From the “physics answers the questions you really care about” file, some friends have treated the Olympic 100-meter dash as an astrophysics problem, and figured out how fast Usain Bolt could have run had he really tried:
Velocity dispersions in a cluster of stars: How fast could Usain Bolt have run?
Authors: H. K. Eriksen, J. R. Kristiansen, O. Langangen, I. K. WehusAbstract: Since that very memorable day at the Beijing 2008 Olympics, a big question on every sports commentator’s mind has been “What would the 100 meter dash world record have been, had Usain Bolt not celebrated at the end of his race?” Glen Mills, Bolt’s coach suggested at a recent press conference that the time could have been 9.52 seconds or better. We revisit this question by measuring Bolt’s position as a function of time using footage of the run, and then extrapolate into the last two seconds based on two different assumptions. First, we conservatively assume that Bolt could have maintained Richard Thompson’s, the runner-up, acceleration during the end of the race. Second, based on the race development prior to the celebration, we assume that he could also have kept an acceleration of 0.5 m/s^2 higher than Thompson. In these two cases, we find that the new world record would have been 9.61 +/- 0.04 and 9.55 +/- 0.04 seconds, respectively, where the uncertainties denote 95% statistical errors.
Complete with this interesting photo reconstruction:
awesome! I’ve been waiting for someone to to a thorough analysis like this ever since I watched the race. So 9.61(4) s as a conservative projection…wow…
Pingback: Terry » Archive » Awesome Science Abstracts: Astrophysics, meet Usain Bolt.
Great stuff.
Usain does dance a mean Nuh Linga though – not that Jacques Rogge was particularly enthused.
Pingback: Usain Bolt: la física detrás del record mundial « GuateCiencia
There is a detailed analysis here. You can see that Bolt reached his top speed around the 60m mark. That article estimates that celebrating only cost Bolt about 0.05 seconds.
My favorite part is in the conclusions.
William Parker wrote:
There seems to be a bit of a disagreement between that article and the paper on how far along Bolt was at 8 seconds.
The article you linked to has Bolt at 80 m after 7.96 s. That means he couldn’t possibly have been much further than the 80.5 m mark at 8 seconds.
In contrast, the paper on arXiv claims Bolt was at the 81.7 m mark at 8 seconds.
This makes a big difference. If the arXiv paper is right, Bolt “only” had to run the last 1.55 seconds with an average speed of 11.8 m/s to finish in 9.55 s. That’s possible. In contrast, if the article you cited is right, Bolt would have had to run the last 1.55 seconds with an average speed of nearly 12.6 m/s to finish in 9.55 s.
I have no idea which source has the more accurate data for how far along Bolt was at the 8 second mark, but the arXiv paper at least explains how they calculated their numbers.
Just wanted to note that the times quoted in Table 1 are not calibrated, so one has to add 0.09 seconds to all times except the first and last two. So according to our numbers, Bolt was at 81.7 m at 8.09 sec, while the other data set has him at 80 meter at 7.96 sec. Given that he runs ~ 12 m/s, he will have moved ~1.5 meter in 0.13 sec, which means that we’re quite consistent, at least to within the error bars.
The two analyses are in fact quite compatible, and the main difference lies in the assumptions used for extrapolation and interpretation. That being said, it seems somewhat unreasonable to us that the most “probable” number should be just 0.05 seconds better than what actually happened — that corresponds to ~40 cm, and that simply seems too little, given the development of the run between 60 and 80 meters. In fact, just his posture alone when crossing the finishing line is probably something like 20 cm. (He’s standing upright, or slightly backwards, but could have been leaning forwards, and it’s the chest that counts.)
But it’s important to note that these calculations have lots of uncertainties, and the assumptions about the acceleration makes noticable differences.
And, of course, the most important thing about this whole thing is that it’s fun — not that it’s millimeter precision science 😀
Pingback: ¿Cuál podría haber sido el récord de Usain Bolt en los 100m? « La Singularidad Desnuda
Hans, thanks for the clarification, and thanks for the fun paper! I think that for physicists to take time out from their usual research to answer popular questions is a wonderful way to get the public interested in physics.
If you don’t mind one more question . . . you said your analysis isn’t really inconsistent with that “Science of Sport” article linked above. But that article seems to be claiming that even if Bolt hadn’t slowed at all, he’d still finish no faster than 9.60.
In contrast, you seem to be saying he could do that well just by matching Richard Thompson’s acceleration, who clearly did slow towards the end of the race (as shown in your figure 2).
Can you see a reason for this apparent disagreement? (I realize this is all for fun — especially since Bolt is only 22 and has plenty of time to provide an empirical answer to how fast he can run 100 m. I’m just curious.)
Pingback: Usain Bolt's Record 100 Meter Dash and Star Clusters
I made a more careful comparison of the two data sets by plotting them in the same figure, and then it was clear that I was a little too quick in my assessment — there *are* indeed differences, although they are very small around 8 seconds. The main difference is that we have measured Bolt ~1-1.5 meters further ahead at ~5-6 seconds than the other data set, corresponding to a 2-3 sigma difference in that range. This is not too surprising, given that this is by far the most problematic range to measure, due to lack of robust parallel lines across the track.
Anyway, the implication of this is that we obtain a slightly higher maximum speed for Bolt than the other data set (12.5 m/s vs. 12.1 m/s) up to 8 seconds, and also a stronger deceleration after 8 seconds. And that’s where the “different” projections come from.
However, again it’s important to note that there are large uncertainties here — 0.04 seconds is a pretty substantial chunk relative to the small time differences we are talking about here. So when we are talking about differences here, we are in fact talking about two projections that agree to within 2 sigma, and that’s actually pretty good, given the crude data used for this analysis. Further, I don’t know how the other data were obtained, and what the corresponding uncertainties are; surely they are not zero. So all in all, I think the agreement is pretty good, and the small differences we do observe arise in precisely the most problematic region of the track.
That makes sense. Thanks for the answers. 🙂
Interesting stuff. I’m curious about the speed shown in the paper, with a slowdown for both runners around 7 seconds, followed by a speedup for both runners. In facts their curves parallel each other uncannily well, especially given that the number of strides taken by Bolt was fewer than for the other runners because of his height.
Is that effect (gradual decelerate, then accelerate again) real or an indication of some kind of systematic measurement error?
0.05s being equivalent to 40cm does put it into perspective!
No, this is very likely a systematic measuring error, because, as you note, the two velocities are similar in shape. The reason is quite simple — it’s much easier to get the relative distance between the two runners right, than their absolute position in the track. The main source of uncertainty here is connected to the definition of a line perpendicular to the track. Because of the camera perspective, its angle with respect to the track is relatively sharp angle in the early and mid part of the race, and this makes it harder to draw it accurately, unless you already have some known reference line (such as the start line).
This line is defined once for a given frame, and applies (with some very minor rotation) to both runners. That’s why the two velocities have a similar (but unphysical) shape — there is a common systematic in these measurements. But, of course, this is taken into account in the uncertainties, and is in fact the main source of uncertainty.
For some time, we were thinking about trying to estimate the absolute position of the camera, using the observed angles between the starting line and distances between two consecutive tracks. Given that information, it should be possible to draw perpendiculars at arbitrary positions throughout the track, which at least in theory should improve the accuracy. However, it turned out to be quite a mess getting everything right, so we gave it up. But that’s another fun follow-up project for somebody else 🙂
Question answered.
You’ve made a very good time estimation. Congratulations.
One year afterwards Bolt did 9.58 for 100m in Berlin (2009).