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
As an example I will use a footrace with a length of 10 km. 
The first contestant runs at a constant speed of 10 km/h. They will finish the race after a time of 1 hour.
The second contestant runs at a speed of 20 km/h (twice the speed of contestant one) for the first 5 km of the race. This will take them 5 km / (20 km/h) = 0.25 hours. Then they run at a speed of 5 km/h (half the speed of contestant one) for the next 5 km of the race. This will take 1 hour. They will finish the whole race in 0.25 hours + 1 hour = 1.25 hours.
In this example, the first contestant, who runs slow and steady indeed wins the race, as they arrive a quater of an hour earlier at the finishline than contestant two, so there is some merit behind the phrase.
assistant