I mean, track has 60m for indoor WC, and sometimes even 50m at some meets, but why not 25m or 30m? Even at outdoor meets?
Discus.
I mean, track has 60m for indoor WC, and sometimes even 50m at some meets, but why not 25m or 30m? Even at outdoor meets?
Discus.
If you don't like it, why bother questioning it, leave; we don't need you here, guy.
Uuuhh....what?
According to Ripley's Believe it or Not, a sprinter can beat a formula 1 race car to 10m. Probably beat a lot of fast animals to 10m too.
10 meters is far enough to beat any cross traffic at an intersection of city streets. Runner > bicycle > car at intersections.
You would have to do this in individual heats and start the clock with the runner. Otherwise the runner with the best reaction time wins every time.
Ultrasprint wrote:
I mean, track has 60m for indoor WC, and sometimes even 50m at some meets, but why not 25m or 30m? Even at outdoor meets?
Discus.
The 30m and 40m are better test of raw and functional speed, the 100m brings into play training and fitness required to be a track athlete.
Ultrasprint wrote:
I mean, track has 60m for indoor WC, and sometimes even 50m at some meets, but why not 25m or 30m? Even at outdoor meets?
Discus.
The 30m and 40m are better test of raw and functional speed, the 100m brings into play training and fitness required to be a track athlete.
"Functional speed"???
30-40meters is mainly a test of acceleration with only a small period of maximum velocity.
Most world class sprinters don't/won't hit max velocity in this short of a run.
Bad Wigins wrote:
According to Ripley's Believe it or Not, a sprinter can beat a formula 1 race car to 10m. Probably beat a lot of fast animals to 10m too.
10 meters is far enough to beat any cross traffic at an intersection of city streets. Runner > bicycle > car at intersections.
Probably the dumbest thing I've read this week.
F1 = 0 to 60 mph in 1.6 seconds
25m or 30m is a test of reaction time and not of speed.
750 HP 1200 lbs wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:According to Ripley's Believe it or Not, a sprinter can beat a formula 1 race car to 10m. Probably beat a lot of fast animals to 10m too.
10 meters is far enough to beat any cross traffic at an intersection of city streets. Runner > bicycle > car at intersections.
Probably the dumbest thing I've read this week.
F1 = 0 to 60 mph in 1.6 seconds
Not if you read your own boneheaded reply, sucker
http://www.ripleys.com/blog/cartoon-08-05-2015/In a 10m race it's more important to be first to 15mph. Maybe if you put spikes on the tires.
For those who still believe it not, this arbitrarily-chosen F1 start video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvXLuHtNeS0
the PP car, fastest starter in this race, gets the green light at 43.382 and reaches 2 car lengths beyond its start box (an F1 car is almost exactly 5m long) at 45.269, 1.887 seconds later, slower than Bolt.
It would be more interesting to stack humans up against various opponents in a 10m race than 30m. We already kill horses over longer distances than that. What about rabbits, squirrels, dogs, ostriches, and of course bears?
The shorter it is the more it just becomes about the start - it's hardly about "running" at all.
Soccer and football might be interested in those things because they perceived as useful but, for soccer at least, endurance is also important.
Of course those sports don't award prizes for 30m sprint ability; and ability to accelerate is no guarantee that you're going to be a good player.
Bad Wigins wrote:
750 HP 1200 lbs wrote:Probably the dumbest thing I've read this week.
F1 = 0 to 60 mph in 1.6 seconds
Not if you read your own boneheaded reply, sucker
http://www.ripleys.com/blog/cartoon-08-05-2015/In a 10m race it's more important to be first to 15mph. Maybe if you put spikes on the tires.
0 to 60 in 1.6 seconds is the record for f1.
If you knew how to do math, you'd realize that it hits 10m in just over 1 second.
Look at gatlins splits. Does he hit 10 in 1 second?
You are quoting Ripley's Believe it or NOT moran. Not a very solid source.
Bad Wigins wrote:
For those who still believe it not, this arbitrarily-chosen F1 start video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvXLuHtNeS0the PP car, fastest starter in this race, gets the green light at 43.382 and reaches 2 car lengths beyond its start box (an F1 car is almost exactly 5m long) at 45.269, 1.887 seconds later, slower than Bolt.
It would be more interesting to stack humans up against various opponents in a 10m race than 30m. We already kill horses over longer distances than that. What about rabbits, squirrels, dogs, ostriches, and of course bears?
oh dear.
Let's do the math:
accel from 0 to 60mph = (26.8[m/s]-0)/1.6[s] = 16.75 [m/s^2]
t = ( (10[m] * 2 / 16.75[m/s^2]) )^.5 = 1.09 seconds
Compare: 0-10m: 1.69 [Minus RT], Raymond STEWART [9.96 Tokyo WC 91]
1.09 seconds < 1.69 seconds
Even if you give the F1 a very nonlinear acceleration, there is no way that it is gonna lose that .5 seconds ...
So yeah, keep reading your comic strips as "fact" Wigins.
---
I would like to propose my own entry in Ripley's:
]Bad Wigins, an internet "expert" in physics, psychiatry, and warfare, is right only 25% of the time!
---
More calculations about f1:
- In 1.69 seconds, the time it takes a human to reach 10m, an f1 could hit...
.5* 16.75[m/s^2] * 1.69[s]^2 = 24 meters
- The an F1 has been timed to hit 186mph in 8.6 seconds, giving an average accel of 9.6[m/s^2]. Thus, in the time that Bolt ran 100m, 9.58s, the f1 would hit...
.5 * 9.6[m/s^2] * 9.58[s]^2 = 440 meters
at
(9.6[m/s^2]*440m)^.5 = 92[m/s] or 205mph
- In the time that Bolt hits his max speed (27.8mph or 12.42m/s), it takes the F1:
12.42[m/s] / 16.75 [m/s^2] = .74 seconds
Sprint coach wrote:
"Functional speed"???
Functional for football and soccer.
Why not have a 1 meter race?
Let's do the math:
accel from 0 to 60mph = (26.8[m/s]-0)/1.6[s] = 16.75 [m/s^2]
All of your calculations come from a linear acceleration, which F1 cars are not CLOSE to. While the clutch engages the RPM drops significantly and the cars are extremely under-powered compared to when the hit the range of 10,000+.
I think it's possible for a human to beat an F1 car, but I'd want to see an acceleration curve for an F1 car to find out for sure.
750 HP 1200 lbs wrote: Bad Wig wrote:
Let's do the math:
accel from 0 to 60mph = (26.8[m/s]-0)/1.6[s] = 16.75 [m/s^2]
t = ( (10[m] * 2 / 16.75[m/s^2]) )^.5 = 1.09 seconds
Compare: 0-10m: 1.69 [Minus RT], Raymond STEWART [9.96 Tokyo WC 91]
1.09 seconds < 1.69 seconds
Even if you give the F1 a very nonlinear acceleration, there is no way that it is gonna lose that .5 seconds ...
This guy is just goofin around:
I dunno it's pretty quick
If it does take a human 1.7 seconds to get to 10m, and the f1 is already going 75+ mph at that point, I kinda don't see how the person will win . . .maybe the first two meters?