Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 40 to 44 of 44
  1. #40
    BamaNation All-American PacadermaTideUs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Navarre, FL
    Posts
    2,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    My Mood
    Fine on TideFans.com

    Re: University of Hawaii's 350 lb Running Back - Legit (not a joke)

    Quote Originally Posted by day-day View Post
    But the speed you use is an average based on how long it takes the player to cover 40 yards starting with a velocity of zero. It does not take into consideration the top end velocity or the velocity at any given point in which a defensive player may be making contact.
    True. But Bigun's alleged 4.9 (and others' suggested slower 6.0) 40 time was the measure that was being discussed when TexasBama suggested that when considering "force", it's better to be fast than big. I was merely pointing out that that's not necessarily true.

    Fast and small may or may not produce a larger impact force than slow and big. It depends on the relative differences in mass and speed between test subjects. If the difference in mass is relatively greater than the difference in speed, it's better to be big than fast. If the difference in mass is relatively smaller than the difference in speed, it's better to be fast than big.

    What's absolutely incontrovertible is that 230 lb (104.3 kg) TR moving at an assumed impact velocity of 8.3 m/s (based on 4.4 40 speed) produces 3,592.6 joules of energy, while 350 lb (158.8 kg) DF moving at an assumed impact velocity of 7.5 m/s (based on a 4.9 40 speed) produces 4,466.3 joules of energy. In fact, if DF's 40 time is as slow as 5.3, his energy output still exceeds TR's. He has to slip to 5.4 before he and TR produce roughly equal output. Am I arguing that DF's a better back? Absolutely not. He's not even on the same playing field as TR. But we're not talking about who's the better back. We're talking about what's better for producing impact force - size or speed. No matter what, it's always better to be big and fast.

    I agree that what is important in calculating force is the speed at actual impact, not an average speed over 40yds, which as you say, will range from zero when the ball is snapped to some velocity greater than the average. Do you have any suggestions for a better approximation for impact velocity? Without a radar gun pointed at a target on impact, I'm not sure there is one.

    It could be legitimately argued that because of TR's lower mass, his acceleration (and therefore likely initial impact velocity) is much greater than DF's, narrowing or even overcoming the gap in energy production.

  2. Advertisement
  3. #41
    BamaNation All-American
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
    Posts
    2,511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: University of Hawaii's 350 lb Running Back - Legit (not a joke)

    Quote Originally Posted by PacadermaTideUs View Post
    ... Do you have any suggestions for a better approximation for impact velocity? Without a radar gun pointed at a target on impact, I'm not sure there is one.

    It could be legitimately argued that because of TR's lower mass, his acceleration (and therefore likely initial impact velocity) is much greater than DF's, narrowing or even overcoming the gap in energy production.
    No, I don't know enough about how fast folks are going at various distances in their runs. It is possilbe that once two backs reach a "full head of steam" that they are going the same speed even though their 40-times are way different. One back may have a significant advantage at the line of scrimmage after only a few steps. Your posts also give insight on how much energy the players must exert to move their bodies at these rates.

  4. #42
    BamaNation Hall of Fame JPT4Bama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hoover, AL
    Posts
    5,753
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: University of Hawaii's 350 lb Running Back - Legit (not a joke)

    Quote Originally Posted by PacadermaTideUs View Post
    True. But Bigun's alleged 4.9 (and others' suggested slower 6.0) 40 time was the measure that was being discussed when TexasBama suggested that when considering "force", it's better to be fast than big. I was merely pointing out that that's not necessarily true.

    Fast and small may or may not produce a larger impact force than slow and big. It depends on the relative differences in mass and speed between test subjects. If the difference in mass is relatively greater than the difference in speed, it's better to be big than fast. If the difference in mass is relatively smaller than the difference in speed, it's better to be fast than big.

    What's absolutely incontrovertible is that 230 lb (104.3 kg) TR moving at an assumed impact velocity of 8.3 m/s (based on 4.4 40 speed) produces 3,592.6 joules of energy, while 350 lb (158.8 kg) DF moving at an assumed impact velocity of 7.5 m/s (based on a 4.9 40 speed) produces 4,466.3 joules of energy. In fact, if DF's 40 time is as slow as 5.3, his energy output still exceeds TR's. He has to slip to 5.4 before he and TR produce roughly equal output. Am I arguing that DF's a better back? Absolutely not. He's not even on the same playing field as TR. But we're not talking about who's the better back. We're talking about what's better for producing impact force - size or speed. No matter what, it's always better to be big and fast.

    I agree that what is important in calculating force is the speed at actual impact, not an average speed over 40yds, which as you say, will range from zero when the ball is snapped to some velocity greater than the average. Do you have any suggestions for a better approximation for impact velocity? Without a radar gun pointed at a target on impact, I'm not sure there is one.

    It could be legitimately argued that because of TR's lower mass, his acceleration (and therefore likely initial impact velocity) is much greater than DF's, narrowing or even overcoming the gap in energy production.
    Yes, yes but without the angle of the dangle how can we possibly know the heat of the meat?
    Much less speed of the need??
    Ask me about my vow of silence.

  5. #43
    BamaNation All-American
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,106
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: University of Hawaii's 350 lb Running Back - Legit (not a joke)

    The obvious answer here is a pulling guard... could you imagine a 350lb blocker who had the speed to stay downfield with a RB?
    I am a part of The Process.

  6. #44
    BamaNation All-SEC Just Win's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Alabaster, AL, USA
    Posts
    1,515
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: University of Hawaii's 350 lb Running Back - Legit (not a joke)

    im not impressed by the vid. just looks like a big fat kid running over small players. no real speed.
    JUST WIN
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Tebow cried, Cam lied, Trees died, and LSU tried..........ROLL TIDE!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
'Gear UP! Get your University of Alabama Crimson Tide National Championship & Football Dynasty Gear!