Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by norunner
    200 m Wind: 2.5
    1 Tyson Gay USA 9 Aug 82 19.79
    That's a
    19.81 with 2.0 and a
    19.91 with 0.0

    [per BigGoldBook]

    Good early season mark!
    Hey, this pretty much matches my calculator. Where did the BGB get their conversions? gh?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

      Originally posted by JRM
      Originally posted by Marlow
      Originally posted by norunner
      200 m Wind: 2.5
      1 Tyson Gay USA 9 Aug 82 19.79
      That's a
      19.81 with 2.0 and a
      19.91 with 0.0

      [per BigGoldBook]

      Good early season mark!
      Hey, this pretty much matches my calculator. Where did the BGB get their conversions? gh?
      What lane was he in, and what was the altitude?

      Cuz on your calculator, if I input 19.79 +2.5 and 0m altitude, and put him in lane 4 or lane 5, those both yield 19.93 for converting for what it would in 0.0 wind, not 19.91

      Thus, it sounds like they weren't using your calculator, unless he was in an extreme lane, or the altitude is significantly different from sea level (which I wouldn't think, given that it's Florida, but iono).

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

        In this moment 12/1 Gay is very logical.
        If before Moscow Gay has 9.7x and Bolt and Blake "only" 9.8x, i imagine that Gay will have better that 12/1 :wink:

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

          Originally posted by JRM
          Originally posted by Marlow
          Originally posted by norunner
          200 m Wind: 2.5
          1 Tyson Gay USA 9 Aug 82 19.79
          That's a
          19.81 with 2.0 and a
          19.91 with 0.0

          [per BigGoldBook]

          Good early season mark!
          Hey, this pretty much matches my calculator. Where did the BGB get their conversions? gh?
          BGB offers up no 200 conversions.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

            Originally posted by gh
            Originally posted by JRM
            Originally posted by Marlow
            Originally posted by norunner
            200 m Wind: 2.5
            1 Tyson Gay USA 9 Aug 82 19.79
            That's a
            19.81 with 2.0 and a
            19.91 with 0.0
            [per BigGoldBook]
            Good early season mark!
            Hey, this pretty much matches my calculator. Where did the BGB get their conversions? gh?
            BGB offers up no 200 conversions.
            Indeed, that's the help in a 100, i.e., the straightaway of the 200. No way of telling if there's help in the curve.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

              Originally posted by Marlow
              Indeed, that's the help in a 100, i.e., the straightaway of the 200. No way of telling if there's help in the curve.
              Even if you're just using it for the straight, wouldn't you have to adjust for the runner already at a high rate of speed when he comes out of the turn?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                Good thought, but no. The average speed is about the same from 100 to 200 as it is from 0 to 100. In fact, because the 100 has higher peak speeds, where the quadratic effect will have a bit more impact, it would have a marginally larger impact. However, the two are close enough that it would take modeling by JRM to get an estimate and the differential would be small, I am pretty sure. [Conor, JRM, ?]

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                  200 wind readings are by definition somewhat bogus, since they only measure the speed in the straight, and ignore whatever happened in the curve. Given the right vector, that first half of the race can be majorly signifcant either plus or minus, but not be reflected in the "official" wind reading.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                    Yes, that's true about the 200.

                    The idea being, if you picture the 200m like a candy cane, if, let's say someone is in the outer lane, like lane 8 or 9 or something, he is not going to be starting at the very tip of the candy cane curve, but rather, being on the outer side of the curve, rather than the inner side of it, he'll start considerably closer to the middle of the exterior of the curve. And thus, if one was to pucker one's lips and blow on the candy cane, in such a way that the top of the curve was what the wind was hitting first, and the tip of the straight-section of the cane being what the wind crossed over last, then, obviously if a person blew at the cane at a diagonaly angle, with the person's head being on the curve-tip side of the cane, diagonally down its length, that would basically give the lane 8 guy a tailwind for almost his whole entire run, whereas, if let's say the person blew equally hard from the opposite diagonal, but in the same overall direction (relative to the straight of the cane), the runners, particularly in the inner lanes, but even the other lanes to a lesser extent, would be running into a headwind for part of the curve, before turning to where it became a slight diagonal tailwind by the time they were on the straight, which would thus be far less advantageous overall. Not to mention that the people in the former scenario would also get a full, perfectly-straight-into-the-back-non-diagonal tailwind for a brief moment as they rounded the curve. Like, on the straight it would become just a diagonal slighter tailwind, but when lined up perfectly to the winds angle at around 2/3rds of the way 'round the curve, the people in the first of the two scenarios would have a full blown tailwind during that section of the curve (whereas the people in a diagonally tailwind coming from the opposite side, would not).

