Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

7% solution?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Bob Bettwy
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    Yes, but imagine the Brits reply if we asked to enter in Melboure 2006!

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    At that time it was the British Empire Games; as a former part of the Empah......

    Note that anybody who asks can get in these days. To wit, Maria Mutola of Mozambique.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    I'm pretty confident the answer is NO, that Santee could not have gotten an invitation to run at Vancouver. It's a shame there wasn't an Olympics in '54 instead of '52/'56.

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    "tafnut, could Santee have run in the Empire Games race, even if not a citizen of an Empire country?"

    Are you confusing me with someone else? I never addressed that issue.

    I would assume the answer is no. We speak the same language, but I think that little ruckus in 1776 kept them from inviting us.

    Leave a comment:


  • runninfool
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    tafnut, could Santee have run in the Empire Games race, even if not a citizen of an Empire country?

    Leave a comment:


  • runninfool
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    tafnut, could Santee have run in the Empire Games race, even if not a citizen of an Empire country?

    Leave a comment:


  • runninfool
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    Thanks for this guidance. Though I admit I'm not looking at your tables and perhaps grasp only partially your calculations, I get the point.

    In fairness to Moore, it does appear that perhaps what he's saying (I'm not trying to say anything myself) is that the drafter does 7% less work in overcoming the wind resistance, which in itself takes 10% a lead runner's energy. So we're focused only on that 10% of the whole effort in running a mile at 4-minute pace -- and if the drafter exerted 7% less effort on that 10%, we're talking about an advantage of .007 rather than .07, which means an advantage of 1.6 seconds rather than 16 seconds. This makes more sense, if I have it right. Since Moore was writing for a lay audience, it would have been helpful for him to explain this a little better -- at least for those of us too dumb to get it at first.

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    The 7% number is worthless for the very reasons you give. Even a second a lap would surprise me, and then what you do with that advantage in the end is also undeterminable. Drafting IS a good thing, but look how many super times have been run by people who forced the pace. And, in drafting, how close do you have to be? Right behind? within 2 yards? What's the help in mid-pack? TOO many variables. That said, there is no doubt that Webb's following a big pacesetter MUST have helped him. Best guess is that was maybe a mid 3:36 by himself, but, of course, that's a total WAG. At least I admit it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Asterix
    replied
    Re: 7% solution?

    I think there are several things missing here. For one, when you (or Kenny Moore) says that the drafter "does about 7% less work", it is NOT the same as 7% faster/slower. Work is the power output over time and not linearly related to actual running speed (working 7% harder might only give you an extra second/lap at best, depending on the speed you are running and what percentage of your maximum that speed is).

    Trying to come up with some form of assistance conversion therefore, is rather tricky (to say nothing of difficult to definitively determine). For some rough guides, have a look at the sprint wind conversions at http://desert.jsd.claremont.edu/~newt/t ... index.html

    Just for an example, pick the mens 100m (run entirely with a tailwind, which is essentially what you are trying to model with a full lap run in a drafting position). Enter a time of 15s (which extends to a 4 minute 1600, almost a mile) and a wind speed of 6.7m/s (4mph, which we'll assume is 100% drafting efficiency being in the 'parted' air).

    With a sea level altitude, this gives a converted time of 15.41s. Timewise, this is just about 2.7%, a far cry from the 7% time assistance you seem to have posited. Extended to the full mile (well, 1600m), and you're getting 4:06.5. Taking the inverse, this theoretically suggests that someone running effort for a 4:06 mile, could run 4 flat by perfectly drafting behind a rabbit the entire way.

    However, taking even just the fact that 'perfect' drafting is impossible, it is easy to discern that such levels of assistance are not realistic. I would say far more benefit is gained by not psychologically having to dictate the pace than by any wind effects.

    Leave a comment:


  • runninfool
    started a topic 7% solution?

    7% solution?

    Kenny Moore's review of The Perfect Mile in Sports Illustrated May 24 says a runner drafting on a leader does about 7% less work because "the air stays parted." For Moore, this becomes the major factor in Bannister's breaking the barrier.

    This seems high -- and could it really hold as an average for an entire race (which would be something like a 16-second differential for a 4-minute mile), with runners both going into and away from any ambient breeze? I'm sure this figure comes from somewhere -- but there are just too many front-run fast races to think that suddenly the leader is giving away 4 seconds a lap to his chasers! Tell me what I'm missing --

    If I've missed a recent thread on this, just refer me there --

    Also, is Moore right to think that Santee could have been a part of the Perfect Mile in Vancouver? That was the British Empire Games -- I wasn't aware that those not within the Empire could compete.
Working...
X