Recent results from analyzed data of local sub-elite scholastic athletes reveal consistent kdeterminations as applied for elite performers at both professional and collegiate levels. The source of comparative data for this report was furnished from Dr. Ralph Mann's, The Mechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling, Dr Winfried Joch's, Rahmentrainingplan fur das Aufbautraining Sprint, Dr. Ken Clark's, You CAN Teach Speed and Neil Baroody's Kinetics Manual. The format developed and established by dpA Sport Village in 2009 for the Barnstable High School (MA) Outdoor Track Program.
This limited and brief study looked at two high school boys' races: the 100m and 400m dashes. The primary data for the short sprint was captured between the 50 and 60 meter marks. For the longer sprint it was between 340 and 350 meters. Unfortunately the video originally shown has been removed.
One could assess that for the short sprint it was in the area of maximal speed or near highest vertical force acheived. Where as the data capture for the long sprint, was at, or approaching the lowest running velocity and essentially a considerably more degraded level of performance.
As the following table shows, there is a direct correlation between force application and relative velocity and duration with maximal efforts in sprint events:
Neuromuscular fatigue can also be assumed to affect adversely the performance where vertical force and kinetic energy (Baroody) are applied. It is believed that force impairments, facilitated through anaerobic metabolism (Weyand), is a major culprit to the increase of contact time with the ground; particularly in the longer sprint.
Interesting though were the results deduced from angular velocity extrapolation (Mercado). Ratios were consistent with elite performances for short sprints, but not the same for the longer sprint events. Upper leg ground recovery speed was quite disappointing when you consider the relative contact times at that stage of the race. In addition, the limited upper body rotational range (i.e. arm action) appears to compromise both upper and lower leg motion, hence reduced recovery and ground speed. Would think that more focused work might be devoted to that area as well.
Where anthropometric growth and extensive training age are possibilities, one could see an increase with contact length (Goodwin) and sprinting mechanics. Using Kenlyn and Mahabir as roughly simple examples, a 5% increase in contact length during similar time would equate to approximately 8.9 and 6.8 m/s respectively, without consideration to other factors.
Certainly with focused training to improve front and back side mechanics, one might see a different result regarding long sprint upper leg speed (Mann), as well as air and ground times.