123

Gun time or Chip time (Read 1382 times)

    Do all races use gun time to rank the runners? So far, it's been the case and I find it a bit frustrating that it is so. The reason being is that I usually like to start further back where it's less crowded and tend to stress less. When I check the results, my ranking is based on gun time. So there are several people ahead of me that have run the race slower. I understand the logic though for the front runners. You don't want the person arriving second to the finish line to win the race just because he gave is opponent a head start before crossing the start line. Not a big deal though, I'm usually more competing against myself. Just wondering if I'm the only one obsessed with numbers. Maybe next time, I'll try to start with the crowd for a change. Wink - R
      Do all races use gun time to rank the runners?
      Very weird. I've never seen that, at least not if they were actually using chips. What's the point of the chips if they're not ranking by actual race time? I'd like to see the face of the guy who actually ran the fastest time when they're awarding the guy who happened to start closer to the front. And wow - the starts must get ugly with all the crowding to the front. Unless - are you talking about races that don't actually have a pad at the start? I've never understood those ones. (Yes I do - lazy race organizers who don't want to trouble with the start pad, but don't want to manually take times at the end). Or maybe they posted initial results with official results to follow later? Strange. Maybe you could post a link to the race?
      E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
      -----------------------------


      Needs more cowbell!

        I HATE those races that don't have the pad at the start...most of the ones I've run haven't. The ones that do have the pad make me a much happier runner. And I know it's silly, since I am usually bringing up the rear, but every second counts. k

        I shoot pretty things! ~

        '14 Goals:

        • 2 olympic distance duathlons -- 6 days apart -- PR at least 1

        • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)

          I HATE those races that don't have the pad at the start...most of the ones I've run haven't. The ones that do have the pad make me a much happier runner. And I know it's silly, since I am usually bringing up the rear, but every second counts. k
          Yup. I at least wish they'd announce it so I'd know to move a little closer to the front. Since I'm a little slow to get going, I usually like starting near the back ... more fun to pass people later on than to be passed. But I did that once at a 5-k with no start pad - and I had no clue, of course - so my reported time was like 3 minutes off. Kind of annoying, especially if you're actually aiming to run fast. Plus, I dig that little beep when you run over it. But that's just me. Of course, none if it has mattered (yet) - it's not like I was going to win something. But man ... if I'd trained hard for something, run a time good enough to win an award ... and then found no pad at the start, and "lost" to somebody who actually ran a minute slower? Ugh. Double ugh.
          E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
          -----------------------------

            I HATE those races that don't have the pad at the start...most of the ones I've run haven't. The ones that do have the pad make me a much happier runner. And I know it's silly, since I am usually bringing up the rear, but every second counts.
            Since I'm never near the front, either, on those that don't use a chip pad at the start (which, I agree, is most), I develop and track my own official time, subtracting out for the time to get to the start line. Sometimes it's been as high 10 minutes (Bay to Breakers in SF). Actually, in the largest marathons, I can see that it might be diffcult to make sure that all runners' chips "register" during those massive wave starts. At the smaller, races, thoough, would be great to have time accurately posted. My second marathon, Timberline last Sept., was tiny (~130 runners) and they actually started each of us individually, verbally, and didn't use any chips at all. We were asked to line up according to anticipated pace/finish time, and each person was started a few seconds apart. This worked well, except the bus that was shuttling 2 loads of runners from the finish line was very late, resulting in being passed by tons of people anyway; not ideal on single track trails.
            Next up: A 50k in ? Done: California-Oregon-Arizona-Nevada (x2)-Wisconsin-Wyoming-Utah-Michigan-Colorado
              Actually, in the largest marathons, I can see that it might be diffcult to make sure that all runners' chips "register" during those massive wave starts.
              The larger races I've done often have two sets of mats at the start, and two at the finish. Only one is the "official" chip mat, but the other mat helps make sure that everyone's time is recorded. Its a luxury that most smaller races couldn't afford/justify.
              How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2.


