6 ms·

Their model seems to predict a theoretical top speed of 18-20.9m/s (or 40.0-46.8mph, 64.8-75.2kph): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay1950#F2 https:

Their model seems to predict a theoretical top speed of 18-20.9m/s (or 40.0-46.8mph, 64.8-75.2kph): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay1950#F2 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay1950#F2 As much as I want to imagine people chasing down cheetahs, without empirical testing I have to admit I am skeptical of their claims.

davidw 3y ago
I'm envisioning the movie version, where there's a montage of the scientists crashing time and time again before they get it right.
pixl97 3y ago
Eh, I'm not worried about their top speed claims... I'd be far more concerned that you could reach those speeds, and the hospital bills incurred by the inevitable accidents. You're going to have to have a massive amount of safety gear weighing you down (thereby losing speed) to keep you from busting your head open like a rotten cantaloupe moving that fast. Velocity squared is a bastard.
- MrRolleyes 3y ago
  [dead]
- ntonozzi 3y ago
  People bike and ski that fast every day with no protection other than a helmet.
  - evilduck 3y ago
    And people occasionally die biking and skiing from their own accidents hitting unmovable objects — something virtually unheard of with runners.
    - whywhywouldyou 3y ago
      So what? These people will no longer be your run of the mill "runner". They will be augmented, much the way we're augmented by using bicycles and skis, etc. The original claim that if someone were to be able to move at these speeds that they would suddenly need to be heavily bogged down in safety gear is flat out ridiculous. Comparing it to other sports where we move at similar speeds should be more than enough evidence of that.
      - Retric 3y ago
        People do ski faster than that but low friction means slower deceleration which is a huge reason it’s even possible to learn reasonably safely. This applies to basically all high speed winter sports and is under appreciated by most viewers. Similarly landing from a jump or fall on a hill the force vectors mean people are mostly sliding on the surface resulting in significantly less forceful impacts. Biking at 45-48 MPH is rare, dangerous, and free of tripping hazards which I think are a much larger concern. Further, people also add extra protection for downhill MTB such as a back protector, thick gloves, goggles, helmets with neckbrace, padded clothing, and knee pads. Yet it also has similar benefits from being on steep hills.
        Lio 3y ago
        > Biking at 45-48 MPH is rare, dangerous, Not sure where you get that from. Amateur road cyclists can pretty easily reach 50MPH given a long enough hill and do so pretty uneventfully. That's dressed in just shorts, jersey, helmet and fingerless gloves. A professional racing cyclist could easily break 60MPH on closed roads and even 80MPH on occasion. For someone like Tom Pidcock who knows[1]. In the linked video he's topping out at about 100kph (60mph) but it's worth noting that that's without being allowed to sit on the top tube of this bike. They banned that (even though it wasn't linked to any crashes). The bike manufactures will eventually just add dropper posts to all pro road bikes and those speeds will go up again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4Pp4oYh28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4Pp4oYh28
        3y ago
  - loeg 3y ago
    Bike crashes at 40 mph are brutal. The vast majority of fast, competitive cyclists in races are topping out at or below 25-30 mph in flat ground riding.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    With bikes at least the mechanics of the bicycle mostly work for you instead of against you. Riding no handed wouldn’t be something children learn on their own if the system weren’t at least slightly self-righting.
chrisweekly 3y ago
still slower than cheetahs
- asoneth 3y ago
  Depends on the distance, right? Over short distances (up to about 800m) a cheetah's sprint speed of nearly 100kph dominates, true. However, because they only maintain that for up to 30s, an augmented human moving at 75kph would be less than 10s behind at that point and might be able to catch up over slightly longer distances. I'm unsure the exact distance as I don't know offhand what running speeds a cheetah can maintain for longer than 30s and I'd also assume that cheetahs have better dodging agility than a human with giant springs strapped to their legs (and as per above hopefully some safety gear). But I stand by my assertion that I want to imagine such a scenario.
namelosw 3y ago
Wow that's fast. But it sounds dangerous. The last time I attempted to run at full speed after not running for years, I struggled to keep up and lost my balance. I started tilting forward slowly and eventually fell then slide on the ground for a while, resulting in multiple scratches on my face, front pelvis, etc.

