From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: sprinters revisited (was Re: GURPS Total Rewrite)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 09:26:38 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <u894793.713772085@bruny> u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au writes:

> PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88) writes:
> 
> >From what I understand, running speed is a balance of power against mass,
> >and long-distance running is a balance of energy required for power against
> >endurance.
> 
> >Power would seem to indicate ST, which is entirely neglected.
> 
> Yes, but ST requires muscle mass, and to complicate the issue, there are two
> types of muscle tissue.  One contracts slowly, but has a higher total force.
> The other delivers less force, but contracts about 10x faster.
> 
> Sprinting requires the fast muscle, and weight-lifting requires the stronger
> muscle type.  Someone who can lift 200 kg would make a poor sprinter, since
> they have a large amount of slow (and hence mostly useless) muscle to increase
> their mass.

Granted, this is a very detailed approach.  My question then is, what kind of
STR in anaerobic?  What GURPS trait reflects this strength.  Of the four, it
definitely looks like either HT or ST.  Thus, I use a little of both.
 
> I have a typical 'sprinter' body type.  In GURPS, I have a lifting ST of about
> 8, but I run faster than anyone else I know, -for a short time-.
> I am not very fit, hence I assume I have low HT.  My power is almost completely
> anaerobic.

Point well taken, I am making STR a bit nebulus.  It kinda has to be to be
useful in such definitions.
 
> >Long term
> >endurance would seem to indicate HT, which is already there.  You are right,
> >DX has noting to do with it.  Using HT directly in your running speed looks
> >like a simple approach solution to figuring in the above dynamics.
> 
> DX probably should come in when considering the Running skill, but not in
> basic Speed.  DX represents fine body control, which is required for
> 'tuning' a given running style.

I see that it's a good idea to make running a DX skill, and that it simplifies
the rules (makes it a more standard skill).
 
> I am ambivalent about using HT in short-distance sprinting, but it should
> certainly come in when determining long-distance speeds.

It was a quick hack to substitute one formula in for simplicity where perhaps 
two (or more) should exist.  If you didn't know how the formula was to be
applied, would you include HT?  I did.  And, it might be partly the anerobic
muscle you are talking about anyway.
 
> >Therefore, substitute ST for DX.  There is no mention of weight in the formula,
> >but I think that this would be getting too detailed.  (Assume ST is already
> >proportional to weight, perhaps?)
> 
> Your assumption means that ST should make no difference, if you are using
> a 'power-to-mass' ratio.  It means that increasing ST also increases mass,
> hence no increase in the ratio.

Poorly stated on my part, although a couple people mailed me and seemed to
understand.  Make STR a definition of your power compared to your mass.
For example, bigger people tend to be stronger, but because they also have
a higher mass, thier power/mass may not dramatically increase at all (likely
to not increase or even drop off!)  So what I meant was STR = power/mass,
and this makes it very much part of running (although we are talking about
anerobic power, see above for why I still use STR).
 
> However, for the same power/mass ratio, taller people run faster... and
> GURPS links ST directly to height (I'm another anomaly - ST 8 and 6'2" or
> 187 cm).  Maybe I shouldn't have based my GURPS ST on lifting capability -
> I also throw things further than ST 8 would indicate (another fast-muscle
> activity).

It seems that *most* games on the market incorrectly deal with size factors
or leave them out.  I'd rather leave it out than screw it up to no tomorrow.
 
> >How is this in terms of modeling atheletes.  In the Olympics, this year, we
> >put forward a football player as a sprinter.  Sure, he was heavy, but hugely
> >strong.  He had the same type of acceleration and top speed of most of the
> >others.  Don't think he won, but he is proof that you can get Olympic times
> >out of sheer strength...
> 
> >So, does (ST + HT)/4 do it?  I'm no expert on running, but it does make more
> >sense.  Also, it makes ST more worthwhile in the upper-tech games too, and
> >DX a little less, which may be a good idea.  
> 
> For long distance running, it may well suffice - but for the short sprint,
> I'd say probably not.

Well, you argued down ST and HT, and followed the assumption that DX is really
not part of speed either (it's part of the running skill).  So what do you
suggest?  As a single formula, preserving the same level of complexity, I do
not see that you have made another suggestion.

-james