Mallow 10 Mile, 23.3.2014

topper75

amber2 wrote: »

Just wondering if placements in results are based on your chip time or on gross time. Excuse the question new to all this just that my net time seems to be 30/40 seconds ahead of participants who finished in or around my finishing place, so just wondered how exactly the chip timing benefits .... I started from the back.

Was done on gun, which was odd, and defeats the use of chip timing.

All the same I worked out that two of the runners ahead of me were actually slower on chip and one behind me was faster on chip - so I'd only have been bumped up by one place in net terms!:D This was testimony to
a)the organisers setting up the finish time expectation placards
b) people respecting placards and faster athletes

A fine event and looking forward to next year already - take a bow Mallow AC.

ger664

topper75 wrote: »

Was done on gun, which was odd, and defeats the use of chip timing.

This is the case in all races and is correct. The winner will always be the runner first across the line not the person with the fastest net time. So race positions have to be done by gun time not net time as a result. Any race I have every ran this has been the case.

amber2

Thank you Topper & Ger for the info, it's my second event ever so at least next time I'll know not to start from the back as I just assumed with chip timing that regardless of my start position that it would not impact on my result, but as I see from the results it clearly did. Still happy with my results finished in the 400's, but had the net time been a factor in my results I would have been another 30 places up, lesson learned & thanks again.

topper75

ger664 wrote: »

This is the case in all races and is correct. The winner will always be the runner first across the line not the person with the fastest net time. So race positions have to be done by gun time not net time as a result. Any race I have every ran this has been the case.

Correct in so far as habit is concerned?! but it's not right though is it? Unless you can fit 1000 people across the start line!

What if somebody looking to be listed for sub-85 mins 10mile elbows their way to the front of the pack. They are incentivized to disregard the ambitions of others if gun time is all that matters. Not mentioning any race in particular but Ballycotton I wouldn't be bothered unless I lived in Cork.

I'm nobody's software engineer but the chip company who publish results should at least offer a simple button to allow people sort results as they wish.

menoscemo

amber2 wrote: »

Thank you Topper & Ger for the info, it's my second event ever so at least next time I'll know not to start from the back as I just assumed with chip timing that regardless of my start position that it would not impact on my result, but as I see from the results it clearly did. Still happy with my results finished in the 400's, but had the net time been a factor in my results I would have been another 30 places up, lesson learned & thanks again.

I think 90+% of people don't really care if they finished 450th or 420th. The important thing is you have your own chip time. I don't really get why it is so important to see your name in chip order on a chiptimings company's website. If you know your actual chip position and your own real time is that not good enough

ger664

topper75 wrote: »

Correct in so far as habit is concerned?! but it's not right though is it? Unless you can fit 1000 people across the start line!

Would you think it was right if you crossed the line in first place only to get second place prize money because some runner was further back at the start and ran a faster nett time!!

amber2

topper75 wrote: »

Correct in so far as habit is concerned?! but it's not right though is it? Unless you can fit 1000 people across the start line!

What if somebody looking to be listed for sub-85 mins 10mile elbows their way to the front of the pack. They are incentivized to disregard the ambitions of others if gun time is all that matters. Not mentioning any race in particular but Ballycotton I wouldn't be bothered unless I lived in Cork.

I'm nobody's software engineer but the chip company who publish results should at least offer a simple button to allow people sort results as they wish.

Chip timing appears to be a bit of a jip in that respect other than giving the participant their net time that appears to be its only benefit. When I initially signed up for the Mallow 10 the Precision Timing Chip Times seemed to portray that no matter where in the field you started out from was going to irrelevant and would not impact the your result.

RayCun

Would you have won a prize if you'd started on the start line? If not, then starting further back did not affect your result

amber2

Alright Ray take it handy I came on here looking for information as I said it was my second event. I don't know how these things work & I'd like to thank the posters for the information as I run on my own and am not part of a club so have no other way of finding out.

