Hello Charlie, do you still recommend to come out hard for 30-35m then try to maintain that speed for the open 200m?
Yes, come out fast and relaxed and then maintain
Looking at Bolt run his 200’s last year, all the talk about about holding your inside arm tight, running close to the lane edge to save eneregy, etc dont mean jack, he just comes out and hammers it. I’ve looked at videos from last year where Usain was almost stepping on the OUTSIDE of his lane on the curve.
What do you think about a extended drive phase, keeping the head down until about 120m. Running hard all the way actually, but saving energy by staying down in the drive phase longer?
Extended drive phase-- 120m? I want to see this 200 you have in mind
Simmer down Charlie, I was talking to a coach on the west coast and this was something he bought up. 
I think the taller athletes have a problem staying within their lanes on the curves.
If you look at the video about the study Japanese made on Asafa, you’ll hear Asahara say “If I start like that, I won’t be able to run long”. I think same thing applies to your idea.
Tyson Gay is not that tall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jENB5x2iaY&feature=related
If I start like that, I won’t be able to run long". What do you mean?
This is Gay and Bolt in the 2007 Final in Osaka:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwYyswXNabQ
See where in the lane, they (particularly Gay) are running coming out of the blocks. See where they are running in the lane around the curve. There’s a point at 8.8 seconds on the embedded clock on the display (115-120m from the finish) where everybody is more or less hugging the inside of the lane EXCEPT Gay and Bolt, who are running on the OUTSIDE of the lane.
This is Bolt at Lausanne 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQwF-IqtUZY
See the block setup at about 2:50 into the video. See Bolt’s blocks NOT canted inward (and how far back his back block is!). Notice where on the track he’s running (once again, there’s an interesting frame about 9 seconds in).
It certainly looks like the faster times being run in the last 2-3 years may be accompanied by more s-l emphasis, but also carrying a lot more speed around the curve. The holding back methods like Wallace Spearmon won’t cut it any more.
You saw in Beijing what happened later in the race when Shawn Crawford (the best turn runner in the US) tried to hang with Bolt all the way around the curve. From what I can see, there are really only two ways of actually doing what you see here:
(1) A LOT more conditioning allowing one to run closer to MaxV for a longer period (and of course we know about all those 300s and 400s the Jamaicans are doing).
(2) Running the curve more efficiently–not holding back and not slower, but saving energy–which would be an extended drive phase, and which also happens to be how Gay was running the 100 last year before the Eugene injury (there were some public comments from Jon Drummond to this effect, i.e., staying down longer, and he got his 9.68w running this way).
Extended drive phase- 120m?
According to my understanding the drive phase is the acceleration portion of the race. Therefore the only way that one can do this is by either:
a) Starting so slowly so that the athlete is out of the race by the time they hit optimal speed at 120m or
b) Accelerating to say 35-40m then holding this until 120m and then kicking on from there (sort of fast-maintain-fast)- which certainly is not how the drive phase is typically executed.
Either way these are not the most efficient use of energy.
These are splits from the 2006 USATF Nationals 200 final. The fastest time (lane 2) was Wallace Spearmon.
000 -050m 5.90 5.97 5.82 5.87 5.87 5.88 5.87 5.97
050-100m 4.76 4.57 4.57 4.65 4.64 4.58 4.60 4.75
100-150m 4.77 4.64 4.70 4.76 4.70 4.80 4.86 4.84
150-200m 4.97 4.72 4.89 4.96 4.93 4.98 5.11 5.01
Middle 100m 9.53 9.21 9.27 9.41 9.34 9.38 9.46 9.59
There is a pretty strong correlation between running the last 50 the fastest and winning the race.
At a high level, people are staying in their drive phase and not coming up fully until 40-50 meters into a 100 (Mo went out to 55m). At the same time, people running 200 under 19.7 seem to be getting the time out of the first half of the race (once again, see Bolt and Gay running on the outside of the lane).
Now, there is a major conditioning issue about running 200s that fast, but there’s also an energy allocation issue. So the question is whether you stay down a bit longer in the first part to slow down less at the end–that’s what brought John Smith to the method to begin with.
Obviously, if you’re running 100 in 11.2, you’re not going to be staying down past 30 or so in a 100. But holding down a bit longer may work in the 200. How much are you going to gain by coming up at 30 and running faster at the beginning…and how much are you going to lose in the last 50?
The concept of an extended drive phase or, in other words, a slightly delayed accel needs to be looked at, but, from my understanding, doesn’t fit with the models we’ve seen so far. The opening 50m splits registered by MJ, Flo-Jo, Bolt etc don’t indicate any reduced accel there.
We already recognize from the 100m muscular work changes determined by body position and how it affects overall output capacity. It would seem from that model that there is little to be gained by economy here vs efficiencies that might be gained elsewhere.
Also, consider the efficiencies inherent in tendon stiffness that may be enhanced by prolonged periods of grass work, which we’ve discussed before. Those effects would be seen primarily once the full upright position has been reached.
What’s your thoughts on the 100m?
Do you agree with this tech:
[b]Use acceleration to reach maximum controllable speed in 4-7 seconds as opposed to achieving maximum speed in 3-4sec.
Relaxation important to maintain technique over the course of race…[/b]
everyone takes 6-7 sec to reach top speed
That’s not the case; nobody over 10.5 seconds can possibly accelerate for that long unless they are delaying their acceleration. I’d guess that most sub-10 runners hit top speed before 6 seconds as well. Looking at splits of the fastest runs ever (under 9.80) put their top speed at around the 6-7 second range, which means they accelerated for slightly less than that amount.
From Mike Young’s splits on elitetrack, this is the time to the END of peak speed (i.e., until you start slowing down):
Ben 60m (0.83)
Carl: 60m (0.83)
Tim 60m (0.83)
Mo 70m (0.83)
Asafa 80m (0.84)
Usain 80m (0.82)
You can see the advantage of different techniques. Asafa and Usain got their advantage over Ben and Mo late in the race. It’s when you end peak speed that really matters, and this is what drive phase methods are really about.
Please elaborate. Can we therefore assume the ability to reach a higher top speed relies on longer acceleration. What would be the best way to achieve this. Strength?
This is the table of times:
If you ignore reaction time and look carefully at 0-30 and 30-60 times, you’ll see that Mo got to 30 about as fast as Ben in their 9.79s, but went from 30-60 more slowly. Bolt also went from 30-60 more slowly than Ben and not any faster than Tim, which I think will surprise some people here.
So it’s not delayed acceleration, but extended and more gradual acceleration, which may get you to a higher top speed, but more importantly, it gets you there later in the race with less time to slow down–and that’s John Smith’s race modeling, in a nutshell.
You get this mostly by keeping your head down and accelerating for a longer period. You have to be strong enough to accelerate longer: People running 11.2 are not going to be able to accelerate as long as sub-10.2 people (thus the 11.2 people need a lot more SE work even if they use drive phase methods), your strength level has to be high enough, and different coaches using drive phase methods have different ways of getting there. MVP is using hill sprints and heavy sleds for 6 months as you see in the Steve Francis thread. HSI uses a LOT of acceleration work on the track.
I am with CF, if the athlete has done enough speed work, fitness levels are good, and stays relax they should be ok. Look at those guys 30 and 60m times, they are moving!!
The difference in times comes from what happens AFTER 60. And that is determined how you ran to 60, and the type of prep work done. That said, though, the effect is perhaps minimized for people not under 10.5 because of the shorter accel distances possible and the longer SE emphasis needed.
Bingo, watch these clips and look at the charts, Tyson Gay ran fast 30,60,70,80,90,100’s etc etc. lol