Friday, June 06, 2008
Track and field
In these days of sensors embedded in the starting blocks to detect false starts, why not use the technology for "good" and eliminate false starts all together? The time it took to run or swim the race is simply the difference between the start time, measured by those sensors, and the finish time, measured by a high-speed camera or other sensor. The start signal may be changed to something predictable and rhythmic to reflect that reaction time to the starter's pistol is no longer an important factor in deciding who is the fastest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
1 comment :
Probably for several different somewhat-obvious reasons.
Negative for the competitors:
* it is very important to know whether you are ahead or behind someone else, for pacing. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to know (and extrapolate from) the offsets for the other athletes.
* Overtaking someone can use more energy than just running past the area where they would otherwise be. It seems like there being first could confer an advantage -- maybe I should start five seconds before everyone else in order to get an unimpeded race? There is competition for the best "racing line" through corners.
Negative for the audience:
* It would be incredibly frustrating to watch races when the first person to cross the finish line is not necessarily the winner.
-- cjb.
Post a Comment