PoleVaultPower.com

Let me start with saying that this topic is: hypothetical, theoretical, and idealistic.

Ok gentlemen (and ladies?), if you could describe your vision of the 'perfect vault' for an athlete that runs 10 mps at take-off, that will get us started. Stick to differences from the Petrov model or perninent similarities, and remember: we are in an idealistic world where normal human limitations such as reaction time, strength, and coordination do not exist. Here are some things to consider:

What might be different about the run?
What should happen during the plant? Anything special?
Take-off point? Which leads to:
Take off at 45 degrees? --->
What about the pre-jump? Tip in air at take-off(as opposed to sliding it on the box)? Pre-jump at all?
Could we incorporate KB's 'split' into the equation?
Swing without breaking at the hips?
Double-leg swing? How? Could we take-off differently to accomodate this?
Extension? Hips, arms, what?
What do you think?

Energy efficiency is the name of the game here... and how to put in the most energy.

I think this will be an exciting topic, just like the 'metaphysical' thread! It's not super relevant/applicable, but maybe we'll have fun... and I know that some kind of knowledge will come out of it.

Let's hear some thoughts!

Stick Usain Bolt on the front of Bubka's 6.50 vault. Bolt up to when the foot leaves the ground and then Bubka the rest of the way.

This is why I specified 10 mps... we need some physical limits... of course we would have the strongest, fastest person ever. That's not what I'm going for.

But let's consider the 6.40 (you meant 6.40, right?) model that agapit has presented... I'll be rereading some of that thread tomorrow.

Agapit calls it the 6.40 model but Bubka's CofG was 6.50. Maybe he would have cleared 6.40 on that jump but his technique was definitely less refined when he jumped that compared to when Petrov was coaching him.

Why limit it to 10m/s. Bubka is recorded at over 10 m/s and James Miller was often recorded at 10.1 m/s and he never broke 11.0 for the 100m. Bolt would have well over 12m/s at full speed but you could say would operate quite well at 11 m/s.

Anyway this is besides your point which i assume to to get the the perfected technical model.

volteur wrote:Agapit calls it the 6.40 model but Bubka's CofG was 6.50. Maybe he would have cleared 6.40 on that jump but ...

According to BTB2, 6.40 is what the clearance on that jump was estimated to be - as computed by Japanese biomechanics. Let's go buy the book.

Why not add another 0.20, by measuring from the BOTTOM of the box? So now, as the legend grows, he jumped 6.70!!!

If we all come down under to NZ, can we all add another 0.10 to our PRs, because we're now measuring jumps by CoG height instead of BAR HEIGHT?

Jeez, we're already adding 0.26 to his TRUE PR, just to allow the point that he never reached his true potential!

Kirk

oi, i said 6.50 because that was measurable whereas 6.40 is a projected height (of clearance)

i think most agree that he didn't jump his potential PR and there are two main reasons for this as i see it

1. he was chasing the dollar and so added only 1cm at a time to each new WR

2. he chose to stop being coached by Petrov and thus changing his true potential for a lesser one.

possibly both of these fall under

3. he got married and his wife started to make decisions for him


So his CofG was measured at 6.50m and at the same competition tarasov was measured at 6.21. Who else has had such heights outside the Soviets?

what was Gataullin's best CofG and what was Markov's on his 6.05 jump

what was the best non-Soviet CofG? Burgess? Brits? Walker?

What's this 'add 10cm for COG' thing? In pole vault, as in high jump, it's well known that your center of gravity passes UNDERNEATH the bar as you pike/arch over it-

A 6.40 bar clearance would raise the actual center of gravity to 6.20 or 6.30.

damn straight it would, so what is it i'm thinking?

OK let's start moving in the right direction again. This thread is not about what Bubka should have jumped, nor is it about what happens in New Zealand. It's about what, theoretically, the vaulter should attempt to do if they have no real physical limitations. WHAT DIFFERENCES ARE THERE BETWEEN THE 'PERFECT' MODEL AND THE PETROV MODEL (or even the 6.40 model)? WHY?