To answer ur question no I wouldn't have won a prize why is there a prize for coming in 400? No need for a come back to this post either I've taken your point, thanks for your informative post though.

topper75

menoscemo wrote: »

I think 90+% of people don't really care if they finished 450th or 420th. The important thing is you have your own chip time. I don't really get why it is so important to see your name in chip order on a chiptimings company's website. If you know your actual chip position and your own real time is that not good enough

If ranking in a mass participation event was unimportant, I'd run around my own locality with a GPS watch sparing myself petrol and entrance money and road races would be for the sub60 boys and girls only. In my case and in most cases admittedly it wasn't making a significant material difference in Mallow, but it can affect startline courtesy in a practical way.

ger664 wrote: »

Would you think it was right if you crossed the line in first place only to get second place prize money because some runner was further back at the start and ran a faster nett time!!

Yes I would have to, gutted as I may be, because for me they went gantry to gantry in a quicker time. That to me is the course. Net time should take priority to sort the field and gun time should go in brackets.

RacoonQueen

topper75 wrote: »

Yes I would have to, gutted as I may be, because for me they went gantry to gantry in a quicker time. That to me is the course. Net time should take priority to sort the field and gun time should go in brackets.

That would be ridiculous.

The fastest runners belong on the start line to get a clear run, if they were to start at the back their time and position would be impded by this.
As slower runners we have to suck it up and accept that we may lose some time due to some slower runners starting ahead of us. Positions are based on gun time and that is the way it should be. There would be uproar if it changed, and rightly so.

Chip timing has allowed mass participation in the sport to grow and it is there to cater for the masses so they are aware of the time it took them to go from the start line to the finish line. It helps in races of the size we have now. Most races only really need to provide you with a gun time as it only takes a couple of seconds to cross the start line in a small field where everyone has positioned themselves correctly.

yaboya1

topper75 wrote: »

Yes I would have to, gutted as I may be, because for me they went gantry to gantry in a quicker time. That to me is the course. Net time should take priority to sort the field and gun time should go in brackets.

You can't have a race organised like this. At the end of the day it is a 'race'. The first person over the line is the winner. If somebody else in the field is quick enough to beat them they should start up the front and finish ahead of them. Anyone who expects themselves to be in with a shout of a prize should do the same. Chip timing exists to give you an accurate time for your race, but it's irrelevant when it comes to deciding positions for so many reasons.

If anybody remembers Moscow Flyer from about ten years ago, he used to beat horses that were far inferior to him by two lengths when they weren't receiving weight that he would have been conceding them in a handicap race. Using the same logic they would be declared the winner of those races.
Yet, if he was to meet them on those terms in a race he'd still beat them by the same distance. Some people/horses do enough to win, and no more than that. It would be extremely unfair to decide races by chip times. The fact that no races (that I know of) do decide positions by chip times suggests that plenty of other people agree.

topper75

RacoonQueen wrote: »

That would be ridiculous.

The fastest runners belong on the start line to get a clear run, if they were to start at the back their time and position would be impded by this.
As slower runners we have to suck it up and accept that we may lose some time due to some slower runners starting ahead of us. Positions are based on gun time and that is the way it should be. There would be uproar if it changed, and rightly so.

Chip timing has allowed mass participation in the sport to grow and it is there to cater for the masses so they are aware of the time it took them to go from the start line to the finish line. It helps in races of the size we have now. Most races only really need to provide you with a gun time as it only takes a couple of seconds to cross the start line in a small field where everyone has positioned themselves correctly.

I never suggested that elites should not be at the front of the mass start. I think you have totally misinterpreted my argument in this guntime/nettime debate. Have a re-read and get back if you want to challenge any point I actually made.

yaboya1 wrote: »

You can't have a race organised like this. At the end of the day it is a 'race'. The first person over the line is the winner. If somebody else in the field is quick enough to beat them they should start up the front and finish ahead of them. Anyone who expects themselves to be in with a shout of a prize should do the same. Chip timing exists to give you an accurate time for your race, but it's irrelevant when it comes to deciding positions for so many reasons.

