>>So leg length has almost nothing to do with pace.
>Agreed /per se/ but I think you need to be a little more expansive on
>In "common (sic) sense" logic, the longer yer legs, the longer yer
>strides, the quicker you'll go for a given turnover.
>Why can't a leggy one always go faster than a stumpy one, in sum?
proportion between leg length and stride length as Stumpy, then
sure he'd be faster. But now look at the mechanics. Leggy
must generate a much greater torque to swing his legs through
the required arc than Stumpy does. The muscles are bigger on
Leggy, but not by enough to offset the torque requirement.
It nets (per another followup, also Tergat v. Gebrselassie in the
Olympics 10k, also my experience in races with people over a foot
shorter than me) that Leggy and Stumpy run the same stride rate
and same stride length.
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences