100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph?
Username
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Welcome to SwedeSpeed
    You're currently browsing Swedespeed as a guest. Please sign up or sign in and take part in the conversation with other Volvo owners and enthusiasts. With more 2 million posts our community is one of the most active groups of Volvo owners in the world. Take a moment to sign up and enjoy all of the features our forums have to offer.
    Results 1 to 33 of 33
    1. #1
      Global Moderator
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,116

      100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph?

      "Insane" Bolt did it again - new world record in Berlin today...

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08....html

      Back in '55, in the dark and barefoot, I easily beat this including clearing two 5' fences when Brenda's dad surprised Ricky and me outside her bedroom window.

      George Dill


    2. #2

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gdill2)

      Averaged to 23.35 MPH.

      Wow.


    3. #3
      Member gascos80's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Location
      Encino, CA
      Posts
      7,197

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (HPTJoe)

      Actually - 23.49 mhp

      (100/9.58) x 3600 / 1600 = 23.49.

      3600 - to convert seconds into hours and 1600 - to convert metres into miles.

      2008 S80 3.2; 2005 XC90 V8 AWD; 2003 S60 2.4T

    4. #4

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gascos80)

      Quote, originally posted by gascos80 »
      Actually - 23.49 mhp

      (100/9.58) x 3600 / 1600 = 23.49.

      3600 - to convert seconds into hours and 1600 - to convert metres into miles.

      Erm... no. Actually Joe was correct.

      (100/9.58) x 3600/1609.344 = 23.35.

      UKMatt


    5. #5
      Member gascos80's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Location
      Encino, CA
      Posts
      7,197

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (ukmatt)

      I stand corrected,
      Darn hundredth...

      1600 vs. 1609.344 - a side effect of a life long habit to convert imperial measures to metric.

      2008 S80 3.2; 2005 XC90 V8 AWD; 2003 S60 2.4T

    6. #6

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gascos80)

      Quote, originally posted by gascos80 »
      Actually - 23.49 mhp

      (100/9.58) x 3600 / 1600 = 23.49.

      3600 - to convert seconds into hours and 1600 - to convert metres into miles.

      Wrong. You lose.


    7. #7

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gascos80)

      Quote, originally posted by gascos80 »
      I stand corrected,
      Darn hundredth...

      1600 vs. 1609.344 - a side effect of a life long habit to convert imperial measures to metric.

      That's a weird one - 1.6:1 is so close to being right everyone assumes it's exact... not so if you're going to 2 decimal places

      UKMatt


    8. #8
      Member gascos80's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Location
      Encino, CA
      Posts
      7,197

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (ukmatt)

      Quote, originally posted by ukmatt »

      That's a weird one - 1.6:1 is so close to being right everyone assumes it's exact... not so if you're going to 2 decimal places

      UKMatt

      Yep, darn hundredth...who's remembered them...

      2008 S80 3.2; 2005 XC90 V8 AWD; 2003 S60 2.4T

    9. #9
      Member gascos80's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Location
      Encino, CA
      Posts
      7,197

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (HPTJoe)

      Quote, originally posted by HPTJoe »

      Wrong. You lose.

      I concede

      2008 S80 3.2; 2005 XC90 V8 AWD; 2003 S60 2.4T

    10. #10
      Global Moderator
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,116

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gascos80)

      From http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm
      ------------------------------------------
      1 meter = 3.280839895 feet
      ------------------------------------------

      Do the math but use an online calculator that will carry ten places after the . .

      George Dill

      ps: the piston does NOT stop at TDC.


    11. #11
      Global Moderator
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,116

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gdill2)

      100 mile/hour second = 160.934 4 kilometer/hour second

      George Dill


    12. #12

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gdill2)

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »
      From http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm
      ------------------------------------------
      1 meter = 3.280839895 feet
      ------------------------------------------

      Do the math but use an online calculator that will carry ten places after the . .

      Since 1959, one foot has been defined as being given exactly by 1 ft = 0.3048 m. So, if you want an exact conversion, just divide the number of meters by 0.3048, and then round to however many significant digits you want. You'll virtually always get the same result as with using your number, but this is much easier to remember.

      The conversion 1 mile = 1.609344 km follows from this. This is also an exact conversion.


      Modified by Munin at 4:53 PM 8-16-2009


    13. #13
      Global Moderator GrecianVolvo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2001
      Location
      Southern California
      Posts
      30,105

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gdill2)

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »
      "Insane" Bolt did it again - new world record in Berlin today...

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08....html

      Back in '55, in the dark and barefoot, I easily beat this including clearing two 5' fences when Brenda's dad surprised Ricky and me outside her bedroom window.

      George Dill

      Long live the steroid and human drug science...

      2001 Volvo V70 T5 M SR, Classic Red/Graphite Lthr, TME Stage II ECU, 3" Downpipe w/ Cat-back exhaust from MTE, Volvo Roadholding & Lowering Kit w/ Nivomats, 17" PEGASUS, Rear Spoiler, Dolby Surround Sound
      2013 Volvo C70, Black/off-Black Sovereign Leather[/b], Climate package/Premier Plus package/Dynamic package w/ 18" DRACO wheels

    14. #14
      Member ljjones's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Location
      Dandridge, TN
      Posts
      2,870

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gdill2)

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »
      ...ps: the piston does NOT stop at TDC.

