caught in the rain?

[wwcd101]

This question keeps haunting me. I can use some help on the research here.

If it is raining, you have no umbrella, and you have to go from your office to your car, which is in an outdoor lot, do you get less wet by walking or running?

Running is faster, but I would guess you hit more drops/second as you run. And, your feet and pants get wetter from the splashes.

Anyway, I used to think it best to run. Now, I tend to walk.

What do you think?

Thanks for listening.

[Cynthetiq]

walking, unless it's a severe downpour. you're going to get wet no matter what you do. might as well walk instead of being out of breath, almost fall and bust your ass.

[JadziaDax]

Actually, this is an old discrete mathematics problem...

So many years ago... If I remember correctly, the answer is that you would get hit by the same amount of drops whether you walk or run.

[actinic]

If you hate getting wet or earing something that'll get ruined if it gets wet (satin I hear) you're just screwed no matter how you look at it.

I personally like walking in the rain. The sensation of water trickling over your brow ridge, ear lobes, the nape of your neck...it's pretty sensual...to risk sounding like a chick .

My g/f loves watching me come into the house like a wet rag and helps peel the sodden clothes off me. Besides, I've had the greatest sex after coming home from the rain.

Just my 2 cents.

[wlcm]

i think its the same whether you walk or run.

[dtheriault]

it's not the same. running is better. you will spend less time in the rain. yes you will get a little more wet by hitting drops sideways, but this will be more than cancelled out by the amount of time you will save in the rain.

on the other hand only dorks (just kidding) run anywhere unless they are jogging or it's an emergency. walking is def. cooler.

[bobw]

If it is true that it is the same, then walking is better because it cuts down on the splashing and extra wet pant legs.

[Nitro]

bobw: right on target

Also above a certain age you just don't run.
Running just because of the rain is only for the kids.
Us older guys just grin and bear the drops. It would look stupid anyway.
Keep on walking!

[wlcm]

Running won't save you any wetness since at any point between your starting point and your car, your head and a drop of rain will meet. the wetness you save from collecting at the top of your head will be offset by the amount of rain your face hits the rain on your run.

this is easier seen during heavy rain or just if you're underwater, but the same principle should hold for light rain.

[Loup]

Originally posted by dtheriault
walking is def. cooler.

No, no, no. Strutting is cooler.

As for the question, try this calculation here to answer your question.

[wwcd101]

The comments are good. A nice mix of science and culture. Please keep them coming.

I never really took into account how the importance of the "look" might overrule the importance of the "wet".

Thanks for listening.

[cliche]

Like the calculator!

I guess if you walk vs running, you're still sweeping out the same region of space, but running you're saving a lot from the rain coming from the top.

[RoadRage]

From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_395.html

<center>Which will keep you drier, running through the rain or walking?
16-Oct-1992</center>

Dear Cecil:

Jumpin' Jack and Lazy Jim, twins, emerge from a fancy restaurant only to find all the valets have split and a heavy rainstorm lies between them and their car, 100 yards away. Jumpin' Jack bets Lazy Jim that if he runs and Jim walks, he will arrive at the car not only faster but drier. Jim accepts the bet, arguing that Jack's broad chest will run into more raindrops than will hit Jim on the top of his slow moving but small head. Who wins the bet? If distance and rain density are important to figuring the answer, please provide us with a handy wallet chart so we may know when to be nimble and when not. Meanwhile, I'll place my bet with Jack. --Ryan Kuhn, Chicago

Dear Ryan:

You're obviously a sensible young man, which is more than I can say for some of the people who have looked into this. According to Discover magazine, Alessandro De Angelis, a physicist at the University of Udine, Italy, calculated some years ago that "a sprinter racing along at 22.4 miles an hour does get less wet, but only 10 percent less wet, than a hasty stroller (6.7 miles an hour)." Conclusion: running isn't worth the trouble.

I haven't been able to find the original paper, if any, on which this report was based, so I don't know how De Angelis arrived at his conclusion. Not that it matters. Neither theory nor experiment (mine) bears out his crackbrain view. Running through the rain will keep you a lot drier (not just 10% drier) than walking.

First the theory. We divide the raindrops hitting you into two categories: (1) head drops, which fall from above and would hit you even if you were standing still; and (2) chest drops, which you run/walk into and which wouldn't hit you if you were standing still. We can all agree that the number of head drops is strictly a function of how long you're out in the rain; if you run, fewer head drops. The question is whether the allegedly larger number of chest drops you get when running outweighs the definitely larger number of head drops you get while walking.

Not to keep you in suspense, the answer is no. If we ignore aerodynamic effects, we can show mathematically (but won't) that while you'll collect many fewer head drops running rather than walking, you'll get exactly the same number of chest drops, regardless of the speed at which you travel. Bottom line: you'll be a lot wetter if you walk.

But wait, you say. What about those pesky aerodynamic effects? The requisite math is a bit daunting, but never fear. Heedless of his delicate health or his already low reputation with the neighbors, your columnist spent a recent rainy Saturday running down the street like an idiot brandishing pieces of red construction paper clipped to cardboard, the better to snag and count raindrops. Methodology: three trials of two runs each over a fixed distance, once running, once walking. Winds: calm. Angle of attack of paper relative to ground: 45 degrees. Results:

Trial #1. Running, 15 seconds to run course; 213 drops. Walking, 40 seconds; couldn't count drops, paper soaked. Shortened course.

Trial #2. Running, 7 seconds; 131 drops. Walking, 20 seconds; 216 drops.

Trial #3. Running, 7 seconds; 147 drops. Walking, 17 seconds; 221 drops.

