Does the smaller runner take more of a beating or is it the larger runner who suffers more? Which body type is more afftected by the wind? As a smaller runner, I get pretty beat up by the wind (perhaps even more than by hills?), but I do not know how it would compare to the affect it would have on a larger runner.
I don't know but it would seem that the smaller runner would have a tougher time.
Take two square boxes filled with water and put them in a good wind. One box is twice the size of the other. The bigger box of course has more surface area but which box will be moved easiest by the wind.
I think the smaller one.
If you look at sailboats, the little ones seem to go real fast, even skipping across the waves. The big ones kind of lumber along and hardly look like they're moving at all.
The trick is to twist your upper body in the right direction to take advantage of a headwind, so you can tack like a sailboat.
If you take 2 boxes at a standstill, which box takes more energy to get up to 10mph? Which box takes more energy to get up to 20mph?
Hell Mary wrote:
If you take 2 boxes at a standstill, which box takes more energy to get up to 10mph? Which box takes more energy to get up to 20mph?
completely irrelevant
It all depends. If you're thin front-to-butt but are very tall and have wide hips and broad shoulders, the wind will catch you like a sail and move you backwards. However if you have a big butt and a long nose, combined with narrow hips and shoulders, you'll slice through the wind like an arrow. A receding chin and hairline also helps. If this isn't you, practice running with your arms in front of you, hands together (like you're diving into water) and see if that works.
It is all about a surface area/strength ratio I imagine. The short dense runners likely do best.
Bigger generally means more surface area. More surface area means more drag. So the force of wind on a bigger runner is greater. But if the bigger runner is stronger that could offset the winds force more.
I would prefer to be the smaller guy because drafting would be more effective. Especially if you've got the big guy breaking wind for you.
zephito wrote:
It all depends. If you're thin front-to-butt but are very tall and have wide hips and broad shoulders, the wind will catch you like a sail and move you backwards. However if you have a big butt and a long nose, combined with narrow hips and shoulders, you'll slice through the wind like an arrow. A receding chin and hairline also helps. If this isn't you, practice running with your arms in front of you, hands together (like you're diving into water) and see if that works.
Chortle, chortle.
A larger mass has more inertia (the tendency of a body in motion to stay in motion) than does a smaller mass.
I am relatively big - 6'3"/167 - for a distance runner and my training partner was pretty small - 5'6'/130. When we ran in heavy winds he was much more bothered by it than I was.
yeah, butter wrote:
A larger mass has more inertia (the tendency of a body in motion to stay in motion) than does a smaller mass.
I am relatively big - 6'3"/167 - for a distance runner and my training partner was pretty small - 5'6'/130. When we ran in heavy winds he was much more bothered by it than I was.
I am virtually the same size as your training partner. The wind gets to me, too.
Conundrum wrote:
I don't know but it would seem that the smaller runner would have a tougher time.
Take two square boxes filled with water and put them in a good wind. One box is twice the size of the other. The bigger box of course has more surface area but which box will be moved easiest by the wind.
I think the smaller one.
I tried to do as you said. The first box fell apart due to the water in it....never got to the second box :(
I then took pieces of the first box and put them where my poo comes out.
In the first order the mass of a runner is proportional to the square of his height (i.e. constant BMI). The force exerted by the runner is roughly proportional to his mass. Combining these two assumptions we get that the force exerted by a runner is approximately proportional to his height^2.
The force of the wind on the runner is roughly linear with the area of the projection of the runner's body onto his frontal/coronal plane (his "silhouette"). The total body surface area of a person can be estimated as constant*width^0.425 * height^0.725. Assuming that a runner's width is proportional to his height, we get that the total body surface is proportional to his height^1.15. The projection onto the frontal plane will grow at about the same order. That means that the force of the wind on the runner is approximately proportional to his height^1.15.
In summary, the force exerted by the runner grows with his height^2 whereas the counter-force from the wind only grows with his height^1.15. We can conclude that the taller the runner, the less impact the wind will have on his running.
distracted wrote:
In the first order the mass of a runner is proportional to the square of his height (i.e. constant BMI). The force exerted by the runner is roughly proportional to his mass. Combining these two assumptions we get that the force exerted by a runner is approximately proportional to his height^2.
The force of the wind on the runner is roughly linear with the area of the projection of the runner's body onto his frontal/coronal plane (his "silhouette"). The total body surface area of a person can be estimated as constant*width^0.425 * height^0.725. Assuming that a runner's width is proportional to his height, we get that the total body surface is proportional to his height^1.15. The projection onto the frontal plane will grow at about the same order. That means that the force of the wind on the runner is approximately proportional to his height^1.15.
In summary, the force exerted by the runner grows with his height^2 whereas the counter-force from the wind only grows with his height^1.15. We can conclude that the taller the runner, the less impact the wind will have on his running.
Garbage
have you ever driven a small car into the wind vs. a big one? or more apparently a sidewind? which one gets tossed more (discounting the tumbly SUVs)?
Conundrum wrote:
I don't know but it would seem that the smaller runner would have a tougher time.
Take two square boxes filled with water and put them in a good wind. One box is twice the size of the other. The bigger box of course has more surface area but which box will be moved easiest by the wind.
I think the smaller one.
Not quite an accurate comparison. The above model is affected by friction force as well. Which is a function of the weight of the box as well. So the heavier the box, the more drag, but also the more friction.
Size makes very little difference. The runner with the more "Horsepower" would be less effected. I'd say the runner with the higher strength/weight ratio would be less effected and would be able to stay more efficient.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
distracted wrote:In the first order the mass of a runner is proportional to the square of his height (i.e. constant BMI). The force exerted by the runner is roughly proportional to his mass. Combining these two assumptions we get that the force exerted by a runner is approximately proportional to his height^2.
The force of the wind on the runner is roughly linear with the area of the projection of the runner's body onto his frontal/coronal plane (his "silhouette"). The total body surface area of a person can be estimated as constant*width^0.425 * height^0.725. Assuming that a runner's width is proportional to his height, we get that the total body surface is proportional to his height^1.15. The projection onto the frontal plane will grow at about the same order. That means that the force of the wind on the runner is approximately proportional to his height^1.15.
In summary, the force exerted by the runner grows with his height^2 whereas the counter-force from the wind only grows with his height^1.15. We can conclude that the taller the runner, the less impact the wind will have on his running.
Garbage
No, not completely garbage (assuming all of the ratios in the assumptions are correct... I'm not taking the time to look them up). However, it doesn't take into account the weight of a runner. A tall stick of a runner is probably going to have a rough time versus short and stocky.
I think it is more about weight.
I personally am 5 foot 8 and I have a very tough time going head first into the wind compared to some of my friends who I compete against. Some are taller and some are the same height as me but they are all heavier than I am and seem to not suffer in the wind as much as I do. But also I seem to have much greater advantage with the wind at my back.
MatthewTheHahn wrote:
I think it is more about weight.
I personally am 5 foot 8 and I have a very tough time going head first into the wind compared to some of my friends who I compete against. Some are taller and some are the same height as me but they are all heavier than I am and seem to not suffer in the wind as much as I do. But also I seem to have much greater advantage with the wind at my back.
Ding Ding Ding we have a winner!
All you have to do is look towards the ground as you run on a windy day. Leaves, paper and red solo cups are blown around yet rocks and bricks and fat people stay put.
However... If wind was such a strong factor why did the guys run so fast at Boston'11 but the women not so much?