Everyone is going with the 4% but Nike did state that it could be as low as 2% in some runners and as high as 6%...
Everyone is going with the 4% but Nike did state that it could be as low as 2% in some runners and as high as 6%...
Hicham le Rouge wrote:
...as high as 6%...
DAM. 'Nuff said.
Nikolai wrote:
Overcoming air resistance, which hasn't been changed with the shoes.
Oh is that crazy tear drop shape just for decoration??
mileage_man wrote:
calculo wrote:
posters need to acquaint themselves with physics
4% more efficient means 4% better energy return
the conversion to speed improvement is using drag equation which is speed^3
-> speed increase is :
1.04 ^ ( 1/3 )
=
1.0132
for a 2"00'25, the conversion is :
2"02'00
First, isn't it true that drag is proportional to v^2 at running speeds, not v^3?
only in a vacuum with no air resistance
in the real world, air resistance is the deciding factor & drag is the relevant concept, which requires another "v" factor to be multiplied to "v^2" -> "v^3"
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DragPower.htmlSecond, drag isn't the only, or even primary, limiting factor in running performance, so this is not a valid conversion technique.
no
if you understand physics, drag is the limiting factor of any motion thru a fluid
it is the factor which determines maximum constant speed
As
YEAH BUDDY wrote:
thefastestone wrote:That is all correct.
But 4% more than 100, is not the same as a reduction of 4% equaling 100. Which is what your original thesis posited.
I think my original thesis was that 4% slower than 2:00:25 is 2:05:13. In fact, I'm sure of it.
As evidence for your conclusion (thesis) that 2:00:25 is the 4 percent reduced speed, presumably.
But yes, if that was not your thesis, then this was just an irrelevant musing with no relation to the actual Nike Sub 2. Forgive me for presuming what you actually did mean.
thefastestone wrote:
As
YEAH BUDDY wrote:I think my original thesis was that 4% slower than 2:00:25 is 2:05:13. In fact, I'm sure of it.
As evidence for your conclusion (thesis) that 2:00:25 is the 4 percent reduced speed, presumably.
But yes, if that was not your thesis, then this was just an irrelevant musing with no relation to the actual Nike Sub 2. Forgive me for presuming what you actually did mean.
It's okay, next time just try to read what's actually written
That's rubbish if you think his effort was equivalent to a 2:05 without the shoes. Desisa and Tadese did nothing spectacular. I don't think the shoes really made any difference. Kipchoge is just the GOAT.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Rest in Peace Adrian Lehmann - 2:11 Swiss marathoner. Dies of heart attack.