Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Change in throwing circle size

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • thorshammer
    replied
    Cantwell would very likely throw at least 1m farther with even 6" more to work with, which should let him drive to the middle more. So would have Oldfield. As for gliders, I would imagine that someone like Udo Beyer would have gotten some significant improvement with that kind of space.

    Leave a comment:


  • thorshammer
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    there may be something along the lines that a glider uses only linear increase in circle size, whereas a rotator uses the increased area of the circle more, a difference of a squared relationship

    it's something to ponder...
    If you look at the length of the path that the shot travels in the spin and glide, the spin shot path is longer by a fair amount. Of course the longer implement path that the spinner has has to be offset by the fact that at some point the shot travels backwards. Perhaps something similar to the arc length formula from calculus (then take the result and divide over the time of the throw) could be used here?

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    there may be something along the lines that a glider uses only linear increase in circle size, whereas a rotator uses the increased area of the circle more, a difference of a squared relationship

    it's something to ponder...

    Leave a comment:


  • thorshammer
    replied
    Originally posted by imaginative
    Actually, that is more or less the point: The speed increase due to a larger
    circle will only affect 1, and any calculation that ignores 2. will provide too
    large an improvement.

    As for the relative size of 1. and 2.: By simply imagining an athlete making
    a put from a stand-still, we have some clue that 2. has to be sizeable. How
    sizeable, I do not know. Anyone with practical experience of putting normally
    and from a stand-still?
    For most elite level giders, a 2m increase from a stand throw to a full glide is common. For spinners, it can be from 2-5m. Does that help?

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    Actually, that is more or less the point: The speed increase due to a larger
    circle will only affect 1, and any calculation that ignores 2. will provide too
    large an improvement.

    As for the relative size of 1. and 2.: By simply imagining an athlete making
    a put from a stand-still, we have some clue that 2. has to be sizeable. How
    sizeable, I do not know. Anyone with practical experience of putting normally
    and from a stand-still?

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    i'm doubtful about relevance of 2

    no matter if thrower is moving at 10m/s or 0m/s at release, it won't make his throwing arm intrinsically faster - the arm relative to body won't change speed

    it's all due to increased speed relative to the ground with a bigger circle

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    An issue that complicates the matter considerably is where the speed of the
    shot comes from. There are at least two components, when breaking it down
    funcionally:

    1. Speed of the jumper relative the ground (where your calculations probably
    give a good first approximation).

    2. Speed of the shot relative the jumper, as provided by upper body and arm
    movement.

    I suspect (but am not in anyway sure) that 1. will dominate in the rotation
    technique, but that 2. will be larger for gliders.

    (Possibly, some kind of comparison with a ``standing shot put'' might give
    clues as to the true values.)

    Again looking at energies, we get:

    v^2 = 2as + K (where K is proportional to the constant work relating to 2.
    above) and

    v1/v2 = ((2as1 + K)/(2as2 + K))^1/2


    Assuming, strictly for the sake of argument, a 50-50 distribution between 1.
    and 2. for v2, we now have:

    v1/v2 = ((s1/s2 + 1)/2)^1/2

    and e.g. ((6/5 + 1)/2)^1/2 = 1.0488... or roughly half the increase of your
    original calculations.

    (A similar reasoning obviously applies to the discus.)

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    started a topic Change in throwing circle size

    Change in throwing circle size

    i think a ballpark increase in throwing distance will be

    ~ (s1/s2)^1/2

    brief workings :

    acceleration across a small circle for a short period can be considered constant ( it likely isn't, but then you need calculus ), so from newton

    v^2 = u^2 + 2as

    u = 0

    s = v^2/2a

    s = circle diameter, v = speed of thrower moving across circle ( which we assume is directly related to release speed )

    this boils down for a bigger circle to

    v1/v2 = ( s1/s2 )^1/2

    someone please check the circle sizes, but if it's 5' & you increase it to 6',

    for a 19m SP'er -> 19 * ( 6/5 )^1/2 = 20.8m

    for a 21m SP'er -> 21 * ( 6/5 )^1/2 = 23m

    so we are getting on for 2m increase

    for DT'er

    for a 65m DT'er -> 65 * ( 6/5 )^1/2 = 71.2m

    for a 70m DT'er -> 70 * ( 6/5 )^1/2 = 76.7m

    so something like 6m increase

    NB these increases will only hold for small increase in circle size - if your getting on to double it, it certainly won't hold
Working...
X