perspective wrote:
I'm sure that you meant to say "under 1:40", and I have to agree with you in disagreeing with those who blithely assign 1, 2, 3 seconds per lap for following over leading. That is plain silly (unless we're talking about into heavy headwinds). The chief advantages in following is the slightly reduced wind resistance, the increased ability to relax while someone else is setting tempo, and the edge implicit in being able to suddenly jump someone from behind.
If runner A is 1 second per lap faster than runner B, leading by itself will not cause a loss. If runner A is only .5 seconds per lap faster than runner B, then leading will make the race quite close. If runner A is about the same as runner B, then leading will probably cost runner A the race.
The researchers quoted by Noakes didn't blithely assign anything, they made many measurements to determine the energetic costs of leading vs. following! Out of interest, I came across the following in an article by Seb Coe talking about his first WR in the 800 at Bislet (in the Daily Telegraph):
Two days before the race I went down to the stadium, ran some repeat 200m, all faster than I had ever run before which I dutifully communicated to my coach who in turn recommended that I ran as "fast as I could over the first lap and then hung on".
On the day of the race, the promoter asked what speed I intended to cover the first lap. "Under 50 seconds," I said. He turned pale. "We don't have a pacemaker in the field," he replied. "It would be helpful if you could find someone," I said. Ten minutes later he spotted a Jamaican 400m runner on holiday standing on the terrace at the top corner of the track. "Have you got your shoes with you?" the promoter shouted. He nodded. "Right get warmed up!"
This was in '79 just a few weeks after he graduated from college!