The image above has speed tables and shows the article they were taken from.
My confusion is this:
At the top of the table, the 30m blocks + 30m flying is pretty close to the time for 60m blocks. This makes sense. At the bottom of the table, the 30m blocks + 30m flying isn’t even close to the 60m block time.
Ex, 5.0-5.1 30m blocks
3.9-4.0 30m flying
8.0-8.1 60m blocks
How is it, that someone who can do 30m blocks in 5 seconds, and 30m flying in 4 seconds, can run 60m in 8 seconds, a full second faster than the combination of 30m blocks and 30m flying?
I’ve had this chart since 1990. I’ve tried to rationalize it and studied it over and over. Dont buy into it 100%. Just because you run 3.7 hand time or even with a brower timing system does not mean JACK SHYTE…
The only way you can use this chart is if you get a finishlynx reactime trainer with a FAT attachment. Trust me on this.
Here’s what I found using this chart:
Hand timed time trials dont match up w/comp times ON THIS CHART…
My rule of thumb when using the 30m time trials is if you can run 4.09 with a reactime trainer you can run sub 11.
There are other factors that can effect the comp time. speed endurance and fitness etc…
The reactime with the without the timing is about 1500 us with the wireless tmer its about 2900… Its basically the false start system with a few extra pieces of software. Like a starters voice with a gun sound and what ever else… You dont need this to train (look at CF’s results way before this came out) but it’s the only way that you can validate these test times… But remember in the end its the comp time that matters… My point is its a nice tool but if you really want to test enter a race with FAT and that will tell you the whole story and a video…
You can’t just pick a single line in the chart and say,
column X => column Y
I think a common mistake is to project 100m times from 30m starts, and I don’t care whether you’re using reactime or hand time. Many novice sprinters (who have spent some time in the weight room) will have fairly decent 30m times…but the speed endurance isn’t there…and because the speed endurance isn’t there, the maxV also isn’t there, because it takes a certain amount of SE train MaxV to 60m.
So I think the first thing here is to not just take the 30m start, or even the 30m start plus the 30m fly, and expect to run 100m in X seconds. If you ALSO compare where you stand in 60m start or stand and 150m stand, you will get a truer picture of where you stand and what you need to improve on. If you use the chart this way at the start of a phase (and concentrate more on those things where you are week) you are more likely to improve. If you can do the 30m start, 60m start, and 150m stand on pace for a particular 100m electronic time, you will likely be able to hit that electronic time in a race.
The other mistake in the chart (not necessarily a mistake but something that’s frequently wrong) is the way 30m times are dissociated for slower sprinters. As I mentioned above, slower sprinters (I believe CF talked about this, remember the comments about the right side of the curve) can hit 30m times that are out of line with their 100/200 times due to SE lacking. The fact that Dick lists 30m times that are too slow for their SE simply means that Frank Dick didn’t have much data for sprinters much slower than 11-11.5 seconds FAT. But I think this causes a sprinter that can hit, say, 4.2 but is really a 12.0 guy, to think he is faster than he really is.
Of course it CAN cut the other way. If a 400 guy in a tempo-based system doesn’t lift a whole lot and doesn’t spend much time on blocks and accels, he might find that he doesn’t get out worth shit and his 100m time is quite a bit slower than you might think.