                    Anyway, so yea, basically you can have two 200m races and each race has a +1.0 m/s tailwind, but, have those 1 m/s tailwinds be blowing from the opposing diagonals from each other, and as a result, one of those two "tailwinds" would have about twice as much of an overall advantageous effect than the other, for example.

                    Thus, until they start reporting not just the velocity and OVERALL direction of the wind, but also the ANGLE (relative to north/south/the track etc) we won't be able to really accurately estimate the effect of the wind in 200m races in the way we can for 100m races.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                      Wow, after reading over that explanation I just attempted to give, I think that will probably just confuse the issue more, rather than making it simpler to understand. I am ridiculously bad at explaining geometry in written (as opposed to drawn) format. Please everyone disregard my previous post, as, although it is "right", it is probably not going to help simplify the topic much. ops:

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                        The confusion isn't with what you're stating, it's in your delivery—as in how much you're stating. I'm not certain many posters read your long comments, as they (comments) tend to go on and on. And then on and on some more. To the character limit. And then on some more. Not every reply requires a book of information. Sometimes less is a whole lot more.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                          Yea, I don't do it intentionally. Sometimes it just happens and I literally can't help it. I'm a lousy writer and thus I don't have the ability yet to figure out how to condense my points when I am having difficulty getting them across.

                          That said, at least I am well aware of this flaw of mine, so, for example in the instance above, I even wrote "disregard the post above, because it's poorly written and will just confuse the matter further" or something like that, directly beneath it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                            Originally posted by ExCoastRanger
                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            Indeed, that's the help in a 100, i.e., the straightaway of the 200. No way of telling if there's help in the curve.
                            Even if you're just using it for the straight, wouldn't you have to adjust for the runner already at a high rate of speed when he comes out of the turn?
                            It would too small a correction to be of any consequence. A sprinter maintains speeds above 10m/s for virtually the entire race. The acceleration phase is minimal. So, whether a sprinter comes out of the blocks or steams into the straight at full throttle, it's a wash.

                            That being said, it the wind is completely down the straight, the sprinter gets a bit of a bonus on the second half of the turn, because throughout that part there's an increasing wind at their back.

                            Originally posted by gh
                            200 wind readings are by definition somewhat bogus, since they only measure the speed in the straight, and ignore whatever happened in the curve. Given the right vector, that first half of the race can be majorly signifcant either plus or minus, but not be reflected in the "official" wind reading.
                            Yes, I'm aware of that. My calculator assumes the wind is purely along the straight, but in my papers I've shown that a reasonable cross-wind whose gauge reading is 2m/s can help (or hinder) a time by as much as 0.3s.

                            Marlow gave the impression that the BGB suddenly contained 200m conversions, which was my confusion.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                              regardless of the wind reading, this is tyson's best early season time since 2008. if he can stay healthy for the next three months, then who know what can happen in moscow...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Clermont meet: Ashmeade 9.91(100m), Tyson 19.7(200m)

                                With significant wind right down the straightaway, runners in outside lanes benefit for a slighter longer time--abetted by any wind-blocking by stands along the curve, which they emerge from first.
                                Then there's that looser curve of the outside lanes, making for a significant (physics) advantage of those lanes.
                                Do I get a CandyCane for brevity this time 'around'?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X