I can run 0.86sec for a flying 10m but my flying 20m times are way, way off! 1.89sec at best.
I really do not understand what is going wrong. My flying 10m time should yield me a 1.72s flying 20M time.
I do just over 5 strides in the flying 10 and between 11 & 12 strides for the flying 20.
Please can anyone suggest reasons for the discrepancy & solutions to the problem
Timing gates have errors for example break with chest then with hand leading to faster time. Other than that you are probably muscling the run over a longer distance.
What is the timing method?
just curious, what’s your best 100m?
Yes. If you really run a .86e, you’d be running 10.10 or better.
He is a senior experienced athlete and trains 1-2 times a day 6 days a week.
I am hand timing him consistently over the flying 10m portion (20m run in, 10 m flying section) in sub 1.00 sec all year and in the build up sprints we do, his times are all consistent.
With the regard to the flying 20, (20m run in, 20 m flying section) the times are always consistent. They are just not fast enough.
Please don’t be too focused on the flying 10 time of 0.86s. The question and therefore the issue would be the same if he was running 1.5s for flying 10 and 3.5 secs for a flying 20. I am very happy with the consistency and veracity of the flying 10 time, I want to know why it is not translating to his flying 20m.
I arrived at the 1.72s by doubling the flying 10 portion. My idea being that if he is at top speed for a flying 10m he should be able to maintain that speed for another 10m.
Some extra information that may be helpful. He runs the flying 10’s with 3-5 mins recovery. Generally a maximum of 6 reps. His flying 20m recovery is 5-7 mins with a maximum of 6 reps.
There is some systematic, consistent error in your timing. Let’s say his real 10m flying time is 1.0s and his 20m flying time is 2.0s. If you always stop the clock 0.1-0.15s too early or start it 0.1-0.15s too late you will consistently time him as running 10m in 0.85-0.9 and 20m in 1.85-1.9s. Hand-timing sprints shorter than 50m is, in my opinion and experience, too inaccurate to be of much use. My advice would be to get some proper speed gates before drawing any conclusions.
Even better do it from film from the side that way the biggest error will be 0.04 over 20m.
I would say the to complete 10m in 5 strides would suggest a too short a stride length to be running that quickly!
The number of steps for the 20’s indicates a stride frequency of 6.3 strides /s with a length of 1.66m … Hmmmm are you on a bike while doing this?
My thoughts exactly. Doesn’t quite add up.
You’re on to the issue with hand timing- the error is constant but spread over the distance- so big error at 10m but small when averaged over 200m for instance.
That said, you can still draw conclusions from hand times if you allow for this.
Do you have the marks double measured/ 5 strides through 10m and 12 through 20m doesn’t add up.
I have a question about the flys. Say I am running 30 meter flys with a 10 meter run up. Should I be all out when I hit the start of the fly or should I jog up to the line and then hit it?
Use a digital video camera. Some still digicams even have a 60 frames per second mode (Canon SD Elph models). You can count the frames and do the math to figure out your time. Way more accurate than hand times.
The Images Per Second (IPS) could vary though. From 24-26 IPS. So if you count to 50 frames you might think you ran 20m on 2.00 ± 0.04s however it could be anything from 2.08 to 1.92 ± 0.04
You might want to take a few shots on a good timer to see how much your camera varies. Or have the time on each frame.
you should be all out when you hit the start of the marker for 30m. that may require a longer run up than 10m
Ok thx, I guess that explains why I ran 3.59 for 30 m fly the other day. I have be jogging to the line and then hitting it.
Thanks robin 1. The maths seem to add up on that. I will look into it.
Robin 1. Quick question.
You are correct that a systematic and consistent error in timing would yield a .85sec and a 1.85-1.9s for the flying 10m/20m respectively. However the athlete is running consistently in the .85 to .9sec for the flying 10 but is not running the 1.85-1.9secs for the flying 20. If he was, I would understand the result. However, he is consistently running 2.00sec for the flying 20m in the same session that he will run .85sec for the flying 10. This wouldn’t be explained by a systematic consistent error. I also know that he can run at faster than 10m/s because he has been electronically timed using photo cells approaching the board and taking off in long jump at greater than 10m/s. I am less worried about the veracity of the flying 10m and more concerned about the inability to maintain that top speed for the second portion of the flying 20.
I apologize about the inaccuracy of the stride frequency data. They were approximations and I realize now, not relevant.
Thanks for the advice about the speed gates. I think we will also look at that digicam recommendation.