nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Will the fastest man in the world ever run 100m in 1 second?

Allyall

Assuming that records are just going to keep getting broken, Will the fastest man in the world be 9 foot tall at some stage, and will it ever be ran in 1 second?

When i was 7, i knew a guy who said he could run 10 miles per hour, he also told me he was able to run from my gaff, to the village (roughly, just less than a mile) in 20 seconds. Unfortunately i don't know him anymore, or where he lives, or anything about him. But will that be the norm for kids of the future?

Will we need fast cars?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KyussBishop

If someone could run that fast, all that would be left of them if they tripped up, would be a long red splat mark on the ground.

Pherekydes

dlofnep wrote: »

Humans aren't getting faster. If anything, we're getting slower on average.

No one's interested in the average. We're only interested in the Usain Bolts of the future. The world record will continue to improve, albeit at an ever-decreasing rate.

I await a time when a man, or woman, will run 100m faster than 0 seconds.

suicide_circus

I can do the 100 in 1 second.

Falling.

LuckyLloyd

No. Sub 9 seconds is maybe a more interesting question. Diet, nutrition, training and performance enhancing drugs will always evolve and improve but it took approxamitely a century to go from a sub 10.6 to a sub 9.6 of which just under 40 years was concerned with the movement from 9.95 to 9.74.

There is a decent chance that Bolt's 9.58 will remain unbeaten for a number of decades.

sebastianlieken

Allyall wrote: »

When i was 7, i knew a guy who said he could run 10 miles per hour, he also told me he was able to run from my gaff, to the village (roughly, just less than a mile) in 20 seconds. Unfortunately i don't know him anymore, or where he lives, or anything about him. But will that be the norm for kids of the future?

So he could run at 10mph in general, but from your gaff to the village he could clock in at almost 180mph.

Impressive.

twinytwo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No. Sub 9 seconds is maybe a more interesting question. Diet, nutrition, training and performance enhancing drugs will always evolve and improve but it took approxamitely a century to go from a sub 10.6 to a sub 9.6 of which under 40 years was concerned with the movement from 9.95 to 9.74.

There is a decent chance that Bolt's 9.58 will remain unbeaten for a number of decades.

I believe its been proven by people smarter than me that the fastest any human will ever be able to run (regardless of size, gentetics etc) is about 9.2 seconds for the 100m. Physics wont allow us run faster than that, even if we want to.

--Kaiser--

suicide_circus wrote: »

I can do the 100 in 1 second.

Falling.

No you can't. The terminal velocity of a falling human is around 120 miles per hours which translates into little more than 50 metres per second

OldGoat

retalivity wrote: »

physics says no.

COYVB wrote: »

Physics actually says yes on this one

Physics is now in a huff and won't talk to anyone except Biology.

LuckyLloyd

twinytwo wrote: »

I believe its been proven by people smarter than me that the fastest any human will ever be able to run (regardless of size, gentetics etc) is about 9.2 seconds for the 100m. Physics wont allow us run faster than that, even if we want to.

Oh, that's interesting! Didn't know that. Any links?

twinytwo

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

No you can't. The terminal velocity of a falling human is around 120 miles per hours which translates into little more than 50 metres per second

Not unless your Felix Baumgartner.... 843.6mph:D

VinLieger

@ all the people laughing saying no, answer me where is the limit then? Obviously theres a very real wall in your opinion to how fast a human being can run without drug/genetic/robotic modification, where do you believe it is?

Wibbs

Biomechanically there's gonna be a limit. Now it's possible with genetic jiggery pokery that this limit may be broken, but even then there's gonna be a limit for the human frame that still looks human.

Wibbs

I seem to recall research that reckoned one of our ancestors Homo Erectus might have been able to run faster than us based on their biomechanics. Dunno if that was over 100 metres though. They were shorter, lightly enough though very wiry in build, with narrower hips, so maybe if you had a modern human "freak of nature" they might beat the current record?

The other aspect is that there are likely many thousands of "Usain Bolts" who are naturally built to be amazing sprinters and other athletes, but who just never had any interest in training and competing. I do recall reading of one top athlete whose name escapes, who had a very high V02 max(ability to convert O2 into energy very basically) and his brother when tested actually had a slightly higher one, even though he was mr ordinary bloke who liked pizza and watchin telly.

VinLieger

Wibbs wrote: »

Biomechanically there's gonna be a limit. Now it's possible with genetic jiggery pokery that this limit may be broken, but even then there's gonna be a limit for the human frame that still looks human.

