meters per second. Gatlin received 2 million yen (approximately $25,000) for appearing on the program.[17]"


While this is kind of a silly "result", it poses a real question. Would this have any positive effect as a training tool? Does this have any value in teaching the body to run faster?
Dave
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Fortius19 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:20 am

Although it aired on November 1st, was it run on April 1st?

Like today?
Fortius19
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:18 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Marlow » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:43 am

Dave wrote:Would this have any positive effect as a training tool? Does this have any value in teaching the body to run faster?

Running downhill does the same thing and and so do those rubber band thingies, tho I'm not sure of their efficacy.

I do, however, like the idea of some smart indoor meet director getting fans to blow at 2.0mps. :D
Has there ever been a wind-aided indoor mark? I know there are some venues where you can open big doors on both sides to create a draft.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby batonless relay » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:47 am

Fortius19 wrote:Although it aired on November 1st, was it run on April 1st?

Like today?

I thought, and still believe, the same thing. It's not like a wikipedia entry can't be faked.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby user4 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:35 am

18.99s wrote:
Marlow wrote:In the numbers you just made up.
Bolt is still hindered more - even in a tailwind - by his larger surface area, which has to push the resistant air-mass aside (the wind is still in his face 20mph when he's going 25mph, but the tailwind is only +5mph) But, as noted before, that larger surface area can also act like a sail and help him in a tailwind. Who knows how that all adds up.


The more sail-like athlete has a greater reduction of hindrance with a tailwind, even though they are still hindered more by air resistance than the more compact athletes.


can you please repeat that the other way around .
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby rainy.here » Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:37 pm

batonless relay wrote:
Fortius19 wrote:Although it aired on November 1st, was it run on April 1st?

Like today?

I thought, and still believe, the same thing. It's not like a wikipedia entry can't be faked.



It happened. I've seen the video of Gatlin's wind-boosted run.
rainy.here
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby Marlow » Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:22 pm

rainy.here wrote:It happened. I've seen the video of Gatlin's wind-boosted run.

Me too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Eyzc5KKj4E
:roll:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby nicest person ever » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:01 pm

Marlow wrote:But, as noted before, that larger surface area can also act like a sail and help him in a tailwind. Who knows how that all adds up.


No.

The larger his surface area the LESS it HELPS him, and the MORE it HURTS him, timewise, in his 100m running.

Think about it. The bigger his surface area is, the more severely wind resistance hinders him.

The only way having a bigger surface area would be able to HELP him would be if the tailwind was so strong that the tailwind wind speed was at a higher speed than Bolt's average running speed for the race. Like, if Bolt's average running speed for a 100m race is 10.3 m/s (100 meters divided by 9.7 seconds), then, in order for it to be a GOOD thing for his surface area to be as big as possible, there would need to be at least a 10.4 m/s tailwind in that race (which is an incredibly huge tailwind, which basically never happens in 99.9% of races).

If the tailwind is less than 10.4 m/s, like, if it's a 1 m/s tailwind, or 2.7 m/s tailwind, or 6.5m/s tailwind, or what have you, he is still being HURT by having a bigger surface area, NOT HELPED by it. Because, the overall direction of air pushing against his body for the race is gonna be the air pushing against the FRONT of his body, not the BACK of his body, due to his avg running speed for the race as a whole being higher than the avg tailwind speed for the race as a whole. You see what I'm saying right?

Here, let's use a severely exaggerated example to prove this extra hardcorishly:

Okay, let's say you take a little 50cc engine go-kart, and let's say it has a drag-limited top speed of 30 mph, in it's normal, unmodified form. So, let's say this go kart, in a zero-wind race, is able to do the 100m dash in 9.50 seconds. And if it has a 2.0 m/s tailwind it does it in 9.40 seconds, and if it has a 2.0 m/s headwind it does it in 9.62 seconds (so, it goes 0.1 seconds faster when there is a 2 m/s tailwind, and it goes 0.12 seconds slower when there is a 2 m/s headwind).

But now, let's say you mount an enormous 10 foot by 10 styrofoam foot poster-board onto it, so now it has an enormous surface area. And now, let's say as a result of adding this giant surface area to it, the effect of wind resistance is obviously drastically increased as a result of that, so now it has a new drag limited top speed of just 15 mph instead of 30 mph. And now it does the 100m dash in 19 seconds instead of 9.5 seconds as a result of this-
(CONTINUED BELOW)
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby nicest person ever » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:01 pm

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
-And now, with this now huge surface area from the 10foot x 10 foot poster board mounted on it, let's say you run it in a 100m race, and there is a 2.0 m/s tailwind. Okay, so now it might do it in 15 seconds instead of 19 seconds, as a result of that tailwind reducing the amount of wind resistance it endures during the race, BUT, that 15 second result is still wayyyyy slower than the 9.5 second result that it was able to do without even ANY tailwind at all, back before it had its surface area increased. Do you see? The only way it would IMPROVE its race time to have this incrased surface area from the poster board mounted on it would be if the taiwlind was so high that it was faster than the avg race speed (of around 10.5 m/s) that it had when it was running 9.50 second 100m dashes in zero wind, if the wind speed was higher than that 10.5 m/s figure, then yes, it would improve its times to add the poster board, since then the air would be pushing it from behind, rather than pushing INTO its front.