              A Dance with Monkeys

                USATF sanctioning requires the first place to be determined by gun time and implies that all rankings should come from gun time. However, it is up to the RD to determine whether to implement this. In a debate, it is probably better to go with the USATF guidelines and default to gun time, although not every RD does this. It is all in here. click


                Prophet!

                  Niketown 5K race that i did ranked runners only on gun time based on USATF rules, at least that's what it said on the website..that was a bummer because me and my wife (and our 1 1/2 year old son in a stroller) started last Big grin


                  Now that was a bath...

                    This factor is annoying me too. We didn't have chips at my last (ok only) race Clowning around I have a feeling that the gun time might be slower than my watch time but I honestly can't remember if I started the clock at the same time as the gun. I was so nervous it's all a blur now! Claire xxx
                  • jlynnbob "HTFU, Kookie's distal tibia"
                  • Where's my closet? I need to get back in it.


                    still alive

                      Ok . . unless you're number one or even in the top 10, does it really matter? Count your PR however you want. Who cares what the official RD says! I go by chip time if there's a chip. That's what counts for me. If there's no chip and I have a way to measure the time, I'll consider that if I think it's way off from the gun time. Whatever. Unless you're competing for place, just run and have fun!

                      Greg in ND

                       

                      One day at a time.

                        Every race I've ever run that had chips, recorded both but ranked the runners by gun time.

                        Your toughness is made up of equal parts persistence and experience. You don't so much outrun your opponents as outlast and outsmart them, and the toughest opponent of all is the one inside your head." - Joe Henderson

                          It's a race, not a time trial. Racers places are determined by finish order. Time is actually irrelevant to the ranking of competitors in the race. If you expect to be competitive you are allowed and encouraged to line up near the front. Your PR, however, is your chip time. And if you are trying to qualify for a race that has qualifying times you also generally use chip time. I suggest running some smaller races if this is a big deal to you. They are less expensive, have fewer logistical hassles and are often more fun. Most of the races I run don't use chip timing because they have fewer than 200 runners. I'll run a couple races a year big enough to need chip timing but I'll run lots of races that aren't.

                          Runners run.

