master wrote:Lax PV wrote:its partially due to the idea that force is a parabolic curve... as force is continually added, the velocity continues to rise, therefore the position of the object will exponetially speed up.
huh?????
- master
. But im almost 100% sure what you are saying, or what i think you are saying, can be expressed in a formula, ill take a shot. This is just for fun by the way...
vault3rb0y wrote:lets say for example we are using a 15' 19.0cm flex. We know for sure that with this pole, applying 35 Ibs (or is it 30, maybe 45? at any rate, the standard weight of a 15'...) of pressure will bend the pole 19.0cm. Since i jump on a line of poles similar to this, lets say that to move 1cm down from starting position requires 5Ibs more weight, and the amount of weight needed to move another 1cm downward increases by 2X as X=the weight needed to add for the previous cm. So 5 Ibs makes the pole an 18cm and 10 makes it a 17cm. Then 20 makes a 16cm., 40 makes a 15cm. Im sure theres a true formula for it, but im too stupid and lazy to think of it right now :p. I hope this is the direction we are going for....
powerplant42 wrote:I just figured out why it is in fact percentage. Vault3rboy has the right idea. A pole will be more difficult to bend as it becomes more and more bent. Right? Well, if you have a 13' pole at a low weight rating or high flex, then at a certain point in it's being bent it will become in essence a 13' pole of a higher weight rating/lower flex. This is slightly oversimplified i think. But you are right, there is a formula for it. e=mc2. That covers this situation, in the fact that the faster something goes, the more energy is needed to keep acceleration going. Subsitute this with bending a pole.
)This works into e=mc2, and I'm sure there's a better formula to explain it, I just kind of threw it out there when I related the fact that more force is needed to make an object go faster to the 'squared' in e=mc2. So, let's now put this into pole vaulting: You bend your pole to 90 degrees, and that takes f amount of force. Now, to get the pole to bend to 45 degrees, you would need? Right, f squared amount of force! You see? And then you can tie this in with my other post about higher pole ratings and lower pole ratings.
. But im glad the general idea i was portraying got across. Pretty much, to know whether you are ready to jump from one pole to another has nothing to do with the weight rating, and not even as much to do with cm ratings, since going from 20cm to 19cm is easier than 10cm to 9cm. It sounds to me that it takes a trained mind, with a general idea of how hard it is to jump from one pole to another. The question that i find myself asking after this is, what would the cm flex of poles look like, according to athletes, who describe each bigger sized pole an equal jump from one to the other. It would only be able to come from the athletes, or by adding the same amount of energy EXTRA into each pole that you MOVE UP. flex would be a constant for lets say 10 poles, in which you try to achieve a 16cm flex. If the pole set were hypothetically "perfect" and you found an equal jump from one pole to the next, to the next, then it would take 5 Ibs more for each next pole to bring the pole to 16cm. Or 7Ibs, 10Ibs, whatever you consider your "perfect jump". Doing this would, or should, give you perfect pole jumps, but the flex numbers would start, at 16, then maybe 15.0, 14.3, 13.9, 13.6, 13.4, 13.2, 13.1, 13, etc.... proving that the weight you add makes less and less a difference to flex to more you add.Return to “Pole Vault - General”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests
