Mo Farah London 'super shoes'

ventolin^3 wrote:

drivel

in atmosphere, for speed, it's

ratio of masses ^ (1/3)

Except for the fact that in the previous posts I demonstrated that this claim was based on arguments that were disconnected from physics and logic.

If you have some other justification for this claim we're still waiting to hear it. Swearing about it and demanding other people make estimates does not make your false claims true.

This is ridiculous. Ventolin, you are either a troll with too much time on your hands or need to spend some of your free time getting a halfway-decent understanding of rudimentary physics.

Phil Fondacaro wrote:

This is a power problem, not a drag problem.

Exactly. It's not the drag that requires you to keep expending energy, it's the constant colliding with the ground, slowing you down as you push off again. That's why you can go much faster on wheels, whether it's a bike or skates. If you run on a treadmill (no air resistance) the difference is only about 10 seconds/mile.

The direct correlation between time and weight seems most accurate (if you think of the footstrike as friction, varying to weight), and aligns with RunnersWorld's simplified formula for a 150 lb person at 5:00 pace.

idiot

i offered formula

they are related

fool

sorry

you better undumbfuuck their formula

i asked you for you answer

learn something

some serious idiots here

i asked you to give me workings for 1kg off 60kg for a 2"05'00.00

why can't you offer me a formula ???

ordersofmagnitude wrote:Except for the fact that in the previous posts I demonstrated that this claim was based on arguments that were disconnected from physics and logic.

If you have some other justification for this claim we're still waiting to hear it. Swearing about it and demanding other people make estimates does not make your false claims true.

"a 60kg guy wearing a smooth-fitting, unimpeding 1kg belt around his waist runs a M in

2"05'00.00

what coud he have run for it without the belt ???"

give me a number

put up or shut the fuuck up

ventolin^3 wrote:

"a 60kg guy wearing a smooth-fitting, unimpeding 1kg belt around his waist runs a M in

2"05'00.00

what coud he have run for it without the belt ???"

give me a number

put up or shut the fuuck up

2:05 * 60/61 = 2:03

There you go

Hardloper wrote:2:05 * 60/61 = 2:03

There you go

you insult the board

remove this drivel

ventolin^3 wrote:

Hardloper wrote:2:05 * 60/61 = 2:03

There you go

you insult the board

remove this drivel

Let's hear what your formula predicts for the same athlete wearing a 20 kg weight vest?

Equating oxygen cost reductions with race velocity increases is a flawed concept. Weight is not weight. And muscle produces power. Oxygen cost

and fatigue resistance have been dissociated in both cycling and running.

My opinion is that Farah isn't all that much better than Geb or Bekele

were at peak over 1500m. I also believe Farah is still slower than Geb

or Bekele were at 5000/10000m which suggest poorer fatigue resistance overall and no indications that running economy is the limiting factor there. Wanjuri was better than all of them, though I am hopeful Bekele

will run 2:03.

I personally expect Farah to have difficulty running as fast as

Bekele at the marathon ...and not because Salazar has done rather poorly with taking track runners to the marathon.

Hardloper wrote:Let's hear what your formula predicts for the same athlete wearing a 20 kg weight vest?

err...

work it out for yourself :

2"05'00.00 * ( 60 / 80 ) ^( 1/3 )

-> ???

ventolin^3 wrote:

Hardloper wrote:Let's hear what your formula predicts for the same athlete wearing a 20 kg weight vest?

err...

work it out for yourself :

2"05'00.00 * ( 60 / 80 ) ^( 1/3 )

-> ???

congrats, Ventolin. I finally realized that you are a troll, rather than a fan applying some misguided math analysis.

but for completeness:

There is a reason that the Runner's World empirical rule:

2"03'04.7

and the simplistic first week of high school physics solution:

2:05 * 60/61 = 2:03

or more the inappropriate accuracy that you are fond of:

2:05 * 60/61 = 2"02'57.0

correspond so well. It is because to the first order that it is the correct solution.

If drag was as significant as you postulate, people would be able to easily run sub-3 minute miles on the treadmill. Why is that not so?

Phil Fondacaro wrote:congrats, Ventolin. I finally realized that you are a troll, rather than a fan applying some misguided math analysis

you are an idiot with little thought

but for completeness:

There is a reason that the Runner's World empirical rule:

2"03'04.7

and the simplistic first week of high school physics solution:

2:05 * 60/61 = 2:03

or more the inappropriate accuracy that you are fond of:

2:05 * 60/61 = 2"02'57.0

correspond so well. It is because to the first order that it is the correct solution

you are offering 2 lines of rubbish

whatever order they/you offer, it is rubbish

If drag was as significant as you postulate, people would be able to easily run sub-3 minute miles on the treadmill. Why is that not so?

because

moron

running on a treadmill eliminates wind-resistance

it's = running into a 6 or 7 m/s wind outdoors !!!

even without wind-resistance, who on earth is your sub-3 miler ???

dsrunner wrote:Wanjuri was better than all of them

sammy's lasting endurance for track may be :

in '05 at 18y he went thru in 26'16 pace at 6k chasing kennster

i'd have put good money on him, walloping that for 10k in

'08

why is ventolin so agressive? I am a math professor, but in probability, and don't know anything about exercise physics. Basic computations are easy of course.

As ventolin probably knows,

(59/60)^3 = (59/60)* (59/60)^2.

so 125*(59/60)^3 < 125*59/60 = 122,9. S

But suddenly ventolin seems to raise 59/60 to the power 1/3 which explains why only gain seconds, not minutes are claimed to be gained.

For the rest, I don't like the aggression in your posts ventolin, please patch this up or I am gone again.

Well, Hoka has already copied Nike's Pegasus concept. They hagave it a 4mm drop and added even MOAR cushioning...

fad/gimmick avoider wrote:

Will probably be a copy of the Hoka.

ventolin^3 wrote:

ordersofmagnitude wrote:Except for the fact that in the previous posts I demonstrated that this claim was based on arguments that were disconnected from physics and logic.

If you have some other justification for this claim we're still waiting to hear it. Swearing about it and demanding other people make estimates does not make your false claims true.

"a 60kg guy wearing a smooth-fitting, unimpeding 1kg belt around his waist runs a M in

2"05'00.00

what coud he have run for it without the belt ???"

give me a number

put up or shut the fuuck up

As people have already explained, knowing a theory is faulty and having one's own correct theory are two different things.

You have completely failed to realise the difficulty of the problem. You applied physics designed for a plane or a submarine to a runner! A runner has to lift his mass from the ground at every step. You have disregarded it. You used a formula involving cross section and fluid viscosity and found a way to plunk mass into it!

It would have been so simple to acknowledge your error right from the start. Instead, you insult people while we watch you drown in your nonsense.

math professor wrote:

For the rest, I don't like the aggression in your posts ventolin, please patch this up or I am gone again.

Which is what he wants. You and others have caught him out, he has no answer but to be aggressive and hope you go away.

When you work do you normally switch between measurement systems. Switching between imperial and metric weights is slack work.

Nike already make racing shoes weighing 160g so how is a 200g reduction going to be achieved even if you divide this between each shoe

Have you added the shoe weight to his total weight as well! That is not what slows down with heavy running shoes and it's you who has no understanding of real world physics. You have a lack of common sense to go with your flawed multi-weight system statistical analysis