I would like to start the discussion with the take-off. More specifically, the take-off angle. Why not 45 degrees? It's simple ballistics, if the projectile is shot at 45 degrees it will travel the furthest (in a vacuum). Why not apply this to the take-off? If the vaulter can jump at the perfect angle, then why not? It is most energy efficient, is it not? Does anyone disagree?

powerplant42 wrote:OK let's start moving in the right direction again. This thread is not about what Bubka should have jumped, nor is it about what happens in New Zealand. It's about what, theoretically, the vaulter should attempt to do if they have no real physical limitations. WHAT DIFFERENCES ARE THERE BETWEEN THE 'PERFECT' MODEL AND THE PETROV MODEL (or even the 6.40 model)? WHY?

I would like to start the discussion with the take-off. More specifically, the take-off angle. Why not 45 degrees? It's simple ballistics, if the projectile is shot at 45 degrees it will travel the furthest (in a vacuum). Why not apply this to the take-off? If the vaulter can jump at the perfect angle, then why not? It is most energy efficient, is it not? Does anyone disagree?

While it would be an ideal angle, I would imagine that reasons for not having a 45 degree take-off would be the same for long jump. That is, an athlete having to jump 45 degrees will need a drastic re-direction of force which will have a significant impact on their horizontal velocity. To simplify it; if you're running forward, the greater the angle you jump - the more horizontal speed you lose.

Ballistics indicates that a cannon-ball being shot at a 45 degree angle will go the furthest but the same principle cannot be applied to an athlete running and jumping. A couple of simple matters, first the cannon ball has one force applied to achieve take-off (the shot), giving it horizontal and vertical velocity in one instance. The athlete doing PV/LJ/TJ has to apply two separate forces to achieve their jump, a horizontal force (the run) and a vertical force (the jump). In trajectory physics terms, horizontal and vertical forces are independent of each other, this would all be considering that there was one instance of force application (cannon blast) at one location (cannon barrel). When two applications are used (run and then jump) from two locations of application (run-up[a 'general' consensus] and jump), physical limitations of the one body will affect both forces making them interdependent (one affects the other). Namely, the latter force (vertical) will affect the former (horizontal) because the movement of a PV/LJ/TJ jump is much more of a 'redirection' than it is a 'single shot'. The greater the vertical force applied during the jump, the more horizontal force (inertia from the run up) you will lose.

If you're interested about this topic I would suggest looking at some long jump literature. The long jumpers have done a lot of studying on this understandably. They have found that the optimal angle for the best long jumpers in the world range from 18 to 25 degrees. Variation is due to the differences in athletes though a theoretical model applied over all athletes would probably place 22 degrees as the best location. But overall, ~22 degrees gives the best elevation while maintaining optimal speed to achieve distance in long jump. I would imagine (though I could be wrong) that for pole vault, this angle should give the optimum amount of force into the take-off if a free take-off is achieved. I say that with a free take-off because if you should run yourself under, another new and more complex force (the pole) enters the equation and may change things a bit (I really haven't thought this scenario through yet).

Considering that 22 degrees is halfway between 0 and 45 degrees, and 45 degrees (best ballistic angle) is directly in between 0 and 90 degrees, if there is an equation for the best angle of trajectory from a 'redirection-type' movement, it would most likely involve a square root of one or more forces. - That's just me taking the results and trying to find a relationship, I could be wrong. Anyway, that's the end of my rant. If any of this is not clear please let me know. Sorry if it isn't clear, my brain runs at a zillion miles per hour and I often have to spend a long time trying to get what I want to say into actual writing.

OK, good post, I understood it! Although, our vaulter doesn't have any real physical limitations! Let's assume that EVERYTHING could be done without wasting energy other than that which would be a natural part of the act, like a loaded take-off. (Do you think that a 45 degree take-off angle DOES waste energy by its very nature? If so, I couldn't quite make that out in your post.) NOW do you think a 45 degree take-off might be the way to go? I am beginning to reconsider... The pole might not bend nearly as much, leaving the vaulter in a bad spot. What do you think?

45degrees is the best angle for maximum distance. I think if your take off angle is that or higher there would be little to no pole bend and the pole would have no affect on you. Just try holding a pole where you can achieve 45degrees from like a 1 step. You jump straight through it.