So yea, basically: if bolt could magically reduce his surface area somehow, like, be squished by a huge vise of some sort to be razor thin when you are looking at him from the front, and not be injured/killed by this somehow, this would IMPROVE his race times, not slow them down, even in races with tailwinds, with the only exception being races where the tailwind is so extreme that it is faster than his average running speed over the course of his 100m run.
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby 18.99s » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:18 pm

nicest person ever wrote:The larger his surface area the LESS it HELPS him, and the MORE it HURTS him, timewise, in his 100m running.


That is true if you're comparing to zero air resistance.

But the "basic" time is about what they would run with a zero wind velocity, not the time with zero wind resistance. We agree that the zero wind has an inbuilt component of air resistance, generated by the sprinter's own motion.

Since the goal of "basic" time calculations is to figure out what each sprinter's time would be with zero wind, the relevant concern is the difference in sprint speed caused by the delta of air resistance between zero to nonzero wind.

Consider the stick-figure sprinter, thinner than a human hair but with the same mass and power as grown man. Air resistance on him is negligible; whether the wind is -4 m/s, 0, or +4m/s it doesn't affect him enough to change the time on the clock.

Now consider the sprinter with a wide sail-like body. Even when the wind is zero, he has considerable air resistance. Change the wind to +4m/s, and he has a big reduction in air resistance, giving him a bigger improvement in sprint speed than stick-figure man whose air resistance is practically zero regardless of the wind.

Think about it in terms of added weight instead of air resistance. Suppose there was a rule that said each sprinter must carry a backpack that weighs 1 pound for every inch of height above 5 feet. So Bolt ends up carrying more than just about everybody else. Then one day they change the rule, cutting it in half to 8 ounces per inch. Even though Bolt would still be carrying more than his competitors, he'd get a greater benefit from that rule change than others who are carrying less.

So yea, basically: if bolt could magically reduce his surface area somehow, like, be squished by a huge vise of some sort to be razor thin when you are looking at him from the front, and not be injured/killed by this somehow, this would IMPROVE his race times, not slow them down, even in races with tailwinds, with the only exception being races where the tailwind is so extreme that it is faster than his average running speed over the course of his 100m run.

Yes, but with that razor-thin body, he doesn't see an improvement in time when the wind goes from -4 to 0 to +4, because the wind doesn't affect him either way.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby lonewolf » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:23 pm

Figures lie and liars figure.. or is it the other way around?
You can hypothesize till kingdom come about the precise relative effect of a tailwind or headwind on athletes of different body types but, fact is, it is irrelevant to the results of a particular race.
First guy past the post wins.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby rainy.here » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:13 pm

lonewolf wrote:Figures lie and liars figure.. or is it the other way around?
You can hypothesize till kingdom come about the precise relative effect of a tailwind or headwind on athletes of different body types but, fact is, it is irrelevant to the results of a particular race.
First guy past the post wins.


I tend to agree. I think JRM's calculator does a fantastic job for moderate winds. I don't know one way or the other how well it does for significant wind readings.

A very good sprint coach always prefers to compare a runner to the well-known athletes in the same race. This takes the focus away from 1 factor (wind) - even though wind is important it's not the only thing that will change a runner's time.
rainy.here
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Doc Patton runs 9.75 (+4.3w) converts to 9.93! In MARCH

Postby nicest person ever » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:47 pm

Yea, 18.99s, I already understood all of that stuff. I am well aware that, SINCE Bolt happens to be as fast as he is in SPITE of him having more air resistance than the other guys, then, given that situation already being at hand of him having to deal with having more wind resistance to begin with in the first place, then, given that, yes obv his times will tend to improve by a greater amount per tailwind/be hindered by a greater amount per headwind, compared to the smaller guys per equal tailwind/headwind given the current situation at hand as it already is. As in, it isn't that it is literally a good thing for him to have a larger surface area, like, if he could get Harry Potter to wave a magic wand and make his surface area be the same as Trindon Holliday's surface area, obviously he would snatch up that offer in a heartbeat, and, although the performance-delta would be smaller from that point on, when he got a tailwind, he would still be faster overall, since, his zero-wind performance would be so much faster cuz of the decreased surface area wind resistence issue, that even if now his improvement delta for a 2 m/s tailwind might only be 75% as big, his overall times would still be faster anyway, because his zero-wind time that he's beginning with would be improved b like 10 times the amount of the delta-play at work. But like, SINCE he already has that bigger surface area, but is as fast as he is in spite of it, then, given what his current surface area happens to be, then GIVEN that, yea, a guy with his body will have a great performance delta from a tailwind than an equal tailwind on a smaller guy (but it still not being a GOOD thing that he has that extra surface area to begin with, rather, it's like SINCE he happens to (unfortunately), then, GIVEN that, then his relative improvement amount per tailwind is greater, given the given). Sigh, I'm saying the word given way too much lol, but hopefully you get what I mean.

Basically we already were/are in total agreement. Even Marlow probably was too, but just worded the that sentence of his that I quoted in an awkward way that I took issue with. He probably meant to say the thing you were saying that I am replying to right now.

So yea, basically we are in agreement
nicest person ever
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:14 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests