sqrt(84^2 + 4.8^2) = 84.14.
Just to clear that up.
Too bad Wilson didn't drift wide of Poistogova, eh? 14 centimeters is a small price to pay for being in the clear.
sqrt(84^2 + 4.8^2) = 84.14.
Just to clear that up.
Too bad Wilson didn't drift wide of Poistogova, eh? 14 centimeters is a small price to pay for being in the clear.
montano closed the last 100 in ~15 seconds. that's 0.15 sec/m. or 0.0015 sec/cm. multiply by 14 = 0.021 sec. she still loses
get a new calculator
you really hate having to admit I'm right, don't you?
I have PWNED you all today.
I got 25 centimeters, using the pythagorean formula
80m + 6.35m = 80.25
80 meters being lane one, 6.35m being montano's distance away from the rail
what is that in time? not very much.
I think that is around 4 hundreths of a second, and montano lost by 12 hundreths
but f me, I majored in English
humanities student wrote:
I got 25 centimeters, using the pythagorean formula
80m + 6.35m = 80.25
80 meters being lane one, 6.35m being montano's distance away from the rail
what is that in time? not very much.
that would be 0.0375 seconds, or 0.04. still way off
but still way dumb!
But why move out if you're trying to win the race? It's definitely slower and she was definitely close enough to try and win.
the thing is it's not one big triangle. she didn't move out in a straight line, it's more like a curve, or lots of little triangles. and as we know a curve is much more in length than a straight line in that context. well, a curve from A to B will always be more than a straight line.
say she moved out with 20m to go (i know she didn't, this is for example purposes as it makes a BIG difference when you say she moved out), that obviously produces a much different result than if she moved out with 100m to go.
if you calculate it with her moving out at 20m to go, into lane 5, it can come out to as much as 0.9538 metres extra.. she was on outside of lane 5. (i know this isnt reality, its just an example)
if the last 100m is covered in 15 seconds, then that takes about 0.14 to cover
if they are rigging and she runs the last 100m in 17 secs, it takes 0.16 to cover the extra distance
and she lost by 0.12
it also depends on the lane width of stockholm which i don't know and her trajectory, which is too complex for me to calculate.
it's somewhere inbetween the values
if she moves in a straight line (which no one can really), and if she moved out from 20m to inside of lane 5, she would run about .616m extra
(0.11 sec at 17 per 100m pace)
i would also need a split for her last 100m. god knows what that was. i doubt it is 15 sec (2:00 pace).
i can't be bothered to check all this as it's late but i guess i'm just saying we don't have anywhere near enough information to make a calculation.
Bad Wigins wrote:
sqrt(84^2 + 4.8^2) = 84.14.
Just to clear that up.
Too bad Wilson didn't drift wide of Poistogova, eh? 14 centimeters is a small price to pay for being in the clear.
Does that include the tine she spent drifting "sideways" instead of going in a straight line?
I thought she might have won.
DedicatedRunner wrote:
You have to consider that if she had stayed in lane 2 she could have gauged her distance from the leader and perhaps given the effort to overtake the leader.
When you are out at lane 5 you can't tell at all how off you from the lead.
It would have made a difference.
^This^
Numbers and formulas go out the window when you are stride for stride (or even close) with someone approaching the finish line
- Just read this on the other thread, seems correct, although she doesn't seem to have the best finishing kick the last 30 meters - but I would have to agree that numbers and formulas get thrown out the window when racing the last 30 meters directly next to someone.
track chick wrote:
the thing is it's not one big triangle. she didn't move out in a straight line, ...
if she moves in a straight line (which no one can really)...
i can't be bothered to check all this as it's late but i guess i'm just saying we don't have anywhere near enough information to make a calculation.
^this
I think there was just lateral movement in her biomechanics making her drift to the side...so the primary effect would be shortening her stride length relative to the finish line rather than adding distance.
+10
She also lost forward momentum by shifting to the right.
She blew it.
Bad Wigins wrote:
sqrt(84^2 + 4.8^2) = 84.14.
Just to clear that up.
Too bad Wilson didn't drift wide of Poistogova, eh? 14 centimeters is a small price to pay for being in the clear.
Holy Christ, this is truly the stupidest statement I have seen all year.
So, in the strange reality you choose to wrap yourself in, this was somehow a clever 'racing maneuver' by Alysia to 'get clear???'
Are you out of your tiny freaking mind?
Get clear of WHAT? There was no one and nothing within five meters of her.
She was 'clear' of everything and everyone by the time she got to Lane 2, for Chrissake, but, to you, it was somehow WISE of her to run across Lane 2, across Lane 3, across Lane 4, and into Lane 5??!!
It was the single weirdest, and dumbest 'maneuver' I've ever seen a world-class runner make.
Not to mention that her idiotic violent lurch to her right, and right into Akkaoui (for which she absolutely should've been DQ'ed), cost her a lot more than a few centimeters.
First she goes to sleep with 200 left, and lets three girls go by (like she *expected* her legs to be all rigged up at that point, like they usually are when she goes out in 56), lets herself get badly boxed in, and then realizes, "Hey, my legs don't actually feel that bad, since I ran a sane first lap today; maybe I should actually try and finish this race," then completely panics, runs deeper into the box she's in, and then lurches out, right into Akkaoui, and then, once she's out, decides to run for the exit tunnel instead of the tape.
God only knows WTF that was supposed to be.
The good thing is she looked a hell of a lot stronger down the stretch than she has in a long time, and was damn close to winning the race, even with the idiotic line she ran.
If she can ever get her mind right (which really looks like the big 'If'), she is absolutely capable of 57-low, 59-low on the right day.
A super talent, could and should be a champion, but Jesus, she's got to learn to use her head just a little bit.
Maybe one of her legs tightened up to the extent which running sideways was the most efficient and fastest option. Haha, send it over to John Brenkus or something, this thread gave me a good laugh.
Montano lost the lean because she's flat chested.
track chick wrote:
the thing is it's not one big triangle. she didn't move out in a straight line, it's more like a curve, or lots of little triangles.
That's 100% bull crap. Even if she had run straight for half the stretch and then turned out, she would only have run an additional 27 cm.
We may not like it, but Bad Wigins is right.
People get caught up in the distance but that is only half of the equation. She is spending energy going out instead of going straight ahead. I am not sure it is enough to make a difference in this race but it it is a real bad habit and will catch up with her in some race (i.e. like the WC)
reed wrote:
montano closed the last 100 in ~15 seconds. that's 0.15 sec/m. or 0.0015 sec/cm. multiply by 14 = 0.021 sec. she still loses