davidw 3y ago

I'm envisioning the movie version, where there's a montage of the scientists crashing time and time again before they get it right.

pixl97 3y ago

Eh, I'm not worried about their top speed claims... I'd be far more concerned that you could reach those speeds, and the hospital bills incurred by the inevitable accidents. You're going to have to have a massive amount of safety gear weighing you down (thereby losing speed) to keep you from busting your head open like a rotten cantaloupe moving that fast. Velocity squared is a bastard.

MrRolleyes 3y ago
[dead]
ntonozzi 3y ago
People bike and ski that fast every day with no protection other than a helmet.
- evilduck 3y ago
  And people occasionally die biking and skiing from their own accidents hitting unmovable objects — something virtually unheard of with runners.
  - whywhywouldyou 3y ago
    So what? These people will no longer be your run of the mill "runner". They will be augmented, much the way we're augmented by using bicycles and skis, etc. The original claim that if someone were to be able to move at these speeds that they would suddenly need to be heavily bogged down in safety gear is flat out ridiculous. Comparing it to other sports where we move at similar speeds should be more than enough evidence of that.
    - Retric 3y ago
      People do ski faster than that but low friction means slower deceleration which is a huge reason it’s even possible to learn reasonably safely. This applies to basically all high speed winter sports and is under appreciated by most viewers. Similarly landing from a jump or fall on a hill the force vectors mean people are mostly sliding on the surface resulting in significantly less forceful impacts. Biking at 45-48 MPH is rare, dangerous, and free of tripping hazards which I think are a much larger concern. Further, people also add extra protection for downhill MTB such as a back protector, thick gloves, goggles, helmets with neckbrace, padded clothing, and knee pads. Yet it also has similar benefits from being on steep hills.
      - Lio 3y ago
        > Biking at 45-48 MPH is rare, dangerous, Not sure where you get that from. Amateur road cyclists can pretty easily reach 50MPH given a long enough hill and do so pretty uneventfully. That's dressed in just shorts, jersey, helmet and fingerless gloves. A professional racing cyclist could easily break 60MPH on closed roads and even 80MPH on occasion. For someone like Tom Pidcock who knows[1]. In the linked video he's topping out at about 100kph (60mph) but it's worth noting that that's without being allowed to sit on the top tube of this bike. They banned that (even though it wasn't linked to any crashes). The bike manufactures will eventually just add dropper posts to all pro road bikes and those speeds will go up again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4Pp4oYh28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f4Pp4oYh28
        3y ago
- loeg 3y ago
  Bike crashes at 40 mph are brutal. The vast majority of fast, competitive cyclists in races are topping out at or below 25-30 mph in flat ground riding.
- hinkley 3y ago
  With bikes at least the mechanics of the bicycle mostly work for you instead of against you. Riding no handed wouldn’t be something children learn on their own if the system weren’t at least slightly self-righting.

chrisweekly 3y ago

still slower than cheetahs

asoneth 3y ago
Depends on the distance, right? Over short distances (up to about 800m) a cheetah's sprint speed of nearly 100kph dominates, true. However, because they only maintain that for up to 30s, an augmented human moving at 75kph would be less than 10s behind at that point and might be able to catch up over slightly longer distances. I'm unsure the exact distance as I don't know offhand what running speeds a cheetah can maintain for longer than 30s and I'd also assume that cheetahs have better dodging agility than a human with giant springs strapped to their legs (and as per above hopefully some safety gear). But I stand by my assertion that I want to imagine such a scenario.

namelosw 3y ago

Wow that's fast. But it sounds dangerous. The last time I attempted to run at full speed after not running for years, I struggled to keep up and lost my balance. I started tilting forward slowly and eventually fell then slide on the ground for a while, resulting in multiple scratches on my face, front pelvis, etc.