Elitetrack: Sport Training & Conditioning

Read the Article here, and discuss it below.

Not gonna lie, I find this confusing.  To be honest I only skimmed through the article, but it seems to contradict itself.  It mentions that a sprinter runs faster on the straight than he would on the curve, but later concludes that fast to slow is the best way to set up a relay.  If the curve does slow you down, and we know it does, then wouldn’t you want the 3rd and 1st legs to be shorter (pass the stick sooner in the exchange zone)?  If so wouldn’t you put your fastest runners in the legs you are trying to make longer (the 2nd and 4th legs)?

I recently read “A mathematical analysis of the 4x100 meter relay” by Smith and Relaford.  The article is a bit confusing as it seems to contradict itself. 

It mentions curves being slower than straights, and says one of the few things a coach can control is the distance the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th runners run in the exchange zone.

This would lead me to believe that the fastest way to set up a 4x1 relay is to have you fastest runner run second.  This way you can have him take the stick early in the first zone and pass the stick late in the second zone taking advantage of the straight and minimizing the drag created by the curves.  The second fastest runner in my mind should then run anchor, taking the stick early in the zone, so that your two fastest runners are running the longest distance.  Past that I would just put the runner with the best start first.

The article however stated that the optimal way to set up a relay would be fast to slow.  I don’t understand the reasoning.  Did I misread the article or something?  How do you guys generally set up your relays?

Do you have a copy of the article? Also just because these people are the fastest on the team that doesnt mean that they have the best speed endurance

premium - 06 June 2008 09:51 PM

Do you have a copy of the article? Also just because these people are the fastest on the team that doesnt mean that they have the best speed endurance

The article is in ET’s article database. See above for the link to the article. I merged two threads since the new one was discussing the article and there was a pre-existing thread about it.

premium - 06 June 2008 09:51 PM

Also just because these people are the fastest on the team that doesnt mean that they have the best speed endurance

No offense to the authors, but while the study may have theoretical interest, I don’t think it has any significant practical value.  They show that up to .06 can be gained by the theoretical best running order.  But that is based on every runner being identical in terms of their relative abilities on the straights rather than the curves, on their comfort using their right versus left hands, and on their acceleration rate in relation to their max speed.  In the real world, these things are not identical, coaching decisions need to take this into account, and IMO these decisions will amount to a lot more than .06.  As coaches we all deal with the reality of our runners and their idiosyncracies.  Here’s one for you: I have a runner who has double vision.  She has to run last because she cannot consistently find a teammate’s hand for an exchange!