If anybody remembers Moscow Flyer from about ten years ago, he used to beat horses that were far inferior to him by two lengths when they weren't receiving weight that he would have been conceding them in a handicap race. Using the same logic they would be declared the winner of those races.
Yet, if he was to meet them on those terms in a race he'd still beat them by the same distance. Some people/horses do enough to win, and no more than that. It would be extremely unfair to decide races by chip times. The fact that no races (that I know of) do decide positions by chip times suggests that plenty of other people agree.

Are you familiar with races that use waves? Triathlons for example. Works quite well. If you finish first from the first wave, victory is not assured. It's not an issue.

The weight handicap thing is not analogous to what I'm on about at all. In fact the whole advantage of the chip is to provide the same course for everyone - gantry to gantry and no longer.

Why are 400m track races not all lined up together? Because each competitor is measured for the time they take to cover the exact same distance. The start positions are made irrelevant. Why can't we all accept the same principles for mass events now that we have this chip tech available to us?

RacoonQueen

topper75 wrote: »

I never suggested that elites should not be at the front of the mass start. I think you have totally misinterpreted my argument in this guntime/nettime debate. Have a re-read and get back if you want to challenge any point I actually made.

Wow...

yaboya1

topper75 wrote: »

Why are 400m track races not all lined up together? Because each competitor is measured for the time they take to cover the exact same distance. The start positions are made irrelevant. Why can't we all accept the same principles for mass events now that we have this chip tech available to us?

You're going off the point of your own argument here. The winner of a 400m track race is still the person that crosses the line first.

RacoonQueen

yaboya1 wrote: »

You're going off the point of your own argument here. The winner of a 400m track race is still the person that crosses the line first.

And they are *technically* lined up together...

menoscemo

topper75 wrote: »

Why are 400m track races not all lined up together? Because each competitor is measured for the time they take to cover the exact same distance. The start positions are made irrelevant. Why can't we all accept the same principles for mass events now that we have this chip tech available to us?

What?
So are you saying the 100m-400m olympic finals should be taken on 'chiptime'? That means block reactions are irrelevant and the winner is the person who gets from his little start-line to the finish line the fastest? Could make for interesting viewing alright when the 4th finisher is declared the winner.....

ger664

topper75 wrote: »

Why are 400m track races not all lined up together? Because each competitor is measured for the time they take to cover the exact same distance. The start positions are made irrelevant. Why can't we all accept the same principles for mass events now that we have this chip tech available to us?

Incorrect each competitor is timed from when the gun goes off until they cross the line. If the are slow getting out of the blocks its not taken away from their time.

topper75

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Wow...

Let's keep the debate mature please.

RacoonQueen wrote: »

And they are *technically* lined up together...

I'm not with you - they are spaced out on a curved track at intervals to neutralize the difference between lanes in a 400m event.

menoscemo wrote: »

What?
So are you saying the 100m-400m olympic finals should be taken on 'chiptime'? That means block reactions are irrelevant and the winner is the person who gets from his little start-line to the finish line the fastest? Could make for interesting viewing alright when the 4th finisher is declared the winner.....

Chips for 400m? Please. No - like RaccoonQueen - you are responding to what you imagine me to be posting rather than my actual argument. I'm saying they are pitted in competition together over the same distance. There is no "extra" distance ran by any competitor in the 400m - so why do we think that is fine in 10 mile races when the results are published. Prior to chip tech we had to 'suck it up' as it was worded in an earlier post. No more -chip timing exists now and its a no brainer but.... old habits.

ger664 wrote: »

Incorrect each competitor is timed from when the gun goes off until they cross the line. If the are slow getting out of the blocks its not taken away from their time.

Yes because they all run 400m exactly. Gun time and net time are thus the same. Speed in getting out of the blocks is rightfully part of the event. Hardly can be compared with some competitors starting with the gun and other competitors waiting for hordes of people in front of you to shuffle up to a gantry over a minute or two.

The persistence with the gun time as THE measurement just encourages an FU mentality at the start of mass events. Gun time should be in brackets and secondary.

This whole thing is never a concern for elites - at least not that I have ever witnessed.

topper75

yaboya1 wrote: »

You're going off the point of your own argument here. The winner of a 400m track race is still the person that crosses the line first.