      But it does attain zero velocity at TDC -- Just as it attains a maximum speed near 90 degrees crank/rod angle. Unfortunately, it spends zero time at any precise velocity...

      So it stops, but for how long? It also goes maximum fast, but for how long? The answer in each case is zero time. But just because precisely zero time is spent in each state, that doesn't mean the state didn't exist.

      In fact the probability that each state exists is 100% if you don't care exactly where (in crank angle) it happened. See Heisenberg's Uncertainty...



    15. #15
      Global Moderator
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,116

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (ljjones)

      Quote, originally posted by ljjones »
      So it stops, but for how long?

      If it stopped completely for any time period at all the engine would self-destruct.

      George Dill


    16. #16

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gdill2)

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »

      If it stopped completely for any time period at all the engine would self-destruct.

      George Dill

      But it does, and the engine doesn't self-destruct. The laws of physics dictate that a change of direction in the form of a piston moving up and down requires the piston to stop at one point in order for that direction to change.

      It does stop completely and it is for a period of time. Fractions of a millisecond is still a period of time, right?


    17. #17

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (HPTJoe)

      Quote, originally posted by HPTJoe »
      But it does, and the engine doesn't self-destruct. The laws of physics dictate that a change of direction in the form of a piston moving up and down requires the piston to stop at one point in order for that direction to change.

      It does stop completely and it is for a period of time. Fractions of a millisecond is still a period of time, right?

      No, physics dictates that it does reach a speed of zero, and stays at that state for a period of zero time.


    18. #18
      This guy is destroying the rest of world by too much. I have a hard time believing this is on the level.

    19. #19

      Re: (TWBarrett)

      Quote, originally posted by TWBarrett »
      This guy is destroying the rest of world by too much. I have a hard time believing this is on the level.

      For the last time, I am not taking any brain enhancing drugs!!!

      Oh, wait, this is not about me?


    20. #20
      Global Moderator
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,116

      Re: (TWBarrett)

      Quote, originally posted by TWBarrett »
      This guy is destroying the rest of world by too much. I have a hard time believing this is on the level.

      Could be as the post-race drug tests results are not out yet.

      Speaking of fast - Bolt's feet were stationary in the blocks and again each time a shoe touched briefly on the track. He was going zero mph at the start and averaged 23+mph over 100 meters so he was running faster than that (--.---mph?) during parts of the race.

      Imagine yourself driving in a residential area at the speed limit and some guy passing you while shooting arrows in the sky - on foot!

      George Dill


    21. #21

      Re: (gdill2)

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »
      Speaking of fast - Bolt's feet were stationary in the blocks and again each time a shoe touched briefly on the track.

      Surely in the beginning, but why would he be stationary when the shoe touches after that? He's moving his legs... Or am I misunderstanding you?

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »
      He was going zero mph at the start and averaged 23+mph over 100 meters so he was running faster than that (--.---mph?) during parts of the race.

      How long does it take for a 100m runner to accelerate to "cruise speed"? If you had that number, you could get a good approximation of what the maximum speed is.

      Edit: Found a paper (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0007/0007042v1.pdf) that estimates top speed at 12 m/s or 27 mph. Max speed occurs 5 to 7 seconds into race.


      Modified by Munin at 8:22 AM 8-17-2009


    22. #22
      Member gascos80's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Location
      Encino, CA
      Posts
      7,197

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (Munin)

      Quote, originally posted by Munin »

      No, physics dictates that it does reach a speed of zero, and stays at that state for a period of zero time.

      In abstract world of absolutely rigid bodies and links, that would be a true statement.

      In a real world of deformable bodies and links, non-round holes and pins, with the gaps and tolerances, the piston is stationary at the pinnacle for some period of time, greater than zero, allowing for the gaps in the connection to be crossed and deformations in the pin and piston body to reach the level that is big enough to create a sufficient down force.

      2008 S80 3.2; 2005 XC90 V8 AWD; 2003 S60 2.4T

    23. #23
      Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      Location
      Sarsfield, ON
      Posts
      3,115

      Re: (gdill2)

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »
      ... He was going zero mph at the start and averaged 23+mph over 100 meters so he was running faster than that (--.---mph?) during parts of the race. ... George Dill

      Maybe we could put him on a dyno ... we'd get speed plus horsepower and torque.

      '88 244 auto (parts car), '89 244 5 spd. (daily driver), '92 245 5 spd. (my car) '80 Holiday Rambler/Ford E350 (tow vehicle and track crash pad), '95 GMC K2500 (local hauler/back-up tow vehicle), '83 Mazda RX7 (race car when I have the funds), '99 Miska 20' car hauler.

      The man's prayer: "I'm a man, but I can change, ... if I have to, ... I guess."

