100m WR broken!

[PC-Engine]

But in Formula 1, the timing is in 1/1000th second. With a car running at 320kph (the average speed is normally around 200kph), the distance is even less than 10cm (about 8.9cm). And in F1, every 1/1000th second counts

But all F1 cars are the same length.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I still have to make my mind up on whether these tiny 100ths of seconds are more down to the equipment measuring the time. I mean, 1/100th of a sec is really nothing.

The modern stuff could measure 1/100000th of a second without any problems. The problem is rather if it's the forearm passing the light barrier first while the next guy is maybe in the lead by a few cm, but with his arms down thus losing. It makes a rather tiny difference, but still some.

Whenever you see them do photo finishes . .they record the race on the people's chest (so as to be even).. even though their arms might be extended ahead of their bodies.

US

 

[Crisidelm]

I still have to make my mind up on whether these tiny 100ths of seconds are more down to the equipment measuring the time. I mean, 1/100th of a sec is really nothing.

The modern stuff could measure 1/100000th of a second without any problems. The problem is rather if it's the forearm passing the light barrier first while the next guy is maybe in the lead by a few cm, but with his arms down thus losing. It makes a rather tiny difference, but still some.

Whenever you see them do photo finishes . .they record the race on the people's chest (so as to be even).. even though their arms might be extended ahead of their bodies.

US

Not exactly: in fact the shoulders count as "chest" (part of) that's why many sprinters extend one arm in front of them over the finish line.

 

[Acert93]

Top (human running) speed can be achieved in the 200mt dash I reckon.

What do you mean by top speed? Top peak speed at any given point or top speed over a distance?

If we are talking peak speed at any given point I am almost certain that an Olympic athlete reaches their peak speed somewhere between 40M-70M.

I have no hard proof on this less a decade of competitive Track & Field and assistant coaching (and instruction from an array of coaches, some of which competed in the US Olympic Trials) so take this with a grain of salt.

With that said, what I have always been taught, without exception, is that sprinters spend the first ~40M accellerating. You will note a sprinter's lean will have progressively deminished to a point at ~40M the runner is running fairly tall. Somewhere in that range the runner hits peak speed, and from there on out they are either maintaining that speed while slowly decellerating.

Specifically more decelleration. We like to say, "Runner A speed up and caught runners B,C, and D" but in reality Runner A maintained their endurance longer; basically he slowed down the least.

e.g. Until 1996* the WR in the 200M was 19.66. Until 1996 the WR in the 100M was 9.85.

If you double the WR 100M time it is 19.7s. So at the surface it would seem that the sprinter would be hitting a peak/not slowing down much in the 200M. But considering the WR in the 60M is 6.39 (indoor at that) we can see that the sprinter is the slowest at the beginning of the 100M--so much so that they are covering the last 40M in about 3.4s. In other words we could describe their pace as:

First 60M: 10M every 1.065s
Last 40M: 10M every 0.85s

If a runner was to continue the pace from the last 40M they would finish the final 100M in the 200M Dash in ~8.5s (1.35s faster than the 100M WR in 1996!). That translates to a 200M record ~18.3s, far from the 1996 record of 19.66.

So when we put everything together, especially that the 2nd 100M was only only about .15 seconds faster when infact the first 60M suffers significantly from the hurdle of the runner getting out of the blocks and up to full speed, the runner is not hitting peak spead in the 200M. Taking the block start into consideration it is pretty clear they are decellerating a bit.

Or more simply: Looking at the pace of the last 40M of the 100M WR, the 200M WR runner before 1996 actually lost ~1.35s off that pace, or an average of a little over 1/10th second per 10 meter. So there is quite a bit of decelleration going on in those last 100M. While I was never close to being an Olympic athelete (hahahaha) my primary races in high school were the 200M and 300M Hurdles and that last 100M in the 200 was more of an act of being mentally tough and maintaining good form and being fluid than grunting through with more brute force/speed. But that is not really relevant as I was never at sub 22s, let alone sub 20s

*Why 1996? Because Michael Johnson's 200M run in the 1996 Olympics is one of the all time great physical feats ever. Dropping a WR in the 200M from 19.66s to 19.32s is insane. Look at the 100M. Since 1991 we have seen the 100M record be broken by very thin margins: 9.86, 9.85, 9.84, 9.79, 9.78, and 9.79.

We are talking a range of a tenth to 5 tenths. Michael Johnson broke the 200M record by .34s I remember staying up late just to watch the 200M and Johnson did not dissappoint. Probably the most amazing track feat I have seen. Even today, almost 10 years later, I still shake my head.

