Do You Get Wetter Walking or Running in the Rain?

7:13 pm PHT

Several weeks ago, my officemates and I had a discussion on the question, “do you get wetter walking or running in the rain?” My guess is that the walker gets more wet, primarily because he spends more time in the rain. But intuitively, you could also say that the runner gets more wet because he is running into rain, rain that would not hit you if you were walking more slowly.

So I had the time of my life reading this Acts of Volition weblog entry tackling the same problem (link via Kottke’s Remaindered Links). Read the comments for some of the geekiest discussions on a such seemingly simple problem.

My personal take on the problem is to analyze it in terms of volume. The unspoken assumption is that the walker or runner has to cover the same distance. First, let’s assume that rain is evenly distributed in space and that it falls with a constant velocity (assume that the direction is straight down). Now imagine shifting the frame of reference of space from earth into the inertial frame of reference (how relativity!) where the rain is not moving. Got that? Then a person walking/running in the rain would both have a horizontal and a vertical component of velocity in this new inertial frame of reference. The slower the person moves, the larger the vertical component.

Now let’s idealize a walker/runner by imagining that he is a simple rectangular solid (a box if you may). Therefore, the amount of rain this “person” gets is proportional to the volume that the box carves out in this frame of reference. The diagram below shows the side view of a runner (left) and a walker’s (right) volume occupied in our frame of reference. The walker/runner is moving left to right. The large light-blue areas are the rain-filled space, while the walker and the runner are the dark rectangles (the left position is the person just going into the rain, the right one is the person just coming out of the rain). The medium-blue filled areas are the volume occupied by the walker and runner.

Without going into the details, we can see that the volume (or side-view area—we can ignore depth since this is constant) of the walker is larger. While the height of the box carves out identical areas in both diagrams, the width of the box swipes out a much larger area when the person is moving more slowly. Therefore, a person gets wetter walking in the rain rather than running. Q.E.D.

Of course the real solution to the problem would be to bring an umbrella.  :D

Filed under

Add your comment | 3 comments


Comment times are in Philippine time (+0800).


On 6:58 a.m., 19 Oct 2005, brett wrote:

Shifting the frame of reference is a good way to think about it. The volume of your two prisms represent the amount of rain that hits the front of the runner/walker. Where you make an error is that the volume of your two prisms are identical ( Therefore, in a theoretical world, the amount of rain that hits the front of the runner/walker is exactly the same.

Where the runner wins is the amount of rain that hits the top of his head and shoulders. In your frame of reference, this would be represented by a rectangle on the bottom that carves out an entirely vertical path for the length of time spent in the rain.

Now there are other factors like wind. If the wind is coming from behind you it would probably be best to try and go at the same speed as the wind. There is also the issue that people sweat when they run and the issue of how much farther the drops penetrate through clothing when they hit harder. And if you want to make this your Ph.D thesis, you could work out the sheeting of rain, the topology of a human body, the absorbency of different fabrics, the shape of raindrops, eddy effects by buildings, etc, etc..


On 2:47 a.m., 23 Oct 2005, seav wrote:

There is no error. I said that the height of the box carves out identical volumes (or areas, since we can factor out the depth). This is the amount of rain hitting the front of the “person.”

I also said that the top of the box swipes out a larger volume for the walker than the runner. That’s why you get “wetter” walking than running.

You’re just misinterpreting the figures. The shaded areas are composed of two adjacent prisms (paralellograms).

Also, I’ve also purposely ignored other factors like wind (like I said, “let’s assume that rain is evenly distributed in space and that it falls with a constant velocity [assume that the direction is straight down]”), and other nitpicky details like cloth absorbency, sweating, splashing, etc., that make this thought exercise less recreational mathematics and more a dreary real-life experiment.


On 3:42 p.m., 15 Mar 2006, makoy wrote:

I actually watched this on Discovery Channel. Myth busters.. and in the experiment it was proven that running would cause you to intercept more water droplets than walking

Post your comment here

Comments moderated: Comments for this entry is now moderated. That means that the author will have to approve the comment before it can be viewed by the public.

Remember The Data Above? (Uses Cookies)

Comment shown to:

Comment notes

Your name and e-mail address are required. Your e-mail won't be displayed.