How fast could Bolt run?

[malmo]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 0209v2.pdf

Complete with incremental split timing methodology explanation and citations from Jonas Mureika,aka JRM.

[gh]

OK, I give up: why is my name attached to this thread?

[lapsus]

"A corollary of this study is that a new world record of
less than 9.5 seconds is within reach for Usain Bolt in
the near future."

:shock:

[lonewolf]

Maybe malmo has caught the MattMarriott virus?

[malmo]

OK, I give up: why is my name attached to this thread?

Because you already know that letting up at the finish doesn't slow one down that much, and I'm on the same page.

Quit being paranoid.

[eldrick]

9.61 looks fair ( but they put in huge +/- error, which makes the analysis pretty worthless - you may as well just go with your gut feeling ) , but i don't know why they didn't simply extrapolate his time from 80m ( at least running hard upto here ) to 100m

assuming he ran at dick's acceleration for this analysis or then assuming 0.5m/s faster than dick's for other are both flawed methods

if you want to analyse bolt's time, analyse bolt not do it "2nd hand" off dick - you coud use darvis's 10.03 in 8th as comparator under same format

in additon, they forgot to mention his pedestrian RT - that takes 0.03s off any projection with nominal 0.13

[26mi235]

I will read the piece later, but my best guess for a quick estimate is to take the positional difference between Dix and Bolt when Bolt is at 80 or 85 meters and then use Dix's finish. I suspect that Dix's finish was the best of the other seven runners and he usually makes up on everybody the last 20-30m. Gay, in his normal mode, would be a similar 'standard candle (in the astronomy sense)'. I think, as others have stated, that a normal Gay running a great race (running, say, 9.75+) would also have likely lead Bolt to continue Bolting for a bit longer. My wild-*** guess is that the mark would be 9.65 +/- .025 but I have not analyzed anything specific, even my suggested one.

[DG]

So according to this article (table 1) they would have covered in 6.2 seconds more then 60m. They have too much time on their hand.

Looks like Bolt's celebration is the best thing what could have happened to him. If he had celebrated earlier they probably come up with 9.3

[eldrick]

So according to this article (table 1) they would have covered in 6.2 seconds more then 60m. They have too much time on their hand.

i noticed that & shouda said something - considering mo's wr is 6.39, does 6.2 mean 6.20 or 6.29 for 61.5m ?

you're right - with this level of innacuracy of splits, that analysis can go nowhere

maybe best to wait until some scientific team with splits within +/- 0.01 turns up

[imaginative]

The first scenario puzzles me a bit:

If Bolt had matched Thompson's acceleration profile after 8s, would he not
have run slower? Table one gives he difference in meters as 8.0s as 81.7 -
79.9 = 1.8; at 9.4s, we have 98.6 - 96.4 = 2.2. Even with a sluggish last 1.4
meters Bolt would have been better off keeping his own profile. Any
improvement possibility here would result from the uncertainties involved.
(Or am I missing something obvious?)

Notably, the eventual 0.2s differential comes out to 2.38m assuming an
ass-kicking finish of 0.84s/10m and 2.22m with a slow 0.90s/10m. Thus, he
cannot have lost that much time at the end.

:
As further occurs to me, the second scenario is overly optimistic. Seeing
that we are in the endurance part of the race, a similar difference would
apply if the race was prolonged to the 200m mark. Roughly 10s of 0.5 m/s^2
acceleration corresponds to 25 meters... With that calculation, Thompson
would be hard-pressed to break 22s in a 200m race.

Edit: After actually having read the article through, I do see an obvious error in my
thoughts concerning scenario one. All the talk of replacing one part of the race with
someone elses, made me do just that. That Bolt was faster in that section of the
race does not imply that he also had the better acceleration.

[26mi235]

I have not yet worked through the analysis but so far it seems to be too full of itself. Statements like 'no other uncertainties' and then 'we assume that the tick marks on the rail are all exactly the same length. There is no appreciation for the difference between the front of the chest where the finishing time is made and some other mark on the body, and the picture that illustrates where he is at a specific time might be an illustration of how wildly off these guys might be. I still think that anchoring to something specific, such as matching the differential between Bolt and the runner most 'stable' with Bolt just prior to the celebration - Dix - would knock out most errors as being net zero ones.

I doubt that, if I was a referee I would let this pass in its current form - but then again I have not read it through. ( :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Marlow]

OMG - way too much thinking (and math) going on here. I imagine eldy fainting from the lack of blood being pumped to his brain, if you catch my drift. :wink:

If the coach says 9.52 (clearly citing best-case scenario), then that's what it is, de facto. It's their win, so they get to decide! No one can disprove him, so in the immortal cliche of our decade, "It is what it is."

[kreynolds]

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I wrote this 8 years ago, and it was published here:

"Sprint Observations", Track Coach #152 (published by T&FN), Summer 2000, pp. 4863-4864

“At the 1983 National meet in Indianapolis, Carl Lewis roared off the turn in the 200m final and thrust his arms up in celebration well before the finish line. His winning time of 19.75 just missed the then-WR of 19.72, and most observers thought he could have dipped under the record by holding his sprinting form all the way to the line.

Is this so? Once a sprinter’s body is in motion, how much – if any – deceleration occurs when the arms stop pumping but the legs are still turning over?”….

(A total of 22 collegiate sprinters ran repeated trials where the last 10m of a 100m were run with normal sprint arm action, or with their arms up in the air in a celebratory fashion. FinishLynx timing was used at 80m, 90m, and 100m).

...“The average time increase when running arms-up was 0.068 seconds (95% confidence interval = 0.068 +/- 0.013 seconds).

“Running 10m with your arms raised in the air at the end of a sprint adds nearly .07 to a sprinter’s overall time. In addition, subjects finishing with their arms up in the air were in no position to produce a finish lean – where the arms must counter an over-rotation of the body….”

As for Bolt, his arms weren’t above his head; they were down by his side – but they definitely weren’t pumping. And he started his celebration where? At 85m or so? It’s some distance longer than 10m. The college sprint subjects above certainly weren’t going at 9.68 speed, but you could reasonably conclude that he lost at least .07 seconds.

[Brian]

OK, I give up: why is my name attached to this thread?

Because you already know that letting up at the finish doesn't slow one down that much, and I'm on the same page.

Quit being paranoid.

Asking a simple question is a sign of paranoia? That sounds kind of paranoid.

:]

[eldrick]

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I wrote this 8 years ago, and it was published here:

"Sprint Observations", Track Coach #152 (published by T&FN), Summer 2000, pp. 4863-4864

“At the 1983 National meet in Indianapolis, Carl Lewis roared off the turn in the 200m final and thrust his arms up in celebration well before the finish line. His winning time of 19.75 just missed the then-WR of 19.72, and most observers thought he could have dipped under the record by holding his sprinting form all the way to the line

call this your lucky day !!!

http://www.yxxxxube.com/watch?v=Osc1TZ8-4UI

work out why that link won't work & fix it & wait for 2nd race...