                            It's a race, not a time trial. Racers places are determined by finish order.
                            Every race I've ever run that had chips, recorded both but ranked the runners by gun time.
                            USATF sanctioning requires the first place to be determined by gun time and implies that all rankings should come from gun time.
                            ----------------- Just to prove I'm not insane, here's a couple local results grabbed at random: Here's the actual results from my Thanksgiving 5-k. That's me in sixth place ... because they ranked it by chip time, not gun time. If they went by gun time, both me and the guy in 7th would have been bumped up, and the 5th place guy would have dropped to 7th. His gun time was 7 seconds behind - his chip time 8 seconds faster. Not that it matters ... since the awards were (I think) for the top 3.
                            MALE AGE GROUP: 35 - 39 BIB SEX GUN CHIP PLACE O'ALL NO. PlC NAME AGE TIME TIME PACE ===== ===== ===== ==== =================== === ======= ======= ===== 1 6 1262 5 PAUL ZANI 38 18:50 18:47 6:04 2 16 966 15 DANIEL CONRICODE 37 19:47 19:39 6:21 3 18 987 17 RON TUTT 39 19:43 19:40 6:21 4 30 698 28 ANDREW HANSCOM 35 20:48 20:43 6:41 5 62 358 55 ROGER ABRAMSON 35 22:45 22:12 7:10 6 69 1081 60 ERIC FULLER 37 22:37 22:20 7:13 7 75 75 65 DEREK STUMPH 36 22:40 22:38 7:18
                            And here's the most recent 5-k on our local running groups board. I didn't run it, but here's my age group - again ranked by chip time, not gun time. In fact - and how funny is this! - I just noticed that TRENT actually is on this list, and if they went by gun time instead of chip time, he would have dropped to 14th place instead of 12th (nice run, btw):
                            MALE AGE GROUP: 35 - 39 BIB SEX GUN CHIP PLACE O'ALL NO. PlC NAME AGE TIME TIME PACE City ST ===== ===== ===== ==== =================== === ======= ======= ===== ================ == 1 5 50 5 GREG EUBANKS 36 18:10 18:06 5:51 Nashville TN 2 16 451 15 KEVIN DELANEY 38 19:55 19:51 6:24 Arlington MA 3 18 459 17 DANIEL CONRICODE 37 20:03 19:54 6:26 Nashville TN 4 27 332 25 LANCE MARTIN 36 20:44 20:39 6:40 Nashville TN 5 29 563 27 DAVID OWENBY 38 21:06 20:48 6:43 Nashville TN 6 31 204 29 DANIEL SHEEHAN 37 21:09 20:53 6:44 Brentwood TN 7 32 452 30 CHUCK TRENT 37 21:17 20:57 6:46 Bowling green KY 8 46 476 42 JEFF DANNEMILLER 38 21:43 21:33 6:57 Franklin TN 9 47 543 43 JAVIER MOSQUEDA 38 21:39 21:35 6:58 Shelbyville TN 10 66 111 58 RANDY SUTHERLAND 37 22:38 22:27 7:15 Cottontown TN 11 71 171 63 CHRIS WRATHER 39 22:49 22:40 7:19 Murfreesboro TN 12 72 562 64 TRENT ROSENBLOOM 36 22:58 22:40 7:19 Nashville TN 13 73 538 65 TIM DIBBLE 38 22:49 22:42 7:20 Nashville TN 14 76 97 67 EDWARD LOMICKA 38 22:55 22:48 7:22 Brentwood TN
                            And since I'm highlighting local talent, here's our own Jeff's age group in the 5-mile "Boulevard Bolt." Assuming "net time" means "chip time," they're following that instead of the gun - look at places 10 through 13 (check out Jeff's pace, by the way):
                            MALE AGE GROUP : 25 - 29 Place O'All Name Age NetTime Pace GunTime City St ===== ===== =================== === ======= ===== ======== ============== 1 4 Chris Demetra 26 26:04 5:13 26:05 Nashville TN 2 6 John Welsh 25 26:58 5:24 27:00 Palo Alta CA 3 8 Grantland Garrett 28 27:56 5:36 27:57 Nashville TN 4 10 Josh Carroll 26 28:00 5:36 28:02 Raleigh NC 5 18 Jeff Edmonds 29 29:12 5:51 29:17 Nashville TN 6 28 Benjamin Myers 29 30:26 6:06 30:32 Mc Minnville TN 7 31 Anthony Motta 28 30:38 6:08 30:41 Nashville TN 8 43 Micah Zuhl 28 31:29 6:18 31:52 Columbia SC 9 49 Brian Hutto 27 31:49 6:22 31:53 Lebanon TN 10 60 Michael Frank 25 32:21 6:29 33:04 Clarksville TN 11 63 Paul Herron 27 32:25 6:29 32:58 Birmingham AL 12 74 Brad Robers 28 32:52 6:35 33:28 Nashville TN 13 77 Will Norton 25 32:56 6:36 33:07 Nashville TN
                            ----------------- Maybe Nashville is just wierd. Wouldn't be the first time. Yes
                            E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
                            -----------------------------

                              I must be running races that nobody else here runs. I've run 3 marathons (Richmond, Boston, and Charlotte) and all 3 ranked finishers by chip time.
                                I must be running races that nobody else here runs. I've run 3 marathons (Richmond, Boston, and Charlotte) and all 3 ranked finishers by chip time.
                                You and me both. Actually, now that I look, so does our own Country Music Marathon. Even among the top 100 men. Even among the top 25 overall, which is kind of surprising. All by chip time. Either that, or last year's 17th place finisher Robert Pritchett has some 'splaining to do. And 44th place Andrew Fisher from Seattle was just cheating his ass off, if you ask me. If it's really by gun time, he needs to be dropped down to 70-something.
                                E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
                                -----------------------------

                                123