# Lets accelerate

How fast do you think a person would run if they were still accelerating til 80m:borg:? Probably unlikely. We would probably see a sub .80 split. Do you think at max effort during acceleration in the 100m that a person has a time limit of accleration, or does a person just accelerate as far as their speed lets them.

Ex. Dude A. takes 6 sec to fully accelerate. And he gets to about 55m-60m.

Dude B. also takes 6 sec to fully accelerate. But he only gets to about 50m-55m.

Dude A. runs 9.86
Dude B. runs 10.03

Would this be just a coincedence or is there really a relation? :mrt:

Charlie wrote this/

"Just for fun, I’m going to post a set of theoretical split times for a 9.65. Everybody can compare their own splits in the privacy of their own homes. Pierrejean, can you provide Dwains splits from his Paris run?

R/T .12
10m - 1.81 - 1.69
20m - 2.85 - 1.03
30m - 3.77 - 0.92
40m - 4.63 - 0.86
50m - 5.47 - 0.84
60m - 6.30 - 0.83
70m - 7.12 - 0.82 :borg:
80m - 7.95 - 0.83
90m - 8.79 - 0.84
100m 9.65 - 0.86
These are the cards gentlemen.
Reed em and weep!"

So this person would be accelerating until 70m? Or is that .82 split just a result of momentum? Either way thats fast as hell. I wonder if Montgome- I mean someone will be able to do that?

Treble, I think the answer is the latter-as far as their speed let’s them. Not sure if this is accurate but in Greene’s wr in 1999 I heard that he accelerated up to 58m. I’ve never seen the intervals where one could tell at which point(exactly) an athlete ended acceleration/reached maximal velocity. The relationship you are talking about between acceleration and maximal velocity is one that has intrigued me for some time. Does accelerating longer, not just at a slower rate, mean you have a higher max. velocity or does developing max. velocity improve one’s acceleration capacity allowing a person to accelerate to a higher speed/longer? I suppose it could be a little of both. This direction may not be the original intent of your post but I thought I would add this.

I think that if you accelerate for longer at 100% effort, or at least very close to it, max velocity will be higher.

On the curve I’ve presented, I’ve tried to show how the accel would level off. the .86 to .84, and .84 to .83 progressions have already been seen. The trick would be to create the training circumstances that would allow it to continue to the next level. Based on an already incredible accel pattern, I can’t see how this progression could occur any earlier in the race, without devastating energy costs that would kill the finish. Does anyone else want to present a race model for a 9.65? It would be interesting to compare strategies- if such a thing is actually possible at this level. ( In order to get in the .83s that are book-cased on either side- you need at least something faster- but, perhaps it could be .825 with a finish of .855 )

Charlie, when Ben had a 0.81 split I believe after a “medling” start) in a Zurich race;

A) What was his over-all time for that race and what was his reaction time?

B) Do you have the wind reading for that race?

I would like to compare the scientific “shape” of his energy envelope in the particular Zurich race compared to the shape of his 88 Oly final (allowing for the fact he’d deliberatly eased of the last 20m)

It was a definite “bubble” as the start was very average and the finish was non-existant. the overall race time was 10.03 into a claimed 1.3 headwind (!) Clearly, no case could be made for a race model which would include an energy expenditure like this- it is the corporate average that gets the job done, and on his best two races, he clocked .83 tops.

10.03 in to a minus 1.3 headwind, after a bad start and a non-existant finish! Ben continues to amaze me, and i’m not sure if any other sprinter has really got close yet.

Flo Jo of course, is a great example of corperate effort, many of her split times reading the same figures.