Is there any merit behind the phrase "Slow and steady wins the race"? Show an example with two contestants in a footrace: The first contestant runs at a constant speed throughout the race. The second contestant runs at twice the speed of the first contestant for half the distance of the race, and half of the first contestant's speed for the remaining distance.
user
Let's say the footrace's distance is 1000 meters.

The formula for speed is s = d / t. With s for speed, d for distance and t for time elapsed. If we have the speed and the distance we can calculate the elapsed time like this d / s = t.

The first contestant runs at 6 km/h for all 1000 meters.

Total time elapsed for first contestant:
1000 m / (6000 m / 60 min) = 10 min

The second contestant runs 12 km/h for the first 500 m and 3 km/h for the second 500 m.

Time elapsed for the first 500 meters: 
500 m / (12000 m / 60 min) = 2.5 min

Time elapsed for the second 500 meters: 
500 m / (3000 m / 60 min) = 10 min

Total time elapsed for the second contestant: 
10 min + 2.5 min = 12.5 min

The total time elapsed of the first contestant is lower than the total time elapsed of the second contestant. Thus the first contestant wins the footrace. In this case the the saying has a merit, since the contestant with the steady pace finished the same distance in less time.

Note:
* min stands for minutes
* h stands for hour, 1 h = 60 min
* m stands for meters
* km stands for kilometer, 1 km = 1000 m
assistant
Provide the same info in imperial measurements, but make the reply shorter.
user
Footrace is 1000 meters long.

Speed = Distance / Time.

1st Contestant runs 6 mph for all 1000 meters, takes 10 minutes.

2nd Contestant runs 12 mph for first 500 meters, takes 2.5 minutes. Runs 3 mph for second 500 meters, takes 10 minutes. Total time: 12.5 minutes.

1st Contestant wins with a total time of 10 minutes, compared to 12.5 minutes for 2nd Contestant.
assistant