I completely agree and i was having this conversation A LOT during the olympics and we never were really able to nail a consensus down about where that limit might be. Im talking absolutely no modifications whatsoever, although i suppose you have to be allowed consider selective breeding as its is technically natural and very possible to have in the olympics in the future

Tiddlypeeps

VinLieger wrote: »

@ all the people laughing saying no, answer me where is the limit then? Obviously theres a very real wall in your opinion to how fast a human being can run without drug/genetic/robotic modification, where do you believe it is?

The absolute hard limit would be the person in questions terminal velocity. No matter what their acceleration they absolutely cannot travel faster than that. For the current human shape the average is just shy of 60 meters per second. So assuming our technology allows some man genetic or mechanical modifications that allow humans to accelerate to 60 m/s almost instantly the absolute fastest they could run the 100m is 1.66 seconds. Being able to accelerate that quickly is a pretty big assumption and is likely impossible but even still it makes it impossible to do the 100m in 1 second for somebody with a regular humanoid body.

For the person that said no machine could ever go that fast, Concord broke the sound barrier which is just under 350 m/s. I think the last landspeed record set broke the sound barrier too.

[Deleted User]

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

The absolute hard limit would be the person in questions terminal velocity. No matter what their acceleration they absolutely cannot travel faster than that.

That's not what terminal velocity means. It has no bearing on how fast a man can run.

Mountjoy Mugger

I don't know who's worse - the OP or all those answering him/her.

Just Like Heaven

I believe in you OP.

Auldloon

If the man was actually a bullet and he lived in a gun and the gun was in the Olympics 100 metres and everyone was laughing at the gun saying you're a gun you don't even have legs or feet or tackies and then bang and he won.

sbsquarepants

SV wrote: »

We don't need them now.
but no, the 100metres will never be done in 1 second by a human being.

Actually..I don't think it'll ever be done by anything, man or machine, from a stand start.

Never, except in some bizarre genetically enhanced far off future. The human body just isn't strong enough to survive acceleration like that, your muscles would pull away from your bones under the forces required.

As for done by anything, i don't see why not. Surely bullets do more than that from a standing start?

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

The absolute hard limit would be the person in questions terminal velocity. No matter what their acceleration they absolutely cannot travel faster than that. For the current human shape the average is just shy of 60 meters per second. So assuming our technology allows some man genetic or mechanical modifications that allow humans to accelerate to 60 m/s almost instantly the absolute fastest they could run the 100m is 1.66 seconds. Being able to accelerate that quickly is a pretty big assumption and is likely impossible but even still it makes it impossible to do the 100m in 1 second for somebody with a regular humanoid body.

For the person that said no machine could ever go that fast, Concord broke the sound barrier which is just under 350 m/s. I think the last landspeed record set broke the sound barrier too.

Terminal velocity only applies to a body falling under the force of gravity. objects can and do move at many multiples of their terminal velocity all the time.

seamus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Never, except in some bizarre genetically enhanced far off future. The human body just isn't strong enough to survive acceleration like that, your muscles would pull away from your bones under the forces required.

Actually I don't think so.

In order to actually clear the 100m in one second from a standing start, you need to accelerate above 100m per second. That's because after 0.5 seconds you will only be doing 50m/s and will only have covered about 20m. So if we assume that the person is actually doing 200m/s when they cross the finish line, then the acceleration they experience for that 1 second is 20g.

Which is relatively small in terms of catastrophic forces. Forces in a car crash are often 2 or 3 times that and people walk away from it. So 20g is certainly tolerable for 1 second and almost certainly survivable without any permanent injury - that is, if you're strapped into a rocket.

But for a runner, there might be some "odd" effects. Since the acceleration is being provided purely by the lower half of your body, the upper half of your body would be "dragged" along with it. And at those forces your muscles would be unable to keep you upright, so your upper body would whip backwards, if not actually breaking your spinal column, then causing some pretty devastating whip lash and permanent muscular injures. Likewise for your shoulders as your arms whip back.

--Kaiser--

Wibbs wrote: »

I seem to recall research that reckoned one of our ancestors Homo Erectus might have been able to run faster than us based on their biomechanics. Dunno if that was over 100 metres though. They were shorter, lightly enough though very wiry in build, with narrower hips, so maybe if you had a modern human "freak of nature" they might beat the current record?

This is the quote. This was 20,000 years ago so they were Homo Sapiens and anatomically similar to modern humans. Neanderthals were probably even faster

By analysing sets of footprints preserved in a fossilised claypan lake bed, Mr McAllister concluded that Australian aboriginals 20,000 years ago reached speeds of 23mph on soft, muddy ground.

Bolt, by comparison, reached a top speed of 26mph at last year's Beijing Olympics during his then world 100 metres record of 9.69 seconds.

Mr McAllister claims that with modern training, spiked shoes and rubberised tracks, aboriginal hunters might have reached speeds of 28mph - faster than Bolt's record-breaking 100m performance at the World Championships in Berlin this summer.

