Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High-tech shoes put Bolt's records in danger of being spiked but better than drugs

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • High-tech shoes put Bolt's records in danger of being spiked but better than drugs

    High-tech shoes put Bolt's records in danger of being spiked but it's better than drugs cutting times (theroar.com.au)


  • #2
    Thanks for posting spartacus. Perhaps we need to have Bolt go back, and run on dirt, using a trowel to dig starting holes... have Mondo vault wirh bamboo. Then we can have real world records. Only wood javelins!

    ​​​​​Unless new shoes and track surfaces have somehow managed to defy the laws of physics, well running is just running, and its not all that complicated.

    To me, what is most silly about T&F is still using 1960's gun based automatic timing systems that are incredibly flawed. The margin for error is much greater than any new, shoe tech could add.

    A laser based system that doesnt care about reaction time and simply measues time to go 100+ meters, lane by lane, would be incredibly simple to implement. We'd truly know exactly how fast someone can react to sound and then break through a laser 100 meters later. It would also make for some, new, interesting finishing techniques...



    Comment


    • #3
      High tech shoes must designed and are required to break HJ records IMO.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by GHM View Post
        High tech shoes must designed and are required to break HJ records IMO.
        2.80m with these boots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0K4FDJBv-k

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DET59 View Post
          Thanks for posting spartacus. Perhaps we need to have Bolt go back, and run on dirt, using a trowel to dig starting holes... have Mondo vault wirh bamboo. Then we can have real world records. Only wood javelins!

          ​​​​​Unless new shoes and track surfaces have somehow managed to defy the laws of physics, well running is just running, and its not all that complicated.

          To me, what is most silly about T&F is still using 1960's gun based automatic timing systems that are incredibly flawed. The margin for error is much greater than any new, shoe tech could add.

          A laser based system that doesnt care about reaction time and simply measues time to go 100+ meters, lane by lane, would be incredibly simple to implement. We'd truly know exactly how fast someone can react to sound and then break through a laser 100 meters later. It would also make for some, new, interesting finishing techniques...


          Bur the it wouldn't be a race.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Trickstat View Post

            Bur the it wouldn't be a race.
            It would be an even better race. All the runners would respond to the same sound (could be a beep countdown like in skiing). When the final "beep" goes the timers start. Each lane timed seperately but with the same clock start. If a runner breaks the laser at the start of his lane before the beep they are eliminated. No reaction time measurement needed, you either broke the first laser before the beep or you didn't. . Start however you want, only rule is no running/rocking starts; use blocks, stand up, whatever. Reaction time would be irrelevant. If you want to anticipate the beep do so at your own risk. No more judging photos. Time to the 1000th, or 10,000th. World records every week for the first couple of years. Drug era marks eliminated.....

            If you think about the current system, especially compared to other timed sports, it is rediculously antiquated. The basic premise of 'gun - reaction "guess" = look at a photo,' is ridiculously flawed and any attempts to make it more accurate just compound the built-in error factors. Having trackside "instant video" on laptops has made offcials look even more idiotic and confused. If anyone watched the Jamaican National women's 100 meters it was a technological "wtf" to the extreme and tooks tenths off most of the runners final times. Waiting for a bunch of officials to constantly check, test, re-check, look, look again, discuss, bring the athlete into the discussion, then pull out a colored card in the year 2022- (with the final decision almost always being subjective) - Well, the sport deserves better. What happened in the Eugene mens 110HH, while the decision was exactly what it should be by current rules, could have been completely avoided with a really basic laser based timing system. Sure it would change the straight races to some degree, the 200 a bit less, and the 400 probably not much at all. Maybe it's time for a change so we can watch a 110HH start as scheduled, immediately get the results, see no one wandering around like they were a victim, and then get on to the next race probably ten minutes faster because no one is jacking around with fragile equipment with way too many moving parts.

            Comment


            • #7
              And if a bird flies through the finish beam 6 seconds or so after the race has started? Rare but not implausible.

