Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Screwy Olympic Starting System

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

    >0.003x7=2.1 seconds,

    Shouldn't that be 21 milli seconds? Or 0.02 seconds? ;-)

    >I hope there's nothing in the Message Board "Rules of Engagement" about pure stupidity or I'm gone.

    I always assumed it was a requirement. Just look at some of the longest threads.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

      >>0.003x7=2.1 seconds,

      Shouldn't that be 21 milli seconds? Or 0.02
      >seconds? ;-)

      >I hope there's nothing in the Message Board "Rules of
      >Engagement" about pure stupidity or I'm gone.

      I always assumed it was a
      >requirement. Just look at some of the longest threads.


      OK, I'm obviously in over my head with this 4th grade math. Let's try again.

      0.003 m/sec x 7= 0.021 sec

      I need a beer.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

        >I need a beer.

        It was kind of fun to imagine the athetes leaving the blocks in a slow synchronized wave. Imagine the athlete in lane eights surprise to see the athlete in lane 1 already 20m down the track when he hears the gun! Bummer.

        By the way this analysis may be moot since I do not see the reaction times rising from lane 1 to lane 8 in the stats that GH presented for the mens 100m or 110mH. In both cases the reaction times appear to be randomly distributed, which is what you'd expect if there was a bang from the speakers. So may be there was no problem for the mens 110m and 100m?

        There does appear to be skewed reaction tines in 200m 400m and 400mH and 4x100m on the mens side (slower reaction times on the outside lanes.) It's possible that the time differences are so small in the 100m (0.021) that the normal variation masks the problem. One would have to monitor several races with the athletes in different lanes to determine if there was a statistically significant problem (and even that would assume that the athletes have similar reaction times in each race which is not a given)

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

          >>I need a beer.

          It was kind of fun to imagine the athetes leaving the
          >blocks in a slow synchronized wave. Imagine the athlete in lane eights
          >surprise to see the athlete in lane 1 already 20m down the track when he hears
          >the gun! Bummer.

          Would you believe I was on the math team in high school?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

            > Would you believe I was on the math team in high school?

            Absolutely, the easy math is often the hardest to get right. it's so easy you don't think about the answers compared to the more esoteric intergrals.

            One of the biggest problems in undergraduate biology is getting students to accurately calculate dilution factors for solutions. It's trivial math but many fall on their face. At the same time they are doing fiendish calculus with great success. Go figure.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

              By the way this analysis may be moot since I do not see the
              >reaction times rising from lane 1 to lane 8 in the stats that GH presented for
              >the mens 100m or 110mH. In both cases the reaction times appear to be randomly
              >distributed, which is what you'd expect if there was a bang from the speakers.
              >So may be there was no problem for the mens 110m and 100m?

              Oops again! I looked at GH's list of increasing reaction times and didn't catch the fact that those weren't listed by lane order (the lane listing right above was different.) it does look random.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

                >> Would you believe I was on the math team in high school?

                Absolutely, the
                >easy math is often the hardest to get right. it's so easy you don't think
                >about the answers compared to the more esoteric intergrals.

                I just dictated a letter to a new employee including an annual salary figure--I calculated and recalculated the figure about five times, given how I'm doing (wanted to get that one right!)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

                  You know what's really screwy??? The Italian track on page 6 and 7 in the Dec. issue of T&FN!! That company does NOT know how to mark tracks.

                  Either that or the picture is backwards. In which case I hope T&FN refunds some of Conica's advertising dollars. That would only be the right thing to do. But does T&FN plan to do the right thing??? Stay tuned as the screwiness continues.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

                    http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/di ... age=133130

                    Needless to say, Conica doesn't expect any advertising dollars back from us.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

                      Someone has probably gotten this correctly explained and I missed it. When there is a staggered start, as in the events greater than 110m, the distance from the gun is affected by the stagger as well as the lane width.

                      The effect should be greatest in the 4 x 400, of course, because there is a 9 meter stagger per lane, or 9m/lane x 7 lanes or 63 meters. Of course, the stagger and the lane width relationship depends on where the starter stands, as noted earlier on.

                      At least the bigger effects are in longer races (3 meters[or less, because it is not a full turn]/lane for the 200m vs the maximum of 9m/lane for the 4x400. Since the 200m takes less than 1/8th as long, the relative effect is still bigger.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Screwy Olympic Starting System

                        >At least the bigger effects are in longer races (3 meters[or less, because it is not a full turn]/lane for the 200m vs the maximum
                        >of 9m/lane for the 4x400. Since the 200m takes less than 1/8th as long, the relative effect is still bigger.

                        Another thing to consider is that the 400m runners do not seem to respond as aggressively to the gun as short sprinters. May be they are not concentrating on the gun as hard as the sprinters?

                        This may be completely wrong and certainly seems illogical but it is definitely the sense I get when I watch the 400m starts. The times posted by Garry above seem to bare this out too when compared with the 4x100m (EDIT: actually I take this back after looking more closely the reaction times between the 400m starts and the 4x100m seem to correlate quite well. I assume the starter set up in a similar spot for each race.)

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X