Slashdot Mirror
New Research Shows Humans Could Outrun T. Rex
bongey writes: T-Rex would have a hard time even catching an average human running, much less Usain Bolt or Jeeps, without shattering their legs into pieces. New research based on simulations that include the load on the bones show that T-Rex would have a hard time running faster than 12 miles per hour (5.4 meters per second) without bones breaking. The new research correlates to speeds calculated from adolescence sized T-Rex dinosaur footprints in 2016, which showed walking speeds to be only 2-5mph, and estimated running speeds 11-18 mph. Gizmodo notes that while T. rex was unable to pursue its prey at high speeds, high speed is a relative term. "For reference, typical humans can sprint anywhere between eight to 15 miles per hour (elite athletes can exceed 20 mph). So to outrun a T. rex, many animals -- or fictional humans -- would still have to run like hell."
...are slower than they appear
While there seem to be a large number of people who keep thinking T-Rex is a hunter.
Have to say, I'm more and more in the camp which suggest that T-Rex is more like a vulture. T-Rex has a big noose, body for long walks, not sprints, etc.
New things are always on the horizon
If you click through and read the article, you will find a discussion that explains that this entire conclusion was based on a rare set of footprints that were found to be of a certain spacing. They then started a variety of different extrapolations, covering values such as estimating the height of the dinosaur's hips above the ground, the weight of the dinosaur and so on.
Their determination that this set of tracks came from a Tyrannosaur was made on the basis that there is no knowledge of any other matching species in that area at that time.
Having measured the stride of this dinosaur and estimated the height of its hips above the ground, they then used measurements taken from "living, walking bipeds" to make their claim.
Now, I'm all in favour of scientific research and analysis. I love reading about cutting edge insights to the world around us. I think it enriches our lives. On the other hand, when I read this article published on the Science website, the first thought that came to me was, "There are an awful lot of assumptions and approximations in here..."
They don't know, definitively, that this was a T-Rex.
They don't know what it was doing at the time the tracks were made [for example, if it had been stalking prey, maybe it was treading softly, moving slowly, so perhaps it's steps were uncharacteristic.
They don't know whether it was injured, or weak, or unwell. You can't determine the nutritional state of a hundreds-of-millions-of-years-dead dinosaur from a footprint, can you?
They are also assuming that things like the metabolic efficiency, the muscular strength and even the bone density of dinosaurs are all perfectly equivalent to what we see today. In other words, they are cherry-picking facts to fit their theories.
I am absolutely certain that there is some great research and excellent work being undertaken by the Team that made this announcement, but this is far, far short of science. This is assumption and theory and conjecture based upon an entirely incomplete fact base.
In one sense it is not worth being concerned over one-off articles like this. In the fullness of time we would expect scientific peer review to challenge and refine both the method of analysis and the final conclusions of this piece of work. Well, hopefully. The concern with this specific story is evidenced by the fact that it has been picked up and linked here, on slashdot. Which means it will be picked up by other science and tech news outlets and perhaps even broader news media. This is fine if the original work is robust and defensible, but in this case [at least as far as the original piece goes] that does not appear to be true... Oh well.
If running from a T-Rex was an actual concern, I would venture most people would be fit enough to pull it off.
You've got a way of thinking, which actually made me think.
T-Rex might be close to a bear's behavior (grizzly bear to be exact). Grizzly bear isn't the fastest, but is surely one of the bigger if not biggest in the forest. They do pick off big prey but they also take / scavenge food from other predators like wolfs.
It seems like there are some similarity between T-Rex and Grizzly bear.
"Marathon runners can average 8.8mph for 26.2 miles" (from google)
Turtles < Normal Person < Marathon runners
0.2mph < Normal Person < 8.8mph
11mph < T-Rex < 15mph
We're still screwed aren't we?
I'm really not convinced by these arguments that our ancestors were somehow multi marathon fit and could run down anything on the plain. No native peoples today do that - they wound first with spears or arrows then follow it until it dies, they don't wear it down physically!
As for running down a horse, you must be joking. Horses can gallop then trot for hours, long after even the fittest marathon runner would be in a sweaty heap on the ground panting like dog. And unless you're a first class tracker you're never going to find that horse that has probably put 10 miles between you and him in the first hour.
Most Americans? Hardly. Too many soft drinks.
They compare T. rex to humans so that we know what to expect when Dr. Clonem von Krazee extracts DNA from Cretaceous amber, and a transporter accident creates a horrible half-human, half-T.-rex, half-mosquito abomination.
Alternatively, because it's more engaging (or click-baity, if you like) to compare their computed top speed for a T. rex to a human rather than to something like the speeding limit in a mall parking lot. Which is more interesting, "humans could outrun T. rex" or "unlike you in a car, T. rex would struggle to break the speed limit... in a parking lot"?
If running from a T-Rex was an actual concern, I would venture most people would be fit enough to pull it off.
You don't have to run faster than the T-Rex, you have to run faster than the other people running.
The T-Rex may have been capable of short burst of greater speed, similar to Crocodiles that can more at quite a fair clip to attack, but most of the time move rather ponderously.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Plot twist, the T-Rex's vision is motion based, so he can't really see the still one.
So he goes after and eats the one running.
...and promptly crashes into a tree which, according to your assertion, he cannot see.
So, survival of the fittest?
It is not the strongest or fastest of the snacks that survive, but the one who kneecaps the others.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Isn't there a chance that when T rex existed, gravity may have been less, so his weight wouldn't be what we are measuring it at?
"So to outrun a T. rex, many animals -- or fictional humans -- would still have to run like hell."
No problem. I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that if I am running from a T-Rex then I will, in fact, be running like hell.
Modern humans are one thing, but we were the running champions. Being undisputed masters of shedding heat and sweating led to obscenely long stalking capability. We specced for upper body strength to add points in Throw, to deliver infected wounds, then chased and harassed scared, stressed out things, haunted them day and night, in our monkeysocial packs that can navigate any terrain and run forever. We were horror movie serial killers. I'm just now adding a new thought: Maybe we captured prey live, broke its limbs and such, and dragged prizes home as they looked on in terror.
But if you're asking ME to run 30 seconds I will probably disappoint you.