So there you are. The differences are larger than the numbers suggest because many drops on the "walking" papers dried before I could count them. My guess is that the number of drops is exactly proportional. If you're out twice as long, you get twice as wet.

One obvious caveat. If enough rain falls on you, whether because of the intensity of the rainfall or the distance you have to travel, eventually you'll be thoroughly soaked. After that it doesn't matter whether you run or walk; you're as wet as you're going to get. So the preceding applies only to relatively short sprints through less-than-torrential downpours. Sorry, no wallet charts. My advice: always run--if nothing else you could use the exercise.

YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME ...

Dear Cecil:

I enjoyed your column about whether we get less wet running or walking in the rain. I was particularly impressed with your initiative in collecting data. Regrettably, some tests of statistical significance I performed on the data you supplied seem to poop the party: [two pages of incomprehensible mathematical symbols follow]. I know your data look convincing to the untrained eye, but a statistician they smack of the problem of small numbers. Next time invest in a few extra sheets of construction paper and improve your significance level. --Catherine Hagen, Montreal

Cecil replies:

Your argument, Catherine, is that two trials isn't a large enough sample to base any firm conclusions on. Cecil knows this. Cecil also knows that if he doesn't get his column in on time, a chancy proposition under the best of circumstances, he may eventually be informed the time has come for him to get a real job. So he takes certain shortcuts. But your point is well taken. Next time I need somebody to dash through the drink a few dozen times, I'll give you a call.

CECIL'S FINDINGS CONFIRMED!

Thomas Peterson and Trevor Wallis of the National Climatic Data Center, writing in the meteorological journal Weather, also tackled the running vs. walking controversy. "We decided to deal with this with scientific rigor. We did an experiment," Peterson was quoted as saying in Health magazine.

The magazine goes on to describe the experiment: "One rainy day the two men donned identical sweat suits and hats, which they'd weighed before the test. For added accuracy, they wore plastic garbage bags underneath the sweat suits to keep their underclothes from wicking away any water. They then set out through the downpour on a 100-meter course. Wallas ran; Peterson walked.

"When they finished, the men weighed their clothes again to find out how much water they'd soaked up. Peterson's had absorbed about seven and half ounces, while Wallis's sopped up only four and a half."

In short, running will keep you drier than walking. Told ya.

--CECIL ADAMS

[h2g2Fan]

When rain falls completely vertically, forward walking speed only affects how much falls on the head (faster = less). The suprise is the amount of water that is "walked through," or hits the chest. For all walking speeds it will be equal. Kind of a neat principle of discrete mathematics, as mentioned earlier.

[crackpot]

djp: That calculator is the funniest thing... just imagining someone actually using that before they head out into the rain... that's top drawer comedy, that is.
RoadRage: I immediately thought of that very article for this thread, too. Thanks for saving me the time, heh heh.

If I may just add: while strutting in the rain sounds great to me, if it's a heavy or severe rain/thunderstorm, you're gonna look absolutely psycho doing that. Like you've been "strutting" aimlessly for days with a bad gash in your forehead. Or something. May as well get an umbrella and hold it open upside-down over your head. Take a drink from it from time to time. Crazy you.

[s8ins child]

Walking is definatly better as you dont get hit by as many drops/second than if u run. The best thing to do wud jst remember your umberella.

[HamiC]

I coulda sworn the answer was a brisk walk......seriously.....I thought there was another study done. Oh well.

[wwcd101]

The insight here has been off the charts. The calculator invaluable. But, what about puddle splashes?

Running increases splashing substantially. I'd say 3 to 5 times. What does everybody think?

Thanks for listening.

[TIO]

From a maths major: you'll end up drier running. Yeah, you'll sweep out the same area as you move, but a smaller amount of rain will have been present in that area while you were moving. Quite frankly, the idea that you'll be drier walking is stupid. Try it; walk slowly through the rain, and have a friend sprint through the rain. Your friend will be drier, every time. The discreet maths problem usually conveniently neglects the fact that the rain is moving, so you get bad results.

And if you're worried about splashes, dodge the puddles!

[Foopius2]

heres what i think... mathematically it seems its the same, so then what. Youre gonna get wet, but if you walk, most of the rain will collect on your head and shoulders; if you run, the angle of your body as well as running into drops in front of you will contribute to a more complete soakage and more ruined clothes.

[jumpingbeans]

try Skipping.......

[wwcd101]

My experience has been dodging puddles only works up to a point, if you are moving at any speed at all.

Of course it is difficult for me to walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm not Mr. Coordinated.

Thanks for listening.

[docbungle]

Running just because of the rain is only for the kids.

It's not cool to run anymore? At what age should I stop running, if I want to remain cool/suave in the rain?

[wwcd101]

Incredible. I watched Mythbusters, for the first time, on the Discovery Channel last night (9.23). They tested this out. It was a great bit. The final verdict, scientifically, was that the person running got wetter. Not by much, but even with repeated trials and varying several rain/wind levels, its now been proven. If you walk, you stay drier.

Thanks for listening.

[yournamehere]

Despite all the "proof" stating otherwise, I'm going with:
Running = Drier.

Try this: put two open containers of equal size out in the rain - one for two minutes; one for five minutes. See which one gets fuller.
The more time you spend in the rain, the wetter you will get.

As for splashing - when you're running, your other foot is up at knee level, out of the way of the splashes, and lands beyond the splash area.

BTW - running is way cool compared to the "drowned rat" look - no matter what your age.

[raeanna74]

I like to take the running route when it's colder. If it's a warm rain and I'm not going any place special I don't care about getting wet. Even sometimes do some puddle jumping on the way just for kicks. I've been known to head out with my daughter in T-shirt and shorts to do some carwheels and puddle jumping in the yard when it's a warm rain.