Downhill 100 meter dash

however you stretch it, the fastest you will go will be the steepest angle that you still consider to be 'running'

I'm glad you aren't considering free-falling, because that would only get you a 9.81 from a standing start.

new town wrote:

I'm glad you aren't considering free-falling, because that would only get you a 9.81 from a standing start.

Interesting!

I'll guess that the percentage of advantage is less than 10 percent and is about the same for all distances.

Wrong-o. You'd fall 100m in 4.52s.

If you could keep your balance and turn your legs over fast enough, you could probably break 9.

new town wrote:

I'm glad you aren't considering free-falling, because that would only get you a 9.81 from a standing start.

Physics fail.(200/9.81)^0.5!=9.81.

s.b. wrote:

new town wrote:

I'm glad you aren't considering free-falling, because that would only get you a 9.81 from a standing start.

Physics fail.(200/9.81)^0.5!=9.81.

Wrong again. 100m would take a high 4.51 sec (4.516 roughly) at which time the object, controling for wind resistance, would be travelling 44.2869 m/s--much faster than a human is capable of running.

fail the fail wrote:

s.b. wrote:

Physics fail.(200/9.81)^0.5!=9.81.

Wrong again. 100m would take a high 4.51 sec (4.516 roughly) at which time the object, controling for wind resistance, would be travelling 44.2869 m/s--much faster than a human is capable of running.

Um, s.b. isn't wrong, because s.b. said the time would NOT EQUAL 9.81 s. That's what != means. Not equal. Also, to clarify, new town hasn't actually controlled for wind resistance. The time and speed given are for an object falling in a vacuum. Wind resistance would depend on the object (and the "wind"). Also, these calculations are only good near the surface of the Earth. The more important question is, "How fast could I run a 5k on the moon while breathing super-oxygenated air?"

but he wouldn't just free fall, he would push off, right? Wouldn't that make it even faster?