Run-Down Forums

[X King]

[MiamiD J30]

I have something that we all can agree on:

The fastest 5m split has to be 0.41 seconds or less, because the fastest 10m split is 0.82s.

If the Carl Lewis running a 0.80s split, then the fastest would have to be 0.40 seconds or less.

Anyone disagree?

Jason

[MiamiD J30]

Didn't think so.

[MiamiD J30]

Hey X-King, can you give me the source of the JAAF measureing Carl Lewis's 0.80s split, I would like to see if this is a correct measurement.

And Dan, you are totally right about the splits, you have made me think about it a lot, and even 10m splits is probably off about 0.03s +/-. You're right about the accuracy, the only people that can get a very accurate measurement are like the teams (biomechanical), that measure out the 10m splits, than video tape it, and take pictures of the 10m split.

So, thanks for that idea.

Jason

[Dan]

[MiamiD J30]

Yea about that 100m isn't 100m.

I think that the 100m in races is a little bit longer than the real 100m.

I think they measure it out to 328.1 ft.
But the real 100m is I think like 328.084 ft.

Its pretty close to each other, but its not that big of a difference.

Jason

[pierrejean]

MiamiD J30
The 0.80 10m section for Lewis comes form the biomechancial analysis ran by Japanese Federation during 1991 Tokyo World Champs.
I have some sheets of pages of those analysis, but don't know from which book or magazine they are from.
Mesaruments were made from marks on the track each 10m, and several cameras along, behind and in front of the straight shot the runners at 60HZ speed. Step frequency and stride length were measured as well as 10m splits, but SL ans SF analysis are clearly not accurate, as great variations are found during the race, impossible as the curves shall be more or less steady. That comes form the fact that the video was only 60HZ, and they didn't divided the frames.
Also, there seems to be a problem with the position of those marks, as suggested by some authors (don't have the time to search the name! lol), explaining why runners all had a sudden burts of speed all in the same 10m section lately in the race.

Anyway, the problem of accuracy doesn't comes from the fact that the analysis was made few hours after the race or 10 years later, it comes from the quality of the video: point of view and speed recording.
When we record a race on TV, the speed is 25 frames per sec or 29.97 in USA. It's possible to have slow motion films from people who recorded the race from the crowds with special cameras. Then, it's possible to take splits ONLY if there are marks on the track.
The reason that X King analysis aren't accurate is because:
1) he gave some analysis while there were no marks on the track
2) some analysis he made weren't in accordance with some other analysis for the same race done by biomechanical teams
3) I've analysed the same races form the same footage (TV) than X King, and found enourmous differences with his results (over 0.04). Not that one has the truth or not, but it shows that there's a problem somewhere.
3) the speed recordings he gave are strange: 60Hz for Olso 2002, 50Hz for Lausanne 1996, 65Hz for LA 1984, 75Hz for Roma 1999. Where do those footage come from? The slow motion films can't come from TV, as slow motion replays shown on TV are never played at a steady frequency.

Even with high speed films i have found (like shown by IAAF biomechanical team in Seoul), with freq around 500Hz, it's very difficult to find the exact point where a runners crosses a mark on the soil (vertical projection of the first part of torso on the ground and on the mark). there are significant variations in trunc position (backward and forward) during the stride cycle, so that when the athlete crosses a mark, he maybe is puttin ghis trunc bw or fw, leading to other inaccuracies. That's why 10m splits analysis are often unrelieable.
In GDR and USSR, races were systematically analysed to find split times, but they only searched times at 30m, 60m and 80m points in order to leave those incaccuray.
Also, 10m split times have the disadventage to forgot the untiy of the race, and the enhancement of performance isn't jus about improving by 0.01 one or an other 10m split time.
The 9.18 (or 9.2 split time total in the future isn't realistic, because it doesn't take in account the global speed curve of the race. Also, if you see the WR progression, or 10 best progression best perf through the years, you'll see that the curve isn't leading us to 9.28 in the future. We're near to the 'end of history'! Especially considering that the World Title was won this year in 10.07, and several sprinters will be drug-banned in the coming weeks.
More accurate spee curves were published after Athens 1997 World Champs, laser gun gave instantaneous speed every 0.2sec for the pelvis region (lest's say center of mass), and it showed big variations, because speed at take-off is greater than speed and touch-down, so the curve had to be corrected in order to find mean velocities.

As you see, speed measurement is a very complex issue, and only very accurate and cautious analysis should be take in account for scientists coaches and athletes.

[X King]

[Dan]

PJ, haven't heard from you for a while. Nice summary.

An interesting set of stats, assuming it were possible to come up with something reasonably accurate (a big assumption, admittedly), would be how the best-by-increment records have improved over time. That would give a new perspective on what the actual ceiling is for 100m potential.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[pierrejean]

Hello Dan, yes i've been out for a while as i lost my login, but now problem is over! lol

X King
About ultimate limit:
For the human behing as we know today (before we get into the genetic generation, maybe, a scaring perspective ), i don't think IMHO that it's possible to run under 9.60. I'm sure we won't improve maximum speed, analysis through the year since '50s don't show major improvement taking in account the fact that nowadays track are much more suited to sprinting demand.
Improvement can happen with new starting rule, e.g. a mechanical order and gun, as opposed to fast or slow or drunked starters , improved (individualized) start and acceleration technique, and higher speed endurance level reached by a "perfect" training plans and competition schedule. Medical care will improve (nothing illegal!) indirectly performances as athletes will be injured less often and recover more quicly.

I hope i'll die before someone run 9.28 or 9.37 or any f.. times.

[MiamiD J30]

Pierre-Jean

What do you say is the fastest 10m split/section you have analyzed,
And what do you think is the limit for the fastest 10m split/section?

Jason

[pierrejean]

[Conway]

Given recent events, we may have to rexamine what the limits to speed truly are ?!?!?

Personally I had thought of 9.50 as the limit to the 100 ... However, I am now inclined to scale that back ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[Dan]

Depends what you mean by limits... The fastest that can be run, or the fastest we're likely to see be run?

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[MiamiD J30]

I think I and we were talking about the fastest a human can run. But it probably won't be for at least 1 - 1(1/2) decades.

Personally, I think 9.60s can be broken by 2010 - 2013. And a 10m segment of 0.79s - 0.80s.

Jason