If the vaulter is back flat to the ground at this point is a technical issue and matching it up with pole. Timing to a body position and calling it the time to max bend is a calculation error.
i have "referred" to the "flat back" position in Tim's vaults and maybe in other post..
In Tim’s vaults these two positions, max bend and "flat back" are one in the same..
a "correct" vault, working with physics and with the Petrov model they should be the same... if i did that comparison to Tim and Daniel it was because i didn't have the McGinnis data to work from and the "timing" which we are discussing here can only be "matched" closely by the "flat back" position...
i thought we were making progress toward a "model" working with physics… with the numbers i posted of Tully, Bubka and others.. the numbers will show us where we are making our mistakes in our approach to technique and coaching technique…
but this seems to indicate I’m not communicating something correctly. Technique and "timing" should be created by physics... if the vaulter is not at maximum bend AND the "back flat" position in .49/.50 (which corresponds to the vaulter covering approximately half the distance from takeoff to the box.. to the pole cord being at approximately a 60 degree angle.. etc) they are working against physics.. they are either on the wrong pole or trying to perform “technique” that is counter productive AND will cause a lose of energy and force.. creating a vault that is “less” than there speed potential.
Hopefully I can get the T-Mack Numbers.. if you have Daniels.. post them please..