Wibbs

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

This is the quote. This was 20,000 years ago so they were Homo Sapiens and anatomically similar to modern humans.

I'd read about that one alright. Even modern native Aussies can have the narrow hipped build for that sort of thing.

Neanderthals were probably even faster

No in their case they would have been slower. Maybe quicker over say 10 metres compared to moderns, but they were very bulky and very short legged with very wide hips. Not built for speed at all, more for close in explosive strength. You'd outrun a Neandertal pretty easily if he didn't get you in the first couple of metres.

OldGoat

seamus wrote: »

But for a runner, there might be some "odd" effects. Since the acceleration is being provided purely by the lower half of your body, the upper half of your body would be "dragged" along with it. And at those forces your muscles would be unable to keep you upright, so your upper body would whip backwards, if not actually breaking your spinal column, then causing some pretty devastating whip lash and permanent muscular injures. Likewise for your shoulders as your arms whip back.

Diagrams or GTFO

The Davestator

He won't be white anyway if he does do it

seamus

OldGoat wrote: »

Diagrams or GTFO

QWOP

furiousox

You should start to "come down" in the next hour or two OP.
Make sure you're in a safe familiar environment and maybe have some friends with you to reassure you that everything is ok.

Tiddlypeeps

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what terminal velocity means. It has no bearing on how fast a man can run.

Hmm, you are right, for some reason the terminology only refers to something falling under gravity but I can't see why.

The principal should be the same:

Th terminal velocity an object is equal to sqrt(2mg/pAC)

Where mg is weight, p is density of the fluid, A is area and C is the drag coefficient.

Gravity is just acceleration and doesn't factor into the formula (except for calculating weight, but that's the same weither falling or running), it shouldn't matter how long it takes you to reach that speed the effects of the fluid the object is passing through should be the same regardless. Am I missing something?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

objects can and do move at many multiples of their terminal velocity all the time.

This doesn't make sense to me. Can you show me an example or explain how it works?

Allyall

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

I don't know who's worse - the OP or all those answering him/her.

Or those that got extremely angy at such a question.. :pac:

furiousox wrote: »

You should start to "come down" in the next hour or two OP.
Make sure you're in a safe familiar environment and maybe have some friends with you to reassure you that everything is ok.

Down with a bang..
Was remembering this guy that used to live near us when i was a kid, and he used to tell us all sorts of crap. His brother had the biggest car in Ireland, his Grandmother smoked 300 a day or something, and he could run a mile in 20 seconds..

Got me genuinely thinking (As i was a bit fecked), how fast will it eventually be possible for a man/woman to run, and could it be done in 1 second..

How fast will man eventually run? Will he ever run the 100 meters in five seconds flat?
"Not impossible," says one of the world's best known authorities on physiology and biomechanics. Professor Peter Weyand, of Southern Methodist University, known for his expertise in terrestrial locomotion and human and animal performance. Weyand said that humans would soon have the ''ability to modify and greatly enhance muscle fibre strength.'' This is would actually reduce the difference between the muscle properties of humans and the world's fastest animal, the cheetah, to almost zero.

Usain Bolt has now brought up the question — will man get faster and faster? And based on what Weyand says, will he one day outrun the cheetah?

"Probably not," said Weyand. "The same laws of physics apply to all runners. However, biologically speaking, speed is conferred by an ability of the limbs to hit the ground forcefully in relation to the body's weight, an attribute conferred largely by the properties of the muscles of the runner. The fast four-legged runners or quadrupeds do seem to be advantaged versus bipeds in terms of the mechanics allowed by their anatomy. These mechanics help quadrupeds to get the most out of the muscles that they have in a way that bipedal runners probably cannot.

from here

seamus

Terminal velocity is the velocity at which the acceleration acting on a body is no longer enough to overcome the resistance experienced by the body. The velocity of the body stablises.

It refers to "falling" scenarios because in that scenario you have a constant acceleration being applied to the falling body of 9.8ms^-2

You also have wind resistance. At a particular velocity, the wind is pushing back against you at 9.8ms^-2, so you stabilise - you neither slow down nor accelerate. This is the terminal velocity.

The reason it only applies in "falling" scenarios is because it's essentially meaningless in other scenarios. If you increase your acceleration to overcome the wind resistance, your speed will increase. Likewise if you remove the wind resistance (such as in space), then you will accelerate faster and faster indefinitely, you will never reach a maximum velocity.

An example of overcoming terminal velocity would be a man falling with a rocket on his back. He drops from the sky until he reaches his terminal velocity. Then he points himself at the ground and fires up the rocket. He will accelerate and go faster than terminal velocity.