    24. #24

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gascos80)

      Quote, originally posted by gascos80 »
      In a real world of deformable bodies and links, non-round holes and pins, with the gaps and tolerances, the piston is stationary at the pinnacle for some period of time, greater than zero, allowing for the gaps in the connection to be crossed and deformations in the pin and piston body to reach the level that is big enough to create a sufficient down force.

      That's not physics, that's engineering.

      Do you say this because you're familiar with the problem? I'm not, but now you're making me curious. Is zero the only speed the piston stays at for a finite time period?


    25. #25
      Member gascos80's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Location
      Encino, CA
      Posts
      7,197

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (Munin)

      Quote, originally posted by Munin »

      That's not physics, that's engineering.

      Do you say this because you're familiar with the problem? I'm not, but now you're making me curious. Is zero the only speed the piston stays at for a finite time period?

      Engineering is based on laws of physics too. The laws are the same, the objects are different - they are not infinitely rigid and thus deform, and they are not of the ideal shapes. Thus the processes are more complex and cannot be described by the basic Newton's mechanics.

      I am not really familiar with the automotive engines, but was involved in the design of other cyclical "rod-n-piston" mechanisms. It is foreseeable to have a period of constant speed in the middle of the stroke, based on the geometry of your cam- or crankshaft.

      The main purpose of this basic device is to convert rotational movement of motor/engine output shaft into linear motion of working tool/object.

      2008 S80 3.2; 2005 XC90 V8 AWD; 2003 S60 2.4T

    26. #26

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (gascos80)

      Quote, originally posted by gascos80 »
      Engineering is based on laws of physics too.

      I understand that - my first degree was in mechanical & aerospace engineering. It was a joke.


    27. #27

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (GrecianVolvo)

      Quote, originally posted by GrecianVolvo »

      Long live the steroid and human drug science...

      runners don't take drugs

      LOL


    28. #28
      Never, ever has someones name been more appropriate. He is absolutely amazing. Tyson Gay who is insanely, blindingly fast was not even close to him ( by track and field standards)

      Even when he jogging cooling down if you watch the video you see photographers running full tilt just trying to keep up with Bolt's cool down jogging pace.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b99Xg8KYXM


    29. #29
      Member gascos80's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Location
      Encino, CA
      Posts
      7,197

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (Munin)

      Quote, originally posted by Munin »

      I understand that - my first degree was in mechanical & aerospace engineering. It was a joke.

      Got it But wanted to answer the question.

      I forgot to mention that the constant speed in the middle of the long stroke is rather desirable in many applications and is one of the design goals.

      2008 S80 3.2; 2005 XC90 V8 AWD; 2003 S60 2.4T

    30. #30

      Re: 100 meters in 9.58 seconds = --.--- mph? (Munin)

      Quote, originally posted by Munin »

      Is zero the only speed the piston stays at for a finite time period?

      Dammit, now I'm stuck contemplating this. Questions like this are like bad songs to others, they get stuck in my nugget.

      My gut feeling is that it's zero and max speed where the piston stays for a time greater than zero. Zero speed because of the issues gasco talks about (plus flex of other parts not mentioned such as crankshaft and connector, and compression of oil in the bearings and gaps). Max speed because for some length of time near the 90 and 270 points, the accel/decel forces net zero for the same reasons. I can wrap my skull around the basic work for this in a one-cylinder motor... throwing the idea around for a multi-cylinder will require lots more paper and pencil work than I have time for. But I think it would be the same, perhaps displaced slightly further from 90/270 due to the staggered acceleration/deceleration of the motor caused by the other pistons.


    31. #31
      Member Bender's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2006
      Location
      Doylestown, PA
      Posts
      8,948
      I heard a story a few years ago on NPR of a high school physics teacher using this to get out of ticket.

      This teacher ran a stop sign in a small town and was pulled over.
      He claimed he had "paused" the police officer disagreed.
      He stated he was a physics teacher and asked the police officer if he could demonstrate something.
      He threw a tennis ball in the air, caught it on the way down, and asked the police officer if it had stopped.
      Within a few minutes there were four more police officers standing around debating if the ball had stopped!

      Coming Soon: 1993 240 Classic
      Current: 2010 VW GTI
      Gone and Missed: 2002 S60 T5 Manual
      Gone and Not Missed: 2001 S60 2.4t Auto

    32. #32
      Global Moderator
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Temple, Texas, USA
      Posts
      19,116

      Re: (Bender)

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Originally posted by gdill2...

      "Speaking of fast - Bolt's feet were stationary in the blocks and again each time a shoe touched briefly on the track."

      Munin: Surely in the beginning, but why would he be stationary when the shoe touches after that? He's moving his legs... Or am I misunderstanding you?
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      As each foot touches the ground that foot is stationary during the time it is in contact with the ground.

      George Dill


    33. #33

      Re: (gdill2)

      Quote, originally posted by gdill2 »
      As each foot touches the ground that foot is stationary during the time it is in contact with the ground.

      But his center of mass is moving forward. The fact that his feet touch the ground doesn't support your argument that his max speed must be higher than his average speed. But the argument that he starts at zero speed, does.

      The paper I cited has speed profiles for the entire 100 m under varying conditions.