It’s only useful for going downhill quickly which we’ve all subconsciously or perhaps even mindfully done.
From your link:
> Gallopers exerted that effort unevenly, with the front leg doing more work than the back leg. And the galloping stride, researchers saw, demanded more from the hips than running did.
This tired people out quickly. Out of 12 treadmill gallopers in the study, 4 gave up before the end of their 4-minute session, complaining of fatigue and stress in their hips and thighs.
(An intended 13th galloper couldn't figure out how to gallop on the treadmill belt in the first place.)
When researchers calculated their subjects' metabolic rates, they found that galloping was about 24% more costly than running at the same speed. In other words, galloping burns up more energy, takes more effort, and is less comfortable than running.
It's no wonder we don't usually opt for it
Yes, we don't because it's not great, but that's not the same as not being able to. (This is very pedantic sorry, it's just a stronger claim than it needs to be which bothers me).
Also, I wonder if that changes if you have very uneven leg lengths?
Mechanically it seems like the advantage would be using more muscles and being able to take advantage of your core and upper body when pushing off in addition to the legs. landing seems like it would be a challenge as fingers aren’t really made for that.
Unfortunately, a linear extrapolation implies that at some time, the bipedal 100m will take negative time…
Imagine a slinky, but more elastic and with better roll.