              I'm also doubtful about the practicality of individual laser beams for each lane.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Trickstat View Post
                And if a bird flies through the finish beam 6 seconds or so after the race has started? Rare but not implausible.

                I'm also doubtful about the practicality of individual laser beams for each lane.
                Good questions. Re birds, a laser wouldn't have to stop timing, it could register more than one time in a lane. These are not complex problem that other sports haven't already addressed. I don't think a laser per lane is a big problem. The biggest obatacle might be a runner going out of his lane. Breaking a laser is simple- compared to a group of 9 reaction time sensor pads that connect over a jungle of wires to a device that instantly measures them using a scientific number no one agrees is accurate, then alerts a human via their ear, who then has to make an instant decision. Our system is way more flawed and complicated than a simple "you broke the laser before the beep." I don't know the stats but it seems more and more fasle starts are "not assigned" as there's too much conflicting information to make a correct call, one way or the other, and meets just gets delayed and delayed. I mean, I have a $59 doorbell that alerts me 6,000 miles away in Korea with a beep and a picture when a UPS driver drops off a package at my home in the USA. It's 2022. Nascar tracks 40 different cars going 200+ mph to the 1/1000th of a second in a lap. Perhaps a news system would require athletes to wear two electronic wrist bands or a necklace type device. Hey, maybe they could run through a tape ?

                Comment


                • #9
                  but wouldn't we have the prospect of someone first across the line NOT have the fastest time? That wouldn't work.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    We delved into this in another thread recently, IIR. I don't think the start needs an overhaul, yet, but certainly the finish could use better tech.

                    DET59's suggestion for the start is basically 1/4 mile drag racing. Have a set of automated tones and start as fast as you can. Go ahead and anticipate them. If you go too soon, you're out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DET59 View Post

                      It would be an even better race. All the runners would respond to the same sound (could be a beep countdown like in skiing). When the final "beep" goes the timers start. Each lane timed seperately but with the same clock start. If a runner breaks the laser at the start of his lane before the beep they are eliminated. No reaction time measurement needed, you either broke the first laser before the beep or you didn't. . Start however you want, only rule is no running/rocking starts; use blocks, stand up, whatever. Reaction time would be irrelevant. If you want to anticipate the beep do so at your own risk. No more judging photos. Time to the 1000th, or 10,000th. World records every week for the first couple of years. Drug era marks eliminated.....
                      Great thoughts, but my primary objection to your suggestion is that it is no longer a real race. There is something elemental about "on your mark - set - go" followed by "who gets to the finish line first?", especially in the 100 meters. In a photo finish, we would possibly be treated to a situation where the person who finishes first loses to the person who finishes second. That would be profoundly unsatisfying to both athletes and spectators alike.

                      What is the difference between false starting by breaking a laser beam early and false starting by putting too much pressure on a pressure pad early? What if someone broke the laser beam .001 seconds early? What if someone had too much pressure on the starting blocks .001 seconds early?​

                      I would love to have us go back to the first false start goes against the field, while every false start thereafter eliminates to guilty party.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bobguild76 View Post

                        I would love to have us go back to the first false start goes against the field, while every false start thereafter eliminates to guilty party.
                        Drew Brunson of Florida State vividly demonstrated the folly of that rule during the 2008 Olympic Trials by deliberately false-starting in all four rounds of the 110 hurdles.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Steele View Post
                          but certainly the finish could use better tech.
                          Like what? As with every other post that has said this (or similar), what could possibly be better tech that is A) readily available and 2) somewhat affordable?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Davidokun View Post

                            Drew Brunson of Florida State vividly demonstrated the folly of that rule during the 2008 Olympic Trials by deliberately false-starting in all four rounds of the 110 hurdles.
                            Yes, that is true, but how many Drew Bunsons are there? I hope only one.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                              but wouldn't we have the prospect of someone first across the line NOT have the fastest time? That wouldn't work.
                              That would never happen. The clocks for all lanes start together, the laser at the zero meter mark is for detecting movement past that line before the start, not starting the clock. Really quite simple.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X