Yeah no competitor has any impediment at their individual start line so they can do that. When the gun goes off - every runner has exactly 400m between them and the finish line.

Chip time removes the crowd impediment in a mass participation event and should be used as the key measure in results lists.

menoscemo

topper75 wrote: »

Yeah no competitor has any impediment at their individual start line so they can do that. When the gun goes off - every runner has exactly 400m between them and the finish line.

Chip time removes the crowd impediment in a mass participation event and should be used as the key measure in results lists.

Under your proposed system What's to stop one elite runner starting 10 seconds behind another, knowing he never has to pass the runner in front just finish relatively close to him/her to win? It would lead to underhand tactics and destroy the whole aspect of racing. That's why gun times are still used to determine position and always will be. Frankly the concerns of the mid packers over whether they finished 420th or 450th are of relatively less importance. I am speaking as a mid pack runner myself.

RayCun

The IAAF rules are very simple. Chip time is okay for fun, but the winner of the race is the person who crosses the finish line first. Nothing else is workable or sensible.

b.harte

Any chance the last page of waffle could be moved to a section of the forum that isn't called "Athletics & Running Events"?
Maybe the general section or the off the off topic thread - heck even the rant thread might be better suited.
What started as a legitimate question about the differences between chip and gun times for a specific race has now degenerated into a thread that has nothing to do with the Event.
Nice one.....
And yes, I am aware of the "report" function.
I could do with a week off.
:mad::mad::mad:

RacoonQueen

topper75 wrote: »

I'm not with you - they are spaced out on a curved track at intervals to neutralize the difference between lanes in a 400m event.

Yes, they all start in the same position.

There is no logic to what you are proposing. The winner crosses the finish line first. Also, in triathlon, in any decent race the fastest competitors will all start in the same wave in the bigger races. Allowing the first one accross the line to be declared the winner. Smaller races will have all the women (and maybe the vet men) start in one wave and all the other men in another wave. Would be unusual in triathlon for the race winner not to be the first one across the line.

I find it rich that you accuse someone else of not keeping the debate 'mature', by the way. Why don't you enlighten me as to what way I did not 'challenge' any point you made? Do you just try to be insulting when you can't find any other response to their post?

TFBubendorfer

Places and prizes in road races are always determined by gun time, like it or not. This is set in the rules by the athletics body, and with good reason. If you switched to chip time you would easily get situations where one runner beats another one in a sprint finish but loses out because the other guy/gal started further back in the field. Clearly this would be ridiculous.

And now, with my other hat on:

<mod>Please get back on topic. This is a thread about the Mallow 10 mile race, not gun vs. chip time. Anyone who wishes to discuss this topic can start a thread in the main forum instead.</mod>

eliwallach

psychozeb wrote: »

Due to a last minute problem with the quality of t-shirt supplied for the Mallow 10 we have had to go back to the supplier and have them remake new t-shirts.
When you finish the Mallow 10 you will receive a cotton t-shirt.
In the coming 3 weeks we have a commitment that a mallow 10 souvenir technical t-shirt will be supplied to everybody who finished the race.
This will be sent via post to the address that your bib number was sent.
If for any reason your number was not posted to you and you did completed the race then you should send your full address to mallow10mile@gmail.com and put “mallow 10 t-shirt” in the subject line.

We apologize for this inconvenience and are working to do everything to resolve.
Mallow AC

Anyone receive tech T-shirt yet?

mylifetoday

I haven't yet anyway... don't know about any others... must check it out with others in the club as I had forgotten about it.

opus

Nope me neither, must admit I'd forgotten about it!

b.harte

Think there is a post on the Mallow AC Facebook page from the 17th/18 April that they are being shipped direct. No date specified.

run_Forrest_run

eliwallach wrote: »

Anyone receive tech T-shirt yet?

didn't receive mine yet either. The original notice said it would be 3 weeks after the race before they would send out the t-shirts, obviously a problem somewhere. I'm not too upset about it anyway, it was a great race.