Anyhow I chose to treat his record as an anomoly because that is what he is I swear the Animatrix "World Record" short had to be based on Michael Johnson! Winning the 200M and the 400M is very impressive because of all the pre-finals heats you have to run... you have to have unhuman strength and endurance to try to tackle both. And it is that endurance, the ability to sustain close to peak speed for a long period of time, that allowed him to shatter the 200M WR.

Edit: heh, the 19.66 200M record was Michael Johnson's too. The previous record was 19.72, which does not change much.

 

[Crisidelm]

Top (human running) speed can be achieved in the 200mt dash I reckon.

What do you mean by top speed? Top peak speed at any given point or top speed over a distance?

If we are talking peak speed at any given point I am almost certain that an Olympic athlete reaches their peak speed somewhere between 40M-70M.

I have no hard proof on this less a decade of competitive Track & Field and assistant coaching (and instruction from an array of coaches, some of which competed in the US Olympic Trials) so take this with a grain of salt.

With that said, what I have always been taught, without exception, is that sprinters spend the first ~40M accellerating. You will note a sprinter's lean will have progressively deminished to a point at ~40M the runner is running fairly tall. Somewhere in that range the runner hits peak speed, and from there on out they are either maintaining that speed while slowly decellerating.

Specifically more decelleration. We like to say, "Runner A speed up and caught runners B,C, and D" but in reality Runner A maintained their endurance longer; basically he slowed down the least.

e.g. Until 1996* the WR in the 200M was 19.66. Until 1996 the WR in the 100M was 9.85.

If you double the WR 100M time it is 19.7s. So at the surface it would seem that the sprinter would be hitting a peak/not slowing down much in the 200M. But considering the WR in the 60M is 6.39 (indoor at that) we can see that the sprinter is the slowest at the beginning of the 100M--so much so that they are covering the last 40M in about 3.4s. In other words we could describe their pace as:

First 60M: 10M every 1.065s
Last 40M: 10M every 0.85s

If a runner was to continue the pace from the last 40M they would finish the final 100M in the 200M Dash in ~8.5s (1.35s faster than the 100M WR in 1996!). That translates to a 200M record ~18.3s, far from the 1996 record of 19.66.

So when we put everything together, especially that the 2nd 100M was only only about .15 seconds faster when infact the first 60M suffers significantly from the hurdle of the runner getting out of the blocks and up to full speed, the runner is not hitting peak spead in the 200M. Taking the block start into consideration it is pretty clear they are decellerating a bit.

Or more simply: Looking at the pace of the last 40M of the 100M WR, the 200M WR runner before 1996 actually lost ~1.35s off that pace, or an average of a little over 1/10th second per 10 meter. So there is quite a bit of decelleration going on in those last 100M. While I was never close to being an Olympic athelete (hahahaha) my primary races in high school were the 200M and 300M Hurdles and that last 100M in the 200 was more of an act of being mentally tough and maintaining good form and being fluid than grunting through with more brute force/speed. But that is not really relevant as I was never at sub 22s, let alone sub 20s

*Why 1996? Because Michael Johnson's 200M run in the 1996 Olympics is one of the all time great physical feats ever. Dropping a WR in the 200M from 19.66s to 19.32s is insane. Look at the 100M. Since 1991 we have seen the 100M record be broken by very thin margins: 9.86, 9.85, 9.84, 9.79, 9.78, and 9.79.

We are talking a range of a tenth to 5 tenths. Michael Johnson broke the 200M record by .34s I remember staying up late just to watch the 200M and Johnson did not dissappoint. Probably the most amazing track feat I have seen. Even today, almost 10 years later, I still shake my head.

Anyhow I chose to treat his record as an anomoly because that is what he is I swear the Animatrix "World Record" short had to be based on Michael Johnson! Winning the 200M and the 400M is very impressive because of all the pre-finals heats you have to run... you have to have unhuman strength and endurance to try to tackle both. And it is that endurance, the ability to sustain close to peak speed for a long period of time, that allowed him to shatter the 200M WR.

Edit: heh, the 19.66 200M record was Michael Johnson's too. The previous record was 19.72, which does not change much.

19.72 had been the 200mt world record for 17 years I reckon: it was set by the Italian Pietro Mennea back in 1979 in Mexico City.
M. Johnson set 19.66 in 1996 always in Atlanta but a month or so before the Olympic Games I recall, just to beat it again, and how!, in the winning final race at the Games.
I also recall that it was measured that he ran the first 100mt in 10.33 and the last 100 in 8.99 (but I could be mistaken here, I